GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S RULING ON LESLIE VAN HOUTEN’S PAROLE RECOMMENDATION
Jun. 3 – In the summer of 1968, 19-year-old Leslie Van Houten met Charles Manson and began living as a member of Manson’s cult, “the Family.” Members of the cult subscribed to Mr. Manson’s belief that “Helter Skelter,” a civilization ending race-war, was imminent. Mr. Manson planned to hide in the desert with the Family until the conclusion of Helter Skelter, when the Family would take control of the world. In the late summer of 1969, Mr. Manson believed that it was the Family’s responsibility to initiate Helter Skelter by committing murders of white victims in order to incite retaliatory violence against black people.
On August 8, 1969, Charles Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Linda Kasabian, all members of the Family, drove to the home of Sharon Tate, where they killed her, Steve Parent, Abigail Folger, Wojiciech Fryowski, and Jay Sebring. Ms. Tate, who was eight months pregnant, was stabbed 16 times. Mr. Parent was shot five times. Ms. Folger was stabbed 28 times. Mr. Fryowski was stabbed 51 times, shot twice, and suffered 13 scalp lacerations. Mr. Sebring was stabbed seven times and shot once.
Two days later, on August 10, 1969, Mr. Manson, Ms. Van Houten, Mr. Watson, Ms. Krenwinkel, Ms. Kasabian, and another member of the Family, Steve Grogan, drove to the home of Leno and Rosemary La Bianca. Mr. Manson and Mr. Watson went inside the house, tied Mr. and Mrs. La Bianca up, took Mrs. La Bianca’s wallet, and returned to the group outside. Mr. Manson instructed Ms. Van Houten and Ms. Krenwinkel to go inside the house and do whatever Mr. Watson instructed them to do. Mr. Manson, Mr. Grogan, and Ms. Kasabian drove away. Ms. Van Houten, Ms. Krenwinkel, and Mr. Watson entered the La Biancas’ house. Mr. Watson, armed with a bayonet, ordered the La Biancas to hand over their cash. Mrs. La Bianca gave him a small box of money. Mr. Watson told Ms. Van Houten and Ms. Krenwinkel to take Mrs. La Bianca into the bedroom and kill her. Ms. Van Houten and Ms. Krenwinkel took her into a bedroom, and Ms. Krenwinkel retrieved two knives from the kitchen. Ms. Van Houten put a pillowcase over Mrs. La Bianca’s head and wrapped a lamp cord around her neck.
In the living room, Mr. Watson covered Mr. La Bianca’s head with a pillowcase, tied his hands behind his back with a leather thong, and tied an electrical cord around his neck. Mr. Watson stabbed Mr. La Bianca multiple times.
Upon hearing her husband struggle, Mrs. La Bianca forced her way up from the bed, grabbed the lamp, and swung it at Ms. Van Houten. Ms. Van Houten knocked the lamp from Mrs. La Bianca’s hands, wrestled her back onto the bed, and pinned her down. Ms. Krenwinkel stabbed Mrs. La Bianca in the collar bone, causing the blade to bend. Ms. Van Houten called for Mr. Watson, who came into the room and stabbed Mrs. La Bianca eight times. Mr. Watson handed Ms. Van Houten a knife and instructed her to “do something.” Ms. Van Houten stabbed Mrs. La Bianca repeatedly. Ms. Van Houten wiped down surfaces in the house to eliminate fingerprints, changed clothes, and drank chocolate milk from the La Biancas’ refrigerator. The group fled.
Mr. La Bianca was found with a knife protruding from his neck, a carving fork protruding from his stomach, and the word, “War” scratched into his stomach. He died as a result of 13 stab wounds and suffered 14 puncture wounds. Mrs. La Bianca died as a result of approximately 41 stab wounds. The phrases “Death to Pigs,” “Rise,” and references to Helter Skelter were written in the victims’ blood on the walls and the refrigerator. Ms. Van Houten was arrested on November 25, 1969.
GOVERNING LAW
The question I must answer is whether Ms. Van Houten will pose a current danger to the public if released from prison. The circumstances of the crime can provide evidence of current dangerousness when the record also establishes that something in the inmate’s pre- or post-incarceration history, or the inmate’s current demeanor and mental state, indicate that the circumstances of the crime remain probative of current dangerousness. (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 1181, 1214.)
Additionally, I am required to give “great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner” when determining a youthful offender’s suitability for parole. (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c).)
In rare circumstances, the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole, even when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness. (In re Lawrence, supra, at 1211, 1214.)
DECISION
The Board of Parole Hearings found Ms. Van Houten suitable for parole based on her youth at the time of the crime, lack of prior criminality, stable social history before and while incarcerated, and “decades of prosocial work and – positive programming.”
I acknowledge that Ms. Van Houten’s crime was committed when she was 19 years old and that she has since been incarcerated for 48 years. The psychologist who evaluated Ms. Van Houten in 2018 concluded that it was very likely that her involvement in the life offense was significantly impacted by characteristics of youth, including impulsivity, the inability to adequately foresee the long-term consequences of her behavior, and the inability to manage her emotions that resulted from trauma.
I also acknowledge that Ms. Van Houten is now 69 years old and has made commendable efforts to improve herself in prison, earning a bachelor’s and master’s degree and completing extensive self-help programming. Ms. Van Houten has served on the Inmate Advisory Council and as a facilitator for Victim Offender Education.
In making this decision, I carefully examined the record for evidence demonstrating Ms. Van Houten’s increased maturity and rehabilitation, and gave great weight to all the factors relevant to her diminished culpability as a youthful offender—her immaturity, impetuosity and failure to appreciate risks and consequences—and her other hallmark features of youth. I have also given great weight to her subsequent growth in prison during my consideration of her suitability for parole. However, these factors are outweighed by negative factors that demonstrate she remains unsuitable for parole at this time.
Ms. Van Houten and the Manson Family committed some of the most notorious and brutal killings in California’s history. The gruesome crimes perpetrated by Ms. Van Houten and other Manson Family members in an attempt to incite social chaos continue to inspire fear to this day. As acknowledged by the Board in Ms. Van Houten’s parole hearing, the crimes were “heinous, cruel, and inexplicably disturbing and dispassionate.” Almost 50 years later, the magnitude of these crimes and their impact on society endure.
While I commend Ms. Van Houten for her efforts at rehabilitation and acknowledge her youth at the time of the crimes, I am concerned by her role in these killings and her potential for future violence. Ms. Van Houten was an eager participant in the killing of the La Biancas and played a significant role. She pinned Mrs. La Bianca down so that Ms. Krenwinkel could stab her. When Ms. Krenwinkel’s knife bent, Ms. Van Houten summoned Mr. Watson, who viscously stabbed Mrs. La Bianca multiple times, then handed a knife to Ms. Van Houten. Ms. Van Houten then stabbed Mrs. La Bianca at least 16 additional times. Afterwards, Ms. Van Houten wiped the house of the group’s fingerprints. When asked at her parole hearing about removing the fingerprints, Ms. Van Houten said that she focused on the task because she felt like a failure for not mutilating the bodies per Mr. Manson’s instructions. In discussing Ms. Van Houten’s role in the crime, the Board noted that she was not simply a passive follower but a “leader in there too, with your behavior and your actions.”
It is difficult to understand how someone could commit these extreme crimes, and Ms. Van Houten’s explanation for her willingness to perpetrate such violence is insufficient.
She told the evaluating psychologist in 2018 that she believed she had been “chosen” by Mr. Manson and that she committed the crimes because she “had to kill them for the beginning of the revolution.” She stated that at the time of the murders she was “desperate to be accepted” and that her “value came in the eyes of other people.” Ms. Van Houten’s need for acceptance does not explain her primary role in the brutal slaying of Mrs. La Bianca, and her failure to adequately explain her willing participation indicates that Ms. Van Houten is still minimizing her responsibility.
I am also concerned that Ms. Van Houten continues to lack insight into the causative factors of her crime. When questioned by the Board regarding what she would do differently, Ms. Van Houten responded, “So if I could redo it all over, I would be a much better daughter to my mom when my dad left. . . . I guess if I could redo it, I would want to be a supportive daughter.” Before this crime occurred, Ms. Van Houten had suffered serious trauma and lived in a dysfunctional family environment. Instead of recognizing and fully grappling with these external factors and her response to them, Ms. Van Houten’s answer demonstrates that she still cannot adequately explain her destructive reaction to difficult external factors beyond her control.
Furthermore, I am troubled by Ms. Van Houten’s answer when asked by the Board if Mr. Manson had ever forced himself on her sexually. She replied, “No. But my first meeting with him, I’m—he gave us some kind of a drug… And he sodomized me, you know when I was half in and half out, but I was there willingly.” Ms. Van Houten’s characterization of this as a consensual encounter – rather than an assault by an older man who drugged her and held a position of power within her cult – is troubling. She still minimizes Mr. Manson’s violent and controlling actions. This indicates that she has not fully examined her ongoing susceptibility to negative influences and manipulation. Without a deeper understanding of what led her to submit to Mr. Manson and participate in these horrific murders, I cannot be sure that Ms. Van Houten is capable of acting differently in the future.
The evaluating psychologist in 2018 found that Ms. Van Houten displayed predictive factors for future dangerous behavior, including prior violence, violent attitude, other antisocial behavior, troubled relationships, substance abuse problems, and traumatic experiences. The psychologist also noted that Ms. Van Houten has a “history of engaging in impulsive behavior, including drug use and promiscuity, and her involvement in the life crime reflected a callous lack of empathy for the victims.” Given the horrendous nature of these murders and Ms. Van Houten’s current, related lack of insight, Ms. Van Houten must take additional steps that demonstrate she will never return to this type of submission or violence again.
CONCLUSION
I have considered the evidence in the record that is relevant to whether Ms. Van Houten is currently dangerous. When considered as a whole, I find the evidence shows that she currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison at this time. Therefore, I reverse the decision to parole Ms. Van Houten.
Decision Date:
June 3, 2019
GAVIN NEWSOM
Governor, State of California
Thank God she got denied parole!
I’d say the Governor’s decision is just, but his rationale isn’t convincing. The fact LVH hasn’t given a satisfactory reason for her crimes (if in fact she hasn’t) does not convince me that she’s dangerous.
Actually, I think no matter what mitigating circumstances or causative factors any of them or the experts involved come up with, there will always be a degree of mystery surrounding their willingness to murder so savagely and act up so disgustingly during their trial. After all, plenty of kids with similar backgrounds became just as troubled yet never committed a truly violent act. In the end, the Manson followers decided, which leaves them guilty. Why did they decide? I doubt any explanation will be complete.
I share Newsome’s discomfort with her truly weird account of a drugged sodomization as being consensual. (Good grief Leslie!) But again, is her cluelessness on that issue evidence of her being a danger? I’m not convinced.
But I am glad for Newsome’s decision, however he arrived at it. Van Houten was granted life and a future, so she came out way ahead of her victims. Asking for more than that is too much.
She has a lot to go on with her court appeal. This made no sense
Are you kidding me?
Once again justice continues for the victims.
Outstanding.
Michael, I understand why you don’t think she should get a parole date but it seems you are aware that the governors decision is based on very skewed reasoning and you know she is not a threat. If this was a different case of circumstances, I’m certain you would say it was unlawful and corrupt if this case didn’t have murder attached to it.
The Guv’nor said…
I am concerned by her role in these killings and her potential for future violence
We’re all concerned by her role in the killings. And we’re all really scared that she’ll possibly return to violence and start attacking any and everyone she meets with her zimmer frame !
“Oh no, Peg leg Leslie has struck again !!”
The Guv’nor has simply done what his predecessor did – waffle in a round of nothingness. I’m not bothered if she is paroled and I’m not bothered if she is incarcerated for the rest of her life. If she stays in forever more, at the back of her mind, she knows that she can’t really argue that never coming out of prison is actually unfair in the grand scheme of things.
However, every time she’s been refused since the boards have said “parole, granted,” the refuser has given reasons that simply do not square with his decision. They do not match. They do not back up his refusal. And that leads one to conclude that in reality, he has had no justifiable reason. I wish he’d give one. I actually would like to see a refusal that is based on a justifiable reason to refuse parole. The ones he and the former Guv’nor have been giving are making that office look even more than in 2016 like they are desperately clutching at straws.
Michael says:
I’d say the Governor’s decision is just, but his rationale isn’t convincing
I generally agree with most of what you say but not on this one. Maybe it’s just the way my mind works, but for me, for a decision to be just, the rationale behind it has to be sound. A just decision can’t be supported by faulty reasoning, much less reasoning that is demonstrably untrue.
For the Guv’nor to make a statement like:
Before this crime occurred, Ms. Van Houten had suffered serious trauma and lived in a dysfunctional family environment. Instead of recognizing and fully grappling with these external factors and her response to them, Ms. Van Houten’s answer demonstrates that she still cannot adequately explain her destructive reaction to difficult external factors beyond her control.
is almost unbelievable. I only believe it because similar statements have come up time and time again. Pretty much anyone could point to statements she’s made over the last 6 or so years that show very clearly that actually, she’s only too aware of the impact of her famly background events on where she ended up. Many of her opponents and detractors have spent years rubbishing her for trying to explain the role her background history played. They lambast her for making excuses. Ironically, they can at least see the connection. The people that want her to rot in Hell can see where she’s coming from. The Guv’nor apparently doesn’t see what her detractors clearly see.
Ms. Van Houten’s need for acceptance does not explain her primary role in the brutal slaying of Mrs. La Bianca, and her failure to adequately explain her willing participation indicates that Ms. Van Houten is still minimizing her responsibility
shows a shockingly poor grasp both of human beings and of what Van Houten has spent so many years explaining.
The enforcers of the law don’t have to be honest above and beyond the rest of society. Just straightforward honest will do. As I said at the start, if Leslie remains in jail till she dies, justice will have been served. It will also have been served if the system that incarcerated her has mercy and grants her parole. But it’s deviating from that if no reasons can be found to continue her incarceration but uses as its reasons for doing so, things that the record itself show to not be true.
As far as I’m concerned Fred…she didn’t give any of her victims any mercy or compassion so if she were released that is not justice as you say. She took part in one of the worst killing sprees in history.. that is enough to guarantee her no parole.
NoJusticeNoPeace I’m right there with. Thank God she god denied!
I can’t believe for the life of me why some people on here think she should even be paroled. She took part in one of the worst killing sprees in history. Don’t you understand there is a thing called justice?
I hear you Jason, and agree. Love how she uses her age as a precursor to release. She was too young to understand her actions, and now she’s too old to serve another day in prison. Poor baby.
The La Bianca’s were young too…never having the chance to grow old together. Leno was a WWII veteran, the irony of what they carved on his stomach. But hey, who cares! It’s been 50 years and Lulu wants another chance at life.
So did the victims she slaughtered.
did anyone think he wasn’t going to deny!?
whether his reasoning is skewed or not I totally agreed with Anthony De Maria’s letter to the governor and I thought it made perfect sense. This was a horrific crime no one has forgotten though it’s been fifty years. I suppose it’s is the Lawrence factor. The pain never goes away for many.
Cybele Moon says:
whether his reasoning is skewed or not
Think about that for a moment. You are, in effect, saying that the means justifies the end. Regardless of whether or not the means are right or just.
did anyone think he wasn’t going to deny!?
Hard to say with a newcomer. I give people the benefit of the doubt until they demonstrate that it’s naive of me to do so !
Columbo says:
confusing whether Leslie “should” be paroled with whether she’s “eligible” to be paroled. They are completely different things
Rarely a truer word said. They are so different that it’s tempting to say that they don’t even form part of the same argument.
If the law deems there to be a state of eligibility for parole, then quite simply, in order to say someone is not eligible, it has to be shown that they are not just currently suspect, but signifcantly suspect. If one looks at Bobby Beausoleil, his constant changing of the story makes him at the very least suspect. If one looked at how Bruce Davis added little details of admission across many years, rather than more or less all at once, then one can understand why the Guv’nor might view him with continuing suspicion. But that isn’t the case here.
If the argument is stuck to strictly along the lines of “eligibility” rather than “deservedness” then this’ll be a very short comments section.
Cybele – “This was a horrific crime no one has forgotten though it’s been fifty years.”
Cybele, when you say crime are you referring to Leslie’s participation exclusively or the entire crime? because you seem to be trying to account Leslie into the entire commitment offense of those two nights.
Columbo I’m well aware of “should” be paroled vs “eligible” for parole. Your logic tragically negates the victims their justice. You’re blinded not only by skewed politics, but misplaced empathy.
What I particularly enjoy is how the Gov can simply use the brutality of the crimes as the reason to keep this feeble old butcher in prison. They wanted a crime to shock the world in order to rule the world. You like to compare these crimes to others. There was no precedent. These were the first on such a level of evil incarnate and Lulu giddily participated.
Eligible? Sure. But askin’ ain’t gettin’.
Gov uses every law on the books to keep her in prison and uphold a modicum of justice for the victims and their families until the next lawful Board of Parole hearing? Yep. Is it political? Who gives a shit. I call it poetic justice.
And her approved parole will be overturned again and again. And Lulu will appeal again and again. And there will always be bleeding heart supporters who have more compassion for a dried up husk of a human than for the victims who had their lives snuffed out because someone decided they should die.
She made the decision. And she continues to pay for it.
NoJusticeNoPeace I don’t think its Columbo that is blinded by skewed politics.
Paul. Still waving the banner for freedom I see. To hell with the victims, it’s all about Lulu.
lol
My view hasn’t changed, same as you. Whatever emotional manipulation you are trying to compose here, the law stands the same and legally she’s a suitable parolee. I would never expect the families to agree but there are not the ones that enforce the law.
How could it be considered “skewed politics” to demand that a first degree murderer, someone who participated in a notoriously brutal where the victims were literally made into human pincushions remain incarcerated? How is that thinking “skewed”? The lack of connection to what this woman participated in, the abject terror the victims experienced, the unimaginable, endless grief of their loved ones that she and her ilk are responsible for, these facts seem not to matter to some. It’s all about “poor Leslie” and how unfair the system has been to her. If it were such “skewed” thinking, it would be (almost) laughable (but there is, of course, nothing “laughable” about human slaughter). LVH is right where she should be, and she has no one to blame but herself. She herself said that when she found out what had happened at the Tate house the night before, she let it be “known” that if there was going to be more killing, she wanted to participate. Well, she got her way. Now she must continue live with the consequences. For, after all, and most importantly, the LaBianca’s had to die with the consequences (of her, and the others choices) that night.
Stephen Craig, the system has been unfair to her rights that she was given when she was sentenced in her third trial in 1978 and that was the right to parole if found suitable and she has been found suitable three times. There is no effective argument to show she’s still a danger and she has to be paroled. You might not like how the rules are meant to be processed but that how it was meant to work, its what its there for.
As far as I’m concerned Paul she should never be given parole. Are her victims ever going to be paroled? Are her victims going to walk out of there graves and be free? I don’t think so.
Right on Stephen. You get my point.
Hey Jason, that’s emotional manipulation according to Paul. Don’t ya know it’s LVH who is the victim, not the ones she put in their graves.
Paul, once again you think laws only apply to the murderer. The law also applies to the victim. The Gov utilized the laws on the books to keep Lulu in prison. So don’t be all chagrined by it. Here’s what I want to see happen at the next one–Gov directly states LVH’s crimes were so heinous, so societal changing, so enduring that the law dictates she remain in prison.
He does that I’ll buy him a root beer.
NoJusticeNoPeace The governor is now saying Leslie hadn’t victimised herself enough which Brown said she did too much. Its completely contradictory and its obviously its all a political game.
Stephen that’s not how it work unfortunately, the system doesn’t work how you think I should. You could use that argument for all the killers that get paroled but won’t change anything.
*it
Hey Paul she got denied Parole! End of Story. Move on. Stop trying to go on this crusade and trying to convince people otherwise.
Oh no Jason its not the “end of story” yet. The courts are still deciding their ruling at this time and even if they uphold it she will continue to be granted by the board so its not ending anytime soon mate. I won’t stop making my argument anymore than you or anyone else on this thread.
Well then hey why don’t you contact Gov. Newsom and write him a letter on Leslie’s behalf since you’re such a believer. Good luck with that!
Jason already have thank you
Paul, I know you always emphasize that point of her participation but to me regardless of how many blows she struck and when, she was still part of the whole grotesque process of both those nights. She endorsed Manson and approved of his actions and then asked to participate. As was said before Manson couldn’t do it alone.
None of it is explainable in any way though people say brainwashing, youth etc. etc Not all brainwashed people will commit murder and thankfully most young people know right from wrong. It’s too bad Leslie was “a misguided kid” with the wrong people at the wrong time as her supporters might say and therefore lumped in with the lot. But her actions still remain callous and cruel. People suffered. Personally speaking I think the story of this whole horror is the danger. There is a twisted far reaching psychological component. Many people hold up Manson and his cohorts as some kind of anti establishment anti heroes. I see Manson t-shirts and Manson quotes on people’s facebook pages. Americans romanticize their outlaws. Unfortunately for Leslie she will never be separated from “Manson” whether she is ever freed or not. That is her enduring claim to fame sadly, not her mentoring of other prisoners or getting prison college degrees (on the tax payers dollar).
In a way, I do feel that the “system’ was unfair to LVH in this regard: When the death penalty was abolished in 1972, all defendants on death row in California and elsewhere had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after seven years. In my opinion, the “powers that be” clearly hadn’t thought it through: In what “bizzaro-world” would it be deemed appropriate to parole fist degree murders after such a short amount of time, especially when you take into account that these defendants were originally sentenced to death. The “public” (in general) would be outraged, and rightfully so. Choosing to deny parole was easier in the years subsequent to the crimes because so little time had elapsed since the killings, and clearly defendants in this case had a long, LONG way to go before they began to demonstrate suitability for release. Now, after so many years the parole board is under my more scrutiny because of the requirements for parole in her case most probably have been met. And here, obviously, is the issue, for I feel that these crimes, as PK once stated herself, are “unforgiveable”, and apparently she is not alone in her sentiments. For many, any “forgiveness” in this case was the commuting of their death sentences: any release from incarceration would be a travesty of justice and a slap in the face (yet one of many) to the victims and their survivors. And it is the outrageousness of this crime and its aftermath that will prevent LVH from ever leaving jail outside of a body bag. Although I personally feel that the legal system should never have dangled the “carrot” of parole before her (since it was now the law), there was/is no way any governor, no matter what side of the aisle they may be on, will sign her release, I still have
zero sympathy for her. She’s a killer pure and simple ( a dog that bites is a dog that bites), and any decision to release her/any first degree defendants was a mistake/miscarriage of justice that the system realized too late and is now trying to backtrack from. And is she “suffers” because of it, that’s too bad. I mean, after all, whatever happens to her, I’m sure it’s better that 16 knife wounds to the back.
trying to backtrack fun.
Cybele you can’t find her unsuitable on the basis of the entire crime as for one she wasn’t present on the first night and on the second night there is no evidence she actually physically committed a murder herself. While participating in a crime like that is absolutely terrible that is not a valid reasoning as to why she would be a danger to society today. If Leslie was taken to court for the actions only she committed that night she would of been out of those doors before we hit the 21st century and I think everyone is aware of this ether they agree or not.
Not all brainwashed people are programmed to commit murder that why. When your brainwashed and indoctrinated into a philosophy or certain way of thinking, you become convinced it wasn’t wrong and was actually right so there are two different sides of that Cybele but of course you won’t bring that into it.
“Many people hold up Manson and his cohorts as some kind of anti establishment anti heroes. I see Manson t-shirts and Manson quotes on people’s facebook pages. Americans romanticize their outlaws. Unfortunately for Leslie she will never be separated from “Manson” whether she is ever freed or not.” what the hell has this got to do with Leslie’s suitability, the public’s take on the crimes has nothing to do with deciding whether Leslie poses a danger, its just another excuse come out of the bag.
PS: really Paul, who has made this into a Cause Célèbre except for Leslie’s supporters and not all this rubbish about political corruption etc. I agree with what Michael said previously and others and I also understand Colombo’s point of eligibility as opposed to justice. But,
The fact is that she is not innocent and she will always be a murderer and because of the “nature of the crimes” the majority seem to feel they all should have received life without parole. Whatever Colombo says about other murderers these particular crimes stood out. Because of how the law stands at the moment this whole process gets repeated time and again to make that so.
you know many people were impacted by far greater tragedy than LVH who didn’t end up doing what she did.
Cybele, parole is not there to decide an inmates innocence, its to decide if that prisoner to safe to return to the free world and they have stated three times she has more than met those standards. it is purely a political issue at this point, the governors have contradicted there arguments for reversing her parole and I don’t believe you have bought into it either but like Michael their answer satisfied you so the law goes out the window with you.
Hey Paul good luck pleading your case to Gov Newsom. Maybe you can buy him a beer once she’s paroled. LOL!
Already made my case to him Jason. Thank God Pfeiffer has got the court involved.
Evidently it didn’t help.
No he evidently made his choice beforehand so its down to the courts now
You can plead her case all you want but the Governor has the last word. So no amount of appeals is going to help her now!
No he doesn’t. The courts have the power to overrule his decision and they will decide by July.
Whatever!
Manson lover!
Not Manson lover, that’s for sure.
Hey Jason, instead of a petition to help Lulu get out there should be a legislative change voted on by the people of California that limits the endless parole hearings once the Gov. has reversed it… say for the remaining term of the Gov or better yet, 5 years. Lets save those taxpayers a bit of money while protecting the victims families from having to relive the horror year after year.
Paul, to clarify, I meant to say for the Gov to solely state his reason is due to the heinousness of her crime. Get to the point, as it were. Take the ‘politics’ argument out of it and base it on her merciless deeds. Doubtful anyone would complain, save a few on this board.
Cybele, nice to see you; Stephen you rock dude.
Also Paul, Lulu knew about the Tate murders the night before and wanted to go the next night. You know it to be true so stop trying to lessen her culpability in the vein of she was brain washed, she was abused, she was young, she ‘only’ stabbed x many times because she was told to, blah blah flippin blah.
Really? Not a Manson lover but you sure do want a bunch of murderers released that were part of the most heinous crimes in history. You certainly are in the minority.
NoJusticeNoPeace as I said before Leslie personal participation though awful was not heinous enough that her case can be used under Lawrence. There is no evident she physically killed anyone and only had physical involvement in one murder. People always refer back to the entire crime including the Tate murders when talking about her suitability even though it holds no value to the risk factors. Probably the only thing people can use to keep her behind bars is to hold that association.
Jason I said Leslie, not anyone else did I.
And yes NoJusticeNoPeace, her culpability is lesser since her co-defendets were charged with 8 murders and she was convicted of two.
it does not matter if she poses a threat to society. she did the crime. she should serve her time….. like manson and atkins. it would send the wrong message if she were to be released. she may have only been 19 at the time. had a similar act happened today. said 19 yr old would be tried as an adult. by law 19 is an adult. finally, she should stop applying for parole….. her life was spared by giving her life. she should count her blessing that she wasnt gassed. Enough with the paroles. they should set a limit to how many times they can apply for them
Hey it doesn’t matter how less culpable she was than her codefendents…Murder is murder!
But the more murders you commit, the more years gets added to your sentence. When the Manson family committed their crime, in California you got 7 years extra added for each murder you committed.
Oh so just because somebody commits 2 murders instead of 8.. let them out of prison. Really! Your logic is so skewed Paul.
Well that happens all the time. Killers are getting out everyday but there cases don’t receive the same attention so few are aware its happening. It’s not skewed at all Jason, I’m just not willing to use my moral impulses influences as a means to try to justify creating a corrupt government body like yourself.
Corrupt! You’re the corrupt one. Letting murderers out of prison!
Paul I get what your saying, I just do not agree. Her culpability is more so since she knew of the prior nights murders and stamped her foot to go the second night. She. Knew. That is something that no one can lessen with any excuse or explanation.
She knew what she was doing. She made the choice.
You are not using that word properly, doesn’t make sense.
You don’t make any sense Paul. You logic is laughable at best!
NoJusticeNoPeace well I think that’s the closest we will get to amicable decision at this point so at least we can agree somewhere.
For the people who think I have no sympathy towards the families of Leno and Rosemary that is not true at all and of course I would never expect them to see it my way or how the parole board views it. As much as I feel for the LaBianca’s, the Struthers, and the Smaldino’s, we can’t put the families first always. Just look at Rosemary daughter, she wanted Tex Watson out so feelings vary so we can’t make the decision that always going to satisfy the victims loved ones.
Jason and for what reason? you can sure say that but why is it.
Ok Paul, now you just made the statement we can’t always put the families first. And that’s always the core of any argument I make. To me, if the victims and their families are not the priority than we live in a fish bowl full of hooks.
But thanks for stating emphatically you do care about the victims plight. I just wish it was more about their rights and not so much about LVH’s.
One thing I would say is when we talk about her wanting to commit these murders, she said she saw this as a war and she wanted to be “a solider”. I don’t know whether any of you agree with wars in itself but that’s how she and presumably the other killers saw it. Wars have been a longstanding issue and conversation but many law abiding citizens agree with war even if that means the loss of thousands of lives.
Manson’s philosophy had the family believing death an illusion and it wasn’t suppose to mean what we would see death as. When you are indoctrinated you are made to think a certain way and things you once thought wrong can be made to believe is actually right so I can’t put some of that family in the same category with people who kill in an act of rape and murder because to me they now %100 what they are doing.
NoJusticeNoPeace I think your side has enough support so my position won’t make much difference. Well like I said Rosemary’s daughter wanted Tex Watson out so if we put her feeling first, Tex then surely should have got out since that’s what she wanted. We can’t have it work like that for that reason, emotions are different for everyone so that why there is a system that attends to that issue.
Paul, point taken.
Still wrong lol
Can’t say she was a soldier due to Manson’s indoctrination then excuse her 50 years incarceration as a political prisoner solely on the name of Manson being involved.
See what I mean? Classic have your cake and eat it too. In one way it lessens her culpability (indoctrinated soldier) while at the same time she uses it to beg release as a political prisoner because it did involve Manson. (if only Manson wasn’t tagged, she’d be out by now arguement)
Rosemary’s daughter was certainly in the minority That was a bout a joke wanting him released cause he was a changed man and cause he found Christ. He helped kill her mother and father. Doris Tate was very much again that and I can see why.
Jason, it seems they always find God eh? Seems to me that’s what got them in trouble in the first place. Manson being God, Devil, Soul, yada yada.
Yes and just because you found God doesn’t make your crimes any less culpable.
Wrong to you I see. Leslie said herself she felt like a solider because Manson treated it like it was a war. If the Labianca’s were killed and Manson wasn’t involved or this philosophy didn’t exist, she would not have served anymore than 15 years. The prosecutor said the same thing at the time.
It seems to me now that anything that might not portray Leslie as this evil monster you don’t want to draw attention to because you nudge anything that might indicate lesser culpability. If Manson had pinned her down and physically forced her to stab rosemary I’m sure you would just say something like well she didn’t try to reason with Manson and she still stabbed so she’s just ass bad as the rest. That seems to be your stance.
and Paul that “association” is pretty powerful stuff. Yes, I understand that your premise is that she is no longer dangerous.
I think what I was trying to say, that on another level, freeing any Manson members into society will be a very emotional outcome for a vast majority who oppose. And Paul they must be opposing for a reason. These crimes of which she was a part had a huge social/ psychological component and really tore apart what was a peaceful movement of that time. The murders were savage and a real affront to society and the establishment. I think you must be aware of that aspect. So it’s not just the fame of one of the victims that has kept this in public consciousness.
Hey NJNP, Michael and all!!
PS whether the supreme court upholds the governor and the lower court’s decision remains to be seen.
Cybele it depends on how these people are informed about these crimes. I could explain it in one way to someone while you can explain it in another way. People draw different conclusion for various reason but one is how the case is explained to them and depends on the bias as well from the informant. That association and the whole case is of course very notorious and understandably so we can’t count how the general public feel about this case as a way of determining her suitability. The board are responsible for determining that not the public, its not a democratic vote whether to let Leslie Van Houten out of prison or not.
Paul, no one has to portray Lulu as an evil monster…she’s done that herself.
Does she have any compunction? Not a whit. Unless it serves her parole purposes which has been going on for decades.
Eventually it will end. Which side of the fence she falls…well, we’ll see.
Her actions in 1969 can yes be considered evil, but she herself is not an evil person, especially now and the board realizes that.
We will have to wait for the appellate court to make their decision by July.
PPS: NJNP you never mince words!! I think while some only look at the letter of the law. some of us are outraged by how frequently the law acts on behalf of the criminal even to the point where the guilty get off. In this case the criminal has not had it easy and many of us feel that is justified.
She will never be sorry for what she did,she’s a sick individual.thank god she was denied parole.
There you go again Cybele, making my point for me.
Paul, as for the appellate, I don’t foresee anything except Lulu’s disappointment.
Can’t say that makes my hands wring.
Paul said
Cybele it depends on how these people are informed about these crimes. I could explain it in one way to someone while you can explain it in another way. People draw different conclusion for various reason but one is how the case is explained to them and depends on the bias as well from the informant. That association and the whole case is of course very notorious and understandably so we can’t count how the general public feel about this case as a way of determining her suitability. The board are responsible for determining that not the public, its not a democratic vote whether to let Leslie Van Houten out of prison or not.
Not a bad point Paul. I will give you that.
Cybele, Paul; That was a decent point, however the only legal explanation is trial transcripts, etc. Yanno, the official record. (even if it is lacking, it’s unequivocal)
Any other is biased, including us arm chair QT’s.
The fact that she will always be linked to Manson will have sealed her fate already.
I’ve read all these comments from everyone, especially the ongoing battle between Paul and a couple others (njnp, cybele, Jason, etc.). It is a mix of “everything” that is keeping LVH in jail. Just as the Governor has rules and laws to follow, so do the parole board. Why do I not see any comments on the PB being “political”? Maybe they are feeling she is eligible because they feel she’s done her time whether it’s by the rules or not?? They see an old woman, whom they feel has more than served her time based on what parameters they have to follow – model prisoner, multiple degrees, does the therapy classes she go thru, etc., politics goes both ways. Next, her troubled childhood, immaturity at 19, getting in with Manson, etc. she knew what she was doing and wanted to join his group. She was with BB 1st, he brought her to Manson for his 2nd visit with them. As far as not foreseeing the long term effect on her actions of murder? Yeah, wrong didn’t see the long terms of her crime and what the notoriety of association of Manson would cause her is a better answer.; but the prosecutor did and he made a whole hell of a living off of it for 48 yrs. Next, you cannot change words once recorded or typed on your version of the crimes and what you did, the governor does take that into account. LVH has changed her story a few times over the yrs., forgetting it contradicted what she had already said that was her truth. Of course, she was not a “danger” on parole before 3rd trial, would you be if you valued your freedom?? LVH was never lumped into both nights, I have always read where they only took into acct the one night and that started with VB. She wanted to go, she has said she never knew if RL was dead or not when she stabbed her and the “more you do it, the more you like it”. She made sure to wipe the house of all prints, shows she knew what she did was wrong and would be held accountable. No one else volunteered, they were “chosen”. Manson knew which members would have it in them to kill and picked accordingly, she chose. If they didn’t give Susan Atkins compassion release and completely a no danger to society, LVH will not have a “compassionate” governor sign off.
Personally, I think letting Lynette Frommhe out was more of a danger 10 yrs ago, she’s still a fervent believer that what CM said was right as was ordering the killings right. We can have these debates, but she will and should not be released. It may be politics, but if you let one out, you will have to let the otherrs out, no governor wants that, nor will be the one to sign off on that order. Some crimes are just too horrible to ever let the perpetrators out on parole, even if eligible by the board. It’s political, it’s justice, it’s the notoriety of the crime, it’s what was said before, during and after the trials, it’s the law whether we think the right ppl said yeah, or neigh. I have also not seen anything on any appeals court once the governor has said no for any of their paroles.
GOVERNING LAW
… read the post damnya
In rare circumstances, the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole, even when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness. (In re Lawrence, supra, at 1211, 1214.)
For the adversaries of justice- your sycophant will never get out.
“In rare circumstances, the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole” does that mean the entirety of the two nights of crime or just Leslie’s own handiwork in the crime?
Paul, you’re the only one hung up on trying to tie her hand to the knife of Tate victims to further your narrative.
No need to add or subtract. Read it as is.
well that’s not true because you and some like Cybele always refer to the entire commitment offense. If you were to remove any of the crime expect Leslie’s part of the offense we would not be talking about this because no one would care about it today.
So you think that Leslie personal acts are heinous enough that it fits in Lawrence? and that’s solely on Leslie’s offense.
Paul “well that’s not true.”
Sorry Paul. Did she KNOW about the Tate murders? YEP
Did she WANT to go the next night? YEP
Heinous enough?
Paul, you posed the question. What do YOU think is Got Damn heinous enough on Lulu’s part?
She didn’t know of the Tate murders until after they were committed first of all, and secondly she sure wanted to but she didn’t ask like some people try to make out. If that is your argument for accounting Lawrence in Leslie’s case its pretty valueless. With all the killers Brown and Newsom have paroled out, they change their values when there’s this amount of hype in this case.
Can’t answer?
Deflect much?
Thanks for playing!
Well your question doesn’t really make sense but what I can say is that evidence shows that Leslie did not commit a murder herself and the fact she had not actually killed anyone means you cannot compare her case to Lawrence as a heinous crime when she hasn’t taken a life physically herself. If anyone fits under that article would be Tex Watson but certainly not Van Houten.
Copy Paste moment:
Paul, you posed the question. What do YOU think is Got Damn heinous enough on Lulu’s part?
Oh and please be specific.
Again your question doesn’t make sense so that’s how i’m answering.
“evidence shows that Leslie did not commit a murder herself and the fact she had not actually killed anyone means you cannot compare her case to Lawrence as a heinous crime when she hasn’t taken a life physically herself. If anyone fits under that article would be Tex Watson but certainly not Van Houten.”
Give it up Paul. It’s getting embarrassing for ya. You talk how she’s so affronted by politics. I want to know what your throw in my face…exactly, and again:
Paul, you posed the question. What do YOU think is Got Damn heinous enough on Lulu’s part?
Oh and please be specific.
I don’t think I’m the one that needs to be embarrassed. There’s your answer, you can’t use Lawrence in this case sorry it doesn’t work.
“Evidence shows that Leslie did not commit a murder herself and the fact she had not actually killed anyone means you cannot compare her case to Lawrence as a heinous crime when she hasn’t taken a life physically herself. If anyone fits under that article would be Tex Watson but certainly not Van Houten.”
Answer it Paul. What is the heinous part of Lulu?
Answer it.
Can’t eh?
Typical.
Well I’m coming in from the other side where her case is not heinous enough so that question is ineffective to me, that why I asked you the question because you seem to think so. I answered the question you gave which is erroneous anyway.
Once again, thanks for playing!
Can’t/won’t state what you think is Lulu’s heinousness part of HER crime. Emphasis Paul. Grasp.
Paul, you make noise for your LVH cause. Meh.
You’ve now been exposed. “You make no sense”
Bloviation. That’s what you sell, especially since you refuse to answer.
You seem to forget what I asked you. Its not what is heinous about the crime that I asked you it was how it was heinous enough that Lawrence can be used effectively as a reason for her continued incarceration.
grasp.
Trish says:
but if you let one out, you will have to let the others out
While an interesting premise, I don’t think that’s true.
I think part of the reason the LVH scenario ignites such passionate debate is that her situation is very different to that of Manson, Atkins, Watson and Krenwinkel. For one thing, she was not involved on both nights. If she got out tomorrow, Watson and Krenwinkel would still be looking at 7 murders. That’s far more of a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads and much easier to justify continued incarceration. Whether LVH will ever walk the streets of freedom again, no one knows, but Pat and Tex have way less chance of that happening. It would be more correct to say that if one of those two were paroled, all the others would surely follow.
Jason says:
murderers released that were part of the most heinous crimes in history
I know you don’t mean it to be and I’m certainly not having a go at you, but to refer to the Tate/LaBianca murders as the most heinous crimes in history is borderline insulting to millions of people that have been victims of violent crimes since the creation of humanity, on an individual, gang and state/nation level. A number of people have made this statement in conversations I’ve been involved in recently and I’ve had to say something each time. These murders were not worse than all other murders. There isn’t some kind of league table of atrocity. If someone has deliberately taken away someone else’s life, in a sense it’s rather moot how that was actually done.
Stephen Craig says:
How could it be considered “skewed politics” to demand that a first degree murderer, someone who participated in a notoriously brutal [murder] where the victims were literally made into human pincushions remain incarcerated? How is that thinking “skewed”?
I hesitate to say this to you in particular Stephen, because of the story you told in one of the recent threads. It was really moving and on the face of it, almost any disagreement with your position will come across as unfeeling and insensitive. I’m not trying to be either and I mean that.
Your question is a fair one but it is one that calls for an answer.
Whether the Guv’nor’s answer is “skewed politics” I can’t say. That’s Columbo’s take on it and it’s obvious to me that much of their firepower comes from an attempt to discredit liberals. So in a way, it’s entirely logical that their focus will be on politics and how a liberal politician is wrecking the nation.
But, as you put it, “to demand that a first degree murderer, someone who participated in a notoriously brutal [murder] where the victims were literally made into human pincushions remain incarcerated” is skewed simply because it is clear that the decision was reached beforehand and then the reasons found in order to justify it. And look at the reasons. Reasons that are supposed to point to her being a danger now. Things that are supposed to give pause and cause one to think, “Just a minute ? That was a bit suspect.” Things that she would have said or done recently or even 10 years ago that would lend some weight to a decision of such gravity. You know, when Pat Krenwinkel has denied parole in her last hearing, one could totally understand where the board was coming from, given Pat’s inability to explain certain matters. I think the Guv’nor this time round has simply done as his predecessor did and was an earth in search of a sun as opposed to an earth impacted by the sun.
It is not his desire to keep a first degree murderer incarcerated that is skewed. It is what he has put forward as his evidence that makes the matter skewed. When he says something like “Furthermore, I am troubled by Ms. Van Houten’s answer when asked by the Board if Mr. Manson had ever forced himself on her sexually. She replied, “No. But my first meeting with him, I’m—he gave us some kind of a drug… And he sodomized me, you know when I was half in and half out, but I was there willingly.” Ms. Van Houten’s characterization of this as a consensual encounter – rather than an assault by an older man who drugged her and held a position of power within her cult – is troubling. She still minimizes Mr. Manson’s violent and controlling actions. This indicates that she has not fully examined her ongoing susceptibility to negative influences and manipulation. Without a deeper understanding of what led her to submit to Mr. Manson and participate in these horrific murders, I cannot be sure that Ms. Van Houten is capable of acting differently in the future” he is blatantly ignoring exactly what she did say. That she is able to describe what was going on back then and describe it for today’s audience but with yesterday’s sensibilities in order for them to understand that she is aware of the position she put herself in and later came to understand Charlie’s manipulations should tell him that far from minimizing the Manson manipulations and influence and con job, that, by putting that alongside all the other things she pointed out, that she’s pretty clear in her head about all of that. Things like that are actually a good example of who it really is that doesn’t show clarity of vision there. It was their first meeting. That was the world she inhabited. Like Rosie Boycott once pointed out, the real beneficiaries of the sexual revolution of the 60s during the 60s, were not the women, but the men. The women’s time came later and continues to gather pace. And that makes what he said, far from showing what a balanced crusader he is for the championing of women, actually someone who cannot sort out important nuances and this contributes towards him making decisions that actually aren’t supported by the examples he gives.
To me, that’s skewed.
OK, that was a long one. But you did ask.
Who cares! Move on! Blah Blah Blah Blah!
NoJusticeNoPeace says:
What is the heinous part of Lulu?
While I wouldn’t apply Lawrence to LVH in a continuing sense, her crime was heinous. Pretty much every murder is. For me, heinousness isn’t necessarily gauged by how many times a person was punched, shot, stabbed, hit etc. The heinousness in Leslie’s crime was that first of all, she wanted to do it. She may have got cold feet at the moment of truth, but let’s not kid ourselves, she was in that house because she wanted to be. And it ought to be cleared up about Tex’s role here. Yes, he more or less had to force her to “get to it.” He is very clear about that. It’s one of the few things he is clear about, actually.
But before the weight of derision is heaped upon my head, it should be pointed out that he only had to force her to do what she had intended to do in the first place and still wanted to do but couldn’t initially manage it. She never has said that she changed her mind about killing once she and Pat were left with Rosemary. She was the one that went and got Tex to get the whole episode moving. So she was still committed at the time to killing Rosemary. She still believed in the cause. And once she started stabbing, she was able to continue. If anything, Tex helped to fortify her resolve. Had Helter Skelter actually happened as Charlie predicted it would, Leslie would have thanked Tex for helping her to play her part.
Leslie’s heinousness at the time was in the thinking that she housed; she admitted to her lawyer, Marvin Part, that she didn’t regret it and if faced {as of the end of December ’69} with the same scenario, she’d do it again.
That’s heinous. So it follows that her actions on the night sprang from a heinous place and that made them heinous.
But that very heinousness is ironically why Lawrence doesn’t work here. She moved away from that position 45~46 years ago. If Charles Manson had been released at any point subsequent to 1971, there are few people that would be able to have any kind of confidence that he would have remained on the straight and narrow. What he thought and felt remained uppermost and very visible right up until he died. LVH has not been in that place for close to half a century. It’s not a slamdunk reason for her to be paroled, but there needs to be something beyond what has been offered up since 2016 to justifiably keep her incarcerated.
michael descoteaux says:
it does not matter if she poses a threat to society. she did the crime. she should serve her time
She’s been incarcerated since 1969. My little brother was born that year. He turned 50 a couple of weeks back ! She’s been doing the time. But part of her “time” includes the possibility of parole.
it would send the wrong message if she were to be released
It would have sent the wrong message if she’d been released in 1978. I don’t think close to half a century in jail then parole for exemplary behaviour, change and attitude is somehow going to make all the criminals out there think it’ll be a piece of cake. “Yeah, let’s go to California and kill someone. Even if we get caught, we’ll be out in 50 years……”
The other reason it won’t send the wrong message is that now, there is the sentence of life without parole. If LVH came out next week, only a blithering idiot would be thinking to themselves “the old lady got away with it and beat the system……”
she may have only been 19 at the time…by law 19 is an adult
I agree. Now, being sensible here, there’s not many of us that are 35 and over that would honestly say we were just as wise or far seeing at 19 as we are now. We know 19 year olds can be impulsive, hot headed, not wanting to think things through…..but to me that’s irrelevant. At 19 people can know enough to know what career they want to pursue for life, who they want to settle down with for life, whether or not they are prepared to handle debt in paying back tuition fees for much of their life etc, etc. At that age, one engages with life on the terms one understands. I don’t think her age at the time was a significant factor. I think it’s a much bigger factor now. But not enough to make parole a slamdunk.
her life was spared by giving her life
Actually, that’s not true. Her verdict was set aside. That original verdict ceased to apply in the 70s. Whether rightly or wrongly, that’s the facts.
she should count her blessing that she wasnt gassed
The irony is, if she had been gassed, what with the verdict of her original trial being set aside, we’d all be discussing the case of Leslie Van Houten as……an injustice !
Enough with the paroles. they should set a limit to how many times they can apply for them
That makes no sense at all.
Hey Fred move on..What cares! Stop ranting! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!
Write a book while your at it! LOL
Jason if you can’t take other people’s points of view then don’t use this thread, its that simple.
Hey Paul Good luck getting your murdering friend LVH out of prison. LOL!
Jason says:
Who cares! Move on! Blah Blah Blah Blah!
Jason, you’ve given me a good laugh with that one ! Good humour is good humour.
Paul says:
Evidence shows that Leslie did not commit a murder herself
The evidence doesn’t actually show that. It can’t conclusively prove any of the 8 fatal blows were hers but the vice is also versa ~ neither does it prove none of them were hers. 7 of the fatal 8 were to the back of the body, 2 were close to the neck, the others were on the back. Leslie stated Rosemary was just lying there. She also said that she may have done a couple by the neck and on the back. What the evidence does show without any argument is that Rosemary was alive when Leslie started stabbing. She may have been on the way out, but she was alive.
I guess I’m just a stickler for getting the facts straight. On both sides of the argument, it seems to me that people routinely state as fact things that aren’t true as if conceding points somehow damages one’s argument. It doesn’t. Real life is always a mixture of the rough and the smooth. It’s nigh on impossible to be 100% right and correct on every point within a debate. Just because opponents will “nyaa, nyaa, nyaa nyaa nyaa”on a conceded point is no reason to be scared to concede a point.
NoJusticeNoPeace says:
Once again, thanks for playing!
Can’t/won’t state what you think is Lulu’s heinousness part of HER crime. Emphasis Paul. Grasp….Paul, you make noise for your LVH cause. Meh.
You’ve now been exposed. “You make no sense”
It’s not a game of tennis ! He makes a lot of sense. So do you.
Of course, we can all make sense and still be wrong. That’s going to apply to each of us at some point !
Jason says:
Hey Fred move on..What cares! Stop ranting! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!
Ha ha ha ha, has the debate ended ? Has everyone gone home ? Where can I catch the train to move me on down the line ? {ZZ Top reference}
Yeah Fred you might as well write a book with your long rants!
Fred bloggs, I probably should have put indicate then “shows”, but I believe I read that around 18 of the wounds were postmortal and they had been bottom near the buttocks. Rosemary apparently was motionless when Leslie inflicted her wounds so it’s safe to say she was either dead or very close to death if she didn’t have a response to the wounds inflicted by Van Houten. Leslie has said for the most part that her wounds were only to the lower back and when asked in court if she did more elsewhere she said she didn’t recall. She said that around the same time she went along with the new story that she acted in a murder she didn’t commit (Hinman) so I don’t see why she would lie about that if she was wrongly incriminating herself anyway.
Paul the fact that she participated in such a gruesome crime is heinous enough I think. How can you go along and witness the brutality and participate, holding RL down, calling for Tex to come in and kill her etc and then say but” I only stabbed her in the lower back many times after she was dead, at least I think she was dead but I wasn’t absolutely sure and then I took a shower and drank chocolate milk” Please!! And if she didn’t ask to go that second night why did she want to go. Apparently she was not chosen to go. Anyway I know you feel her crime wasn’t bad enough to warrant life behind bars. Others do.
Paul, you don’t want to feel like you have spent a lifetime defending a cold blooded murderer, do you? Maybe it’s time to give it all up and live a little.
my usual PS:
But Paul you are very persevering and consistent. Thanks for not being too rude.
Fred, sometimes you make my head spin but you always make a point.
Trish this is a just passionate discourse not an out and out donnybrook!! lol
we can all weigh in with our opinions and we know everybody has one!
Cybele first of all, Leslie did not take a shower, tex certainly did but she did not and I don’t Krenwinkel had either. Leslie admitted she wanted to go for sure but never asked Manson to let her participate.
Cybele I’m sorry but Leslie actions are nothing unique compared to your typical murder case in the sense of brutality. She herself did not write words in blood on the wall, kill a pregnant women, didn’t participate physically in more than one murder as she didn’t interact with Leno, and we can’t even be certain Rosemary was living and if she was was already dying. You probably will just accuse me of mitigating her involvement again but I’m holding her accountable for her part not Tex Waton’s or Pat Krenwinkel’s.
It comes back to the fact that what keeps Leslie’s case in conversation like this is because of her co-deferents handiwork and the motivation and circumstances of the Manson Family. The entire crime of course can be considered as heinous enough and for someone like Tex Waton Lawerence might be more suitable but Leslie it just isn’t feasible.
I hate to break it to you Paul but the appellate court is not going to rule against the Governor. Wishful Thinking.
Oh my here comes another one wanting a murderer out of prison!
Yeah, 19 is soooo young. Cry me a river. This is not about stealing sweets or a bicycle, it’s about an involvement in a murder plot, you know. What even gave her the right to enter that woman’s home in the first place? She’s an ungrateful criminal and should be happy that the death penalty wasn’t carried out. What’s she going to do at her age anyway if she does get out? She’s in a controlled environment now. What happens if someone ticks her off outside of the jail. Her parole hearing in 1999 shows what an aggressive character she has which she normally hides. Also, why on earth did she get in the deepest of deep troubles if she loves her freedom that much huh? She has not paid the prices for her heinous crime yet. Even if Leslie Van Houten is rehabilitated, her victims will never come back to their beloved ones. Therefore, she shall spend all her life behind bars for the rest of her life. That is her only way to show great repentance for her horrific crime she committed.
Thanks Richard..at least somebody agrees!
As for the apparent attempts to mitigate LVH’s brutal crimes because she thought she was a “soldier” in Charlie’s army…well, her disgusting behavior would certainly qualify her as a murderous war criminal. And, she was wearing civilian clothing when she and her co-conspirators invaded the LaBianca home in order to help nudge the race war along…so she qualified for summary execution, as I understand military law.
But, what’s really funny is to read various LVH supporters’ comments to the effect that “everybody knows she is completely reformed and should be granted parole” and that “everybody knows she is a political prisoner”, and so on. One poster even claims that the governor of California is more dangerous than the convicted torturer/murderer that he has refused to parole…woof!
LVH supporters seem to like to conveniently forget that Lulu put a pillowcase over Mrs. LaBianca’s head, tied in place with the electrical cord of a lamp, and then held her down while sweet little Krenny repeatedly stabbed at her with a kitchen knife while Mr. LaBianca struggled for his life against Tex in the next room. Then she stabbed Mrs. LaBianca in the back about 16 times after Tex told her to do it. So it’s not her fault…you know, ’cause Tex told her to, and Mrs. LaBianca might have been dead by the time LVH took her turn at the dirty work and, besides, LVH was young at the time. Jesus H. Christ!
LVH is not “eligible for parole”….she is eligible to receive a fully vetted parole decision every few years, and that legally includes the governor’s right to overturn the recommendation of the Parole Board if he finds that their recommendation is inappropriate. Since PB members are basically anonymous, unelected people who seem (IMO) to make poor recommendations fairly often, judging by current recidivism rates, I am personally glad that a succession of California governors has seen fit to overturn Manson Family PB recommendations based on legal, defensible grounds.
But, according to LVH supporters, she didn’t do what Tex
And besides Sandra Lawrence case is a little different. She wasn’t associated was a mass murderer like LVH.
But, according to LVH supporters, she didn’t do what Tex did, or what her other murderous co-conspirators did, so she isn’t “really, really, really” guilty like they are. Utter bullshit!