Newsom Reverses Van Houten Parole Grant

Friday, November 27th, 2020

GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S RULING ON LESLIE VAN HOUTEN’S PAROLE RECOMMENDATION

Nov. 27 – 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.

DECISION

I acknowledge that Ms. Van Houten committed this crime when she was 19 years old and that he has since been incarcerated for 50 years. 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 impulsivity, inability to adequately foresee the long-term consequences of her behavior, and the inability to manage her emotions—and her other hallmark features of youth. The psychologist who evaluated Ms. Van Houten in 2018 concluded that “it seems very likely that Ms. Van Houten’s involvement in the life offense was significantly impacted by” these youth factors.

I also acknowledge that Ms. Van Houten has made efforts to improve herself in prison. She has participated in and facilitated self-help programming, including Narcotics Anonymous, Victim Offender Education Group, and the Actors’ Gang Prison Project. She has earned her bachelor’s and master’s degree and completed vocational training. Additionally, Ms. Van Houten has served on the Inmate Advisory Council and has an exemplary disciplinary record. I have 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’s explanation of what allowed her to be vulnerable to Mr. Manson’s influence remains unsatisfying. At her parole hearing, Ms. Van Houten explained that she was turning her back on her parents following their divorce and after a forced abortion. She described herself at the time of her involvement in the Manson Family as a “very weak person that took advantage of someone that wanted to take control of my life and I handed it over.” I am unconvinced that these factors adequately explain her eagerness to submit to a dangerous cult leader or her desire to please Mr. Manson, including engaging in the brutal actions of the life crime.

I remain concerned by Ms. Van Houten’s characterization of her participation in this gruesome double murder, part of a series of crimes that rank among the most infamous and fear-inducing in California history. Ms. Van Houten explained to the evaluating psychologist that she was “desperate to be accepted,” was “chosen” by Mr. Manson, “had to kill them for the beginning of the revolution,” and wanted Mr. Manson to “know I was completely committed to him and his cause.” At her 2020 parole hearing, Ms. Van Houten reiterated that this was her state of mind at the time of the life crime, adding “I felt obligated to participate. I wanted to participate.” Ms. Van Houten recalled that while she was holding Ms. La Bianca down, her crime partner Ms. Krenwinkle, stabbed the victim in the collar bone, which bent the knife. Ms. Van Houten told the psychologist, “I ran to the door of the bedroom, said, ‘We can’t do it. We can’t kill her.’ [Mr. Watson] came into the bedroom, [Ms. Krenwinkle] went into the living room, I stood at the doorway, none of this was conscious, I was running on fear. Tex [Watson] had stabbed her. I assumed she was dead.” Ms. Van Houten continued, “She could have been alive, but I assumed she was dead, Tex said, ‘Do something,’ and handed me a knife. So, I stabbed her in the lower torso 16 times. It was a horrible, predatory feeling.” I note that Ms. Van Houten’s report that committing the offense was “horrible” conflicts with her subsequent conduct. After the murders, Ms. Van Houten reportedly told a young female follower of Mr. Manson that participating in the murders was “fun.” Moreover, she continued to follow Mr. Manson’s instructions and “continued to prepare for the revolution” until she was arrested. The inconsistency indicates gaps in Ms. Van Houten’s insight or candor, or both, which bear on her current risk for dangerousness. The evaluating psychologist noted that several historical factors including “prior violence, violent attitude, other antisocial behavior, troubled relationships, traumatic experiences, and substance abuse problems are
present and relevant to future risk of violent recidivism.” These factors remain salient despite Ms. Van Houten’s advanced age and remain cause for concern should she be released into the community.

Given the extreme nature of the crime in which she was involved, I do not believe she has sufficiently demonstrated that she has come to terms with the totality of the factors that led her to participate in the vicious Manson Family killings. Before she can be safely released, Ms. Van Houten must do more to develop her understanding of the factors that caused her to seek acceptance from such a negative, violent influence, and perpetrate extreme acts of wanton violence.

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:
November 27, 2020
GAVIN NEWSOM
Governor, State of California

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Newsom Reverses Van Houten Parole Grant

  1. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    I want everyone to know Newsom did this on a Saturday after Thanksgiving. That is a statement in itself about who Newsome really is. He doesn’t miss his campaign speeches every weekday (disguising them as COVID updates) but he waits for a holiday weekend?

  2. Josep says:

    What most worries of that lack of humanity these politics show is everybody may mistake big when one is 19 under the influence of a sick pimp, drugs and the hippie stuff, but to keep the victim of all that shit locked for 50 years just to not risk a few votes is symptom to be a unprecedented motherfucker with no clue in all his body of what compassion and fair punishment is.

    This monster sent free guys with x100 more blood in their hands than Leslie.

    USA has true criminals on charge. True evil. Nothing good may flow from fascism.

  3. Janet Palirano says:

    Thank God!!!!!

  4. Gorodish says:

    “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.”

    Now now, let’s not shortchange Sexy Sadie! She was along, too!

  5. Sam says:

    Really, dude?

  6. Roger Wayne Adams says:

    Amen Rich it is absolutely BS. I was really hopeful for her this time

  7. Echo says:

    Just as Charles Manson and Susan Atkins died in prison, so will Leslie, Patricia and Tex. They will never EVER be released and honestly, I don’t think it’s JUST politics. They didn’t show any mercy to their victims so why should mercy be shown to them? Their crimes on those 2 nights were so heinous and vicious that they deserve to be in prison until the day they die. As Doris Tate once put it…they should be paroled only when their victims are paroled from their graves.

  8. Paul says:

    Just goes to show that no matter what Leslie does, the Governor isn’t interested in doing his job.

  9. Mich says:

    Leslie was given a reprieve from the death penalty and has lived 51 more years than her victims. These Parole hearings are a joke and a nightmare for the families of the victims; she should spend of the rest of her days in prison.

  10. Pam says:

    “Let justice be done though the heavens may fall.” A great day for justice. Bravo to Newsom. Mr. Pfeiffer, your client is a brutal butcher who is going to spend the rest of her life in jail. It’s sad that the people of California have to waste their tax money on one parole hearing after another that only leads to the same results. LVH chose to murder two innocent people to please CM. Why doesn’t she accept that this is a just verdict and sentence?

  11. Cybele Moon says:

    – but wait, Was anyone really surprised?
    Newsom will never release a Manson gang member while he is in office. I read a former statement of his and yes of course he listens to the court of public opinion. He said he had received many thousands of letters begging him not to release- something about “the will of the people” and also the horror that the crimes generated at the time.

    I personally feel that all of them deserved life without parole!! (along with other murderers too) However, I do get the legal points of Mr. Pfeiffer as a defence attorney and that of some others here whether in agreement or not. I don’t believe LVH is a danger as such at her age and she has pretty much served a lifetime behind bars already.

    The danger of freeing a Manson member lies more in the psychological effect I think. I sadly see this whole Manson mystique and horror, which has lasted all these decades. It has become a famous and terrible parable of a whole social movement in the sixties. It has many websites, some which glorify Manson. It just never goes away. I’m sure lots will comment.

  12. Lee says:

    I totally agree Echo. They’ll never get out, nor should they!

  13. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    Cybele, Yes you get it. You might not like Leslie’s sentence, and you might not like the law, but to continue to violate the law turns our government into a lawless society. Nobody with a straight face can claim or truly believe that Leslie is a current unreasonable risk to public safety if placed on supervised parole. That is the legal standard required to keep her in prison. The “will of the people” is not a legal standard, nor should it be. If the majority controls, then our nation is subject to mob rule. Our laws were made to protect everyone’s rights and legal interests, not just the majority’s. Yes Leslie aided and abetted in two murders. But lots of murderers have successfully been rehabilitated and paroled and contributed to society. Just not in such a high profile case.

  14. Roger Wayne Adams says:

    Rich I’m behind Leslie all the way I truly hope she gets out someday. She is truly remorseful and in my opinion rehabilitated.

  15. Michael says:

    I’ve always been against the release of any of the Manson murderers, because I don’t think anyone who commits mass murder, regardless of their age or motive, should ever walk free. For that reason I feel Leslie should remain where she is.

    But while I support Newsom’s decision, I don’t buy his reasoning. Heck, psychologists and sociologists spend decades trying to figure out why people do certain things, and they still don’t have all the answers. So can we expect Leslie to solve the deep mysteries of the human psyche, and fully answer the question as to why one person does something terrible while another refuses? And are we really going to say Leslie can’t be fully rehabilitated unless she has full understanding? Hate to admit it, but I still don’t fully understand why i ditched school and took drugs as a stupid teenager. But that lack of understanding has certainly not kept me from living drug free since I was 17, or from living as a responsible adult. I think the How (as in How should I live?) is more important than the Why. (Why did I do what I did?)

    I’m not very sympathetic towards LVH or any of them. But while I would never argue for her release, I would argue for recognition of her growth these past 50 years. Decades of exemplary behavior speak more loudly than a very understandably limited ability to grasp and articulate the “why’s” and “wherefore’s” of what she did.

  16. Cybele Moon says:

    I hear you Michael. Well said from the psychology point of view. That pretty much sums up what I feel too. I think Newsom’s reasoning is a bit bogus. However, I would understand it more if he just used the heinousness and terroristic aspect of the crimes as a precedent for refusal because, rehabilitation notwithstanding I don’t believe Leslie or any of them are ever going to be able to give an adequate explanation of why they did what they did.

  17. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    Newsome can’t use the heinousness of the crime because that is not a legitimate reason to deny parole. The only legitimate reason (given Leslie’s sentence of 7 years to life) requires that she be a current unreasonable risk to public safety. To get there, Newsome loses all credibility. To reverse in the middle of Thanksgiving weekend is a statement that Newsome tried to avoid the press and also demonstrates no understanding or compassion as a human being. What I am requesting is HONESTY from our Governor! If he can’t provide it (and it doesn’t look like he will), then the courts have to uphold the law. Everybody remember, when Leslie was sentenced if any party didn’t agree with that sentence they had the opportunity to appeal and they didn’t. Right now, the only one following the law is Leslie. You don’t have to like her, or what she did, to see that.

  18. Cybele Moon says:

    Rich, I agree with requesting honesty from the administration.
    Ha! when do people ever get that!! ( I’m originally from UK and Ireland and it’s the same) and even the courts don’t always dispense justice.
    It’s difficult to separate my feelings about LVH and the crimes from my own concept of justice though I do feel some sympathy for lives lost including hers. You have a hard fight.

  19. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    but wait, Was anyone really surprised?

    No more surprised than, living in London, putting my clothes out on the line to dry and it raining.

    I think Newsom’s reasoning is a bit bogus

    You’re being very generous !

    Michael says:
    while I support Newsom’s decision, I don’t buy his reasoning. Heck, psychologists and sociologists spend decades trying to figure out why people do certain things, and they still don’t have all the answers

    His reasoning can’t be bought. Nor could Guv’nor Brown’s before him.
    Funny thing is, though psychologists and sociologists spend years trying to fathom out answers and may not arrive at solid conclusions, Leslie Van Houten isn’t in that category. She has, ad nauseum wrung just about every piece of understanding that is possible from her psyche and has explained and analysed and been put under a searing searchlight. She’s explained the path that she took to where she got, how various things impacted her, how her viewpoints shifted and changed, how she wanted to kill, how she did it and why. If by this point the Guv’nor can say he’s not satisfied, it’s because he does not want to be. I pointed this out in past debates, at the end of the day, there are a whole lot of reasons he could give for not wanting to uphold the parole board’s decision. It is indeed remarkable that he chooses, still, to say:
    “Before she can be safely released, Ms. Van Houten must do more to develop her understanding of the factors that caused her to seek acceptance from such a negative, violent influence, and perpetrate extreme acts of wanton violence”
    because that simply cannot be done. It’s a bit like saying to a mum that loves her needy disabled child and who has taken care of that child all its life “I require more proof of your love for your child. That you’ve been there every step of the way and sacrificed your own life, goals and happiness in service of your child’s wellbeing for 35 years just isn’t sufficient.”
    It cannot be done. Because essentially, he doesn’t want it done.
    But here is the clincher for me. Even if she didn’t have a clue how and why she murdered, her actions since around 1974 would be sufficient to put more than a serious spanner in the works of the guv’nor’s decision.

    Pam says:
    A great day for justice

    It may indeed be a great day for justice. But I’m often mindful of the line in the song that opines that “everybody loves to see justice done……….on someone else.”

  20. Pam says:

    Fred, “everybody loves to see justice done……..on someone else.” No, I love seeing justice done on someone who said it was “fun” to repeatedly stab a helpless woman begging for her life. No, I love seeing justice done on someone who has never shown true remorse for her crimes. No, I love seeing justice done on someone who volunteers herself for heinous murder. No, I love seeing justice done on someone who claimed she only stabbed a corpse. No, I love justice done on someone who once said “my life goes on” when asked about her victims. LVH is a cold blooded murderer. Period!!

  21. Pam says:

    Fred, “everybody loves to see justice done……..on someone else.” No, I love seeing justice done on someone who said it was “fun” to repeatedly stab a helpless woman begging for her life. No, I love seeing justice done on someone who has never shown true remorse for her crimes. No, I love seeing justice done on someone who volunteers herself for heinous murder. No, I love seeing justice done on someone who claimed she only stabbed a corpse. No, I love justice done on someone who once said “my life goes on” when asked about her victims. LVH is a cold blooded murderer. Period!!

  22. Fred Bloggs says:

    Hi Pam ! 👋

    I’ve said something like this before and I’ll say it again.
    If you have a good reason to keep someone who committed murder 51 years ago in prison, I don’t actually have a problem with that. The person can hardly complain about it. But give a good reason, within the laws that you supposedly uphold and represent. If you are going to give lame duck assertions like:

    Moreover, she continued to follow Mr. Manson’s instructions and “continued to prepare for the revolution” until she was arrested. The inconsistency indicates gaps in Ms. Van Houten’s insight or candor, or both, which bear on her current risk for dangerousness. The evaluating psychologist noted that several historical factors including “prior violence, violent attitude, other antisocial behavior, troubled relationships, traumatic experiences, and substance abuse problems are present and relevant to future risk of violent recidivism.” These factors remain salient despite Ms. Van Houten’s advanced age and remain cause for concern should she be released into the community

    when the parole board whose job it is to evaluate these matters clearly state:

    PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GROUNDS: “So, you’re not violent before the life crime. You’re nonviolent when you’re out on your own recognizance while you’re going through the trials, and you’ve been nonviolent for 50 years”

    then you’ve got problems. It’s one thing to say “I believe that anyone that commits murder should either face the death penalty or remain incarcerated for the rest of their life” if that is the sentence that the person you speak of is under. It’s another thing altogether to impose your opinion on a situation that does not apply. And the truth here is that your feeling, however genuine, does not apply. It’s a bit like saying “I think I should be able to drive at any speed I want” when the speed limit is 20MPH. The issue isn’t what you think the limit should be, it’s how do you answer what the laws actually determine ?
    I’ve watched for both Guv’nors Brown and Newsom to come out with a solid reason for keeping LVH in jail and that they haven’t yet done so by this point tells me they cannot. And trying to justify it with stuff that, as has been pointed out many times, is demonstrably untrue {just read the 7 parole hearing transcripts on this site} is,as an old buddy of mine would intone, weak sauce. Interestingly, neither has had the balls to come right out, like Gina over at Mansonblog, and say they think she’ll kill again. And I don’t believe either man seriously believes that.
    I would bet that LVH knows herself and can evaluate 🧠 her life way deeper, clearer and better than either Jerry Brown or Gavin Newsom can theirs !

  23. Cybele Moon says:

    I would bet that LVH knows herself and can evaluate 🧠 her life way deeper, clearer and better than either Jerry Brown or Gavin Newsom can theirs !

    not sure about that Fred.

    Whatever we think, I doubt if LVH will ever be able to really “evaluate” all the ramifications of her participation in such gruesome murders.

    I can’t, and probably Brown and Newsome can’t either, but then most of us find it difficult to imagine ourselves in that situation of wanting to participate in such murders.

    If she does it must be unbearable.

  24. Paul says:

    Cybele

    Leslie has probably spent the majority of her life evaluating who she is and how she got to the places she did. When you involved in something as horrendous as murder (with the exception of psychopath) but have got remorse then you tend to re-evaluate who you are as a person and Leslie has clearly been struggling with that through out her entire incarceration. She probably spent more longer evaluating herself than either of the governors ever did. She’s definitely had the time to do so.

    She is taking responsibility for the crime and her actions more than I think she should actually so she can’t really do any more to please you or the governors. She’s dammed either way.

  25. Michael says:

    Paul, I agree that she can’t do any more to please the Governor, because he sets up standards that are vague (“hasn’t taken full responsibility; lacks insight, etc.”) and can always be interpreted against her. That way he can indefinitely keep her in prison by saying, “Not insightful enough, not remorseful enough, try again next year.”

    But some of us aren’t waiting for her to “please” us because we do – at least, I sure do – recognize she is remorseful and seems to have matured into a responsible adult. I do not feel rehabilitation warrants release after a crime like this, so it’s not a matter of pleasing, because I really am pleased to see her growth. But no matter how well a person is doing now I don’t feel they should be released after such a crime.

    I also know that’s a moral issue, not a legal one, and I don’t think Newsom’s reasoning is legally solid. But my point is, don’t assume that those of us who oppose parole for Leslie can’t see the changes in her. We can. We just feel that what she’s done outweighs those changes.

  26. Paul says:

    Micheal I certainly don’t think that of everyone who is against her parole Think she’s an unchanged evil psychopath. I know people like you and Cybele have acknowledged her progression. I for one can’t hold Leslie to the standards of Watson and Krenwinkel he should probably remain behind bars (especially Watson). For all the killers that are getting out on parole Leslie is the least of our worries.

  27. Michael says:

    I appreciate that Paul. Yeah, the Trumps and the Pelosi’s will probably double date before Watson or Krenwinkel are seriously considered for parole. I doubt we’ll be having these kind of discussions about them anytime soon.

  28. Cybele Moon says:

    Paul, we don’t have to be murderers or be in prison to be introspective and/or examine our lives or consciences either. Not that Leslie doesn’t do that but we can’t speak for anyone else including governors who very well may be swayed by popular opinion just as some were swayed into thinking murder was acceptable. Maybe they (governors who get the last word) struggle with that. We don’t know. But as you see on this board, the posters are only stating their opinions on legalities, justice etc. It seems the heinousness of the murders has been emphasized once again in his (Governor’s) report. Maybe some wrote to the governor. I didn’t but I’d love to know how this might have influenced him if it did. Why are they afraid then to release a Manson member (of those particular nights of murder)? Why would it be political suicide?

  29. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    PS I don’t get paid for representing Leslie or for any of the interviews I’ve done. Leslie has earned my efforts. Just want to put any speculation regarding that to rest. On the other hand, Debra Tate DOES get paid for her interviews. This is her “job” and has paid very well through the years

  30. Cybele Moon says:

    thanks for that link. It was an interesting and thoughtful interview. I’m a history buff from University days and way back in 1917, The Romanov family before they were brutally murdered sought asylum with the the Tsar’s Cousin, George V of England. He refused because of the political backlash also and we know what the outcome was. There are many other incidents in history like this so, right or wrong I suppose this is not unusual to protect one’s position as perhaps the Governor is doing.

  31. Billy Esquire says:

    Rich, thanks for posting the link to your interview. I didn’t even know Court TV was still around!

    I thought Ashleigh Banfield did a great job on your interview. She really seemed to know the case very well, which is definitely not always the case with reporters. She hit on something that I completely agree with, and that was….to continue to hold Leslie when she has satisfied all requirements for parole many times over is “cruel and unusual punishment”. There’s no doubt about that, so I don’t see how she can legally continue to be held. A judge…..a court….somewhere, needs to do their duty and order her release immediately.

  32. Stephen Craig says:

    Re: Rich’s comment on Debra Tate being paid for interviews I’d like to say that although I am not a particular “fan” of Ms. Tate’s, I think it’s reasonable to say that she and her family have suffered in ways in which most people can only imagine. The impact of her sister’s/nephew’s murder horrified America: imagine what it must have been like for those who knew and loved these particular victims. Knowing how (in this case) my sister spent the last moments of her life would (I would think) scar me for the rest of my own life, and perhaps even taint the way I look at the world and how I would view the concept of “justice”. So, IMO, if Ms. Tate is paid for her interviews, big deal. Both she and her family have paid an enormous price for the actions of the “family” that LVH aligned herself with in the late 1960’s. If Rich’s alluding to Ms. Tate being paid for interviews is an attempt to paint her/her motivations in a negative
    light, I would (with all due respect and for the sake of fairness) advise him to support his client without doing so. For, no matter how I/any of us may feel about Ms. Tate, none of us have walked in her shoes, and I would venture to say, none of us would ever want to. She, like the other family members of those killed on those horrible nights, is a survivor; “surviving” the aftermath of these tragic acts (and in the death of her sister, and all the sorrow she and her family has had to endure, I have nothing but sympathy for her).

  33. Cybele Moon says:

    Agreed Stephen and to be fair I have not seen anything lately from Ms. Tate on this. The interview was well done though it didn’t really represent both sides, but after hearing Rich Pfeiffer’s life experience I’m not surprised that he advocates for LVH and the idea of rehabilitation. I’m not sure how this idea of the police department not arresting the Manson family for violations previous to the murders changes anything in regard to the murders. But as for the Tate family they have had plenty of tragedy and a courageous mother who paved the way for the two sisters to become victim’s advocates as a family legacy. I had previously seen that Kim Goldman (O.J. Simpson victim) had nothing but praise for Debra Tate.

  34. Michael says:

    Rich, you presented very well on Court TV, and Leslie is fortunate to have you in her corner. But I felt Ashleigh’s bias was evident from the start, so for me, that diminished the integrity of the interview. Thanks, though, for sharing the link.

  35. Christy says:

    Paul, Leslie is a lightening rod and set herself up for it during the trial. She may not want to be now.

    But invading someone’s home to specifically kill them for some guru is no different than Richard Ramirez.

  36. Michael says:

    Christy, her crime definitely set her up to be a lightening rod. But her behavior during the trial sealed her fate, as far as I’m concerned. To this day, looking at the photos and footage of her smirking at the camera, skipping down the halls, and acting like her murders were a joke to laugh about, makes me want to slap her, even though I fully believe she’s a changed woman. I know she was under Manson’s domination but she still had the choice, first whether or not to kill, and second, whether or not to mock the agony of her victim’s families by treating it all like a game. I think that also contributes to the “lightening rod” effect.

  37. Pam says:

    Agree Cybele Moon, LVH has never been able to evaluate the reasons and ramifications for her actions. She still speaks about the impact her parents’ divorce played on her actions. Many people divorced in the 1950s and their children didn’t go out and murder. She talks about her need to fit in. What does that have to do with her heinous crime? There is something deeper going on beside divorce and not fitting in. Newsom was right when he talked about her lack of understanding about her true reasons for these crimes. I think Vincent B nailed it in his book. CM had the ability to pick out sociopaths and LVH was just one of them. How can you release someone who has such little insight into why she really
    committed these crimes??

  38. Billy Esquire says:

    Then again, Pam, maybe she has complete insight into everything and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Your opinion is just an opinion, yet you present it as fact. It’s not.

    In all probability, the FACTS suggest that Leslie was messed up for a variety of reasons when she committed her crimes, but now she’s not messed up…..no more than you or I. If we’re looking for the truth, that’s most likely the truth. Leslie is no more the same person she was over 50 years ago than we are. People that have significant problems don’t have a history of perfect behavior for 50+ years.

    Just because a lot of people can’t or don’t want to give Leslie grace now doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve grace. She does.

  39. Cybele Moon says:

    Billie,
    She is in a very restrictive women’s prison environment and yes I’m sure she has done well there and has had plenty of time to think about it. She’s very intelligent and I think also- very adaptable as some people are. Yet, I have no doubt that had she remained with Manson and they had not been caught she would have continued on in their lifestyle which included murder and mayhem.
    Yes, they were messed up then for a variety of reasons as many of the youth are in all eras.

    As to being no more messed up than the rest of us now, who knows? Most of us carry some baggage in our lives but most of us haven’t spent decades in prison nor will we have to live the rest of us our lives with murder on our consciences. Of course she deserves grace and redemption, however because of her own choices many years ago, she now, right or wrong, and possibly because of the public opinion, the hype, and the whole unusual history of the case, has a hard time just walking out the gates.

    Michael, I agreed with the one sidedness of the interview and also to add to some info about Debra Tate i discovered. Apparently she is involved in other victim advocacies too, not just the Manson Family.

  40. Paul says:

    Micheal – “Rich, you presented very well on Court TV, and Leslie is fortunate to have you in her corner. But I felt Ashleigh’s bias was evident from the start, so for me, that diminished the integrity of the interview.”

    But the other guy in the piece clearly had his biases as well, he doesn’t seem too keen on her release and he didn’t try to hide it. Ashleigh did address the fact that the crime was heinous nevertheless so give her come credit. The amount of bias against Leslie over the years, i think there is no reason to get upset when someone seems to look the other way.

  41. Donna says:

    Debra Tate is an attention seeking opportunistic arm chair psychologist. She is not sympathetic rather she reeks of arrogance. Leslie did not murder her sister.

  42. Cybele Moon says:

    who cares Donna! Leslie did murder someone else’s Mother or sister. Let’s vilify a victim’s family member and call her names because she is in the spotlight. But whatever you think of Debra Tate she is not in the same category as the Manson Family. She has every right to protest as a Victim’s advocate and a victim of the Manson Family murders, arrogant or not. paid or not for her interviews.

  43. Michael says:

    Paul, Ashleigh was the journalist handling the narrative and interviews, and if the journalist covering the story is showing bias then the integrity of the story is compromised. Besides, I don’t agree that the man you mentioned was in any way against Leslie’s release, not that it would matter much since he wasn’t the one conducting the interviews or handling the story. The fact Ashleigh said the crime was heinous means little, since everyone, LVH herself included, already acknowledges that.

  44. Echo says:

    Michael said “don’t assume that those of us who oppose parole for Leslie can’t see the changes in her. We can. We just feel that what she’s done outweighs those changes.”

    I think you hit the nail on the head! Of course she’s changed in 50 years. She may even be remorseful NOW but when it happened, she could care less. Her and the other girls skipping smiling and singing down the court hallway. Laughing when the victims murder pics were shown in court. When the guilty verdict was read Leslie said “Your whole system is a game” Well Leslie, the game may not be fun for you anymore but taking peoples lives in such a vicious manner means you get to play the game until the day you die. CHECKMATE

  45. Paul says:

    Micheal “Besides, I don’t agree that the man you mentioned was in any way against Leslie’s release, not that it would matter much since he wasn’t the one conducting the interviews or handling the story.” Oh he clearly was against her parole, that was obvious in his response, but he too should have kept his personal feelings zipped.

    “The fact Ashleigh said the crime was heinous means little“ that is not true, she wasn’t blowing smoke up anyone ass, she appeared to nudge in favour of Leslie but I don’t see the problem? I don’t think you’d have one if it was the other way around

  46. Christy says:

    Donna one of reasons Doris Tate helped found the Victims Rights movement was to prevent Leslie from getting parole in the, I think, early 80s. And Leslie didn’t murder her daughter. Both of Doris’s other daughters have/had continued with this.

    I see it the same way as someone speaking out against a murderous gang member who didn’t murder their own relative but acts in sympathy with the people that did lose their relative.

  47. Cybele Moon says:

    thank you Christy. I think a victim’s advocate can stand up for anyone.

    and also people often forget that the Manson Family was a collective, maybe divided into those that murdered and those that didn’t.

  48. Peter says:

    Where does the information come from in your interview that there was an informant at Spahn for a month prior to the raid and that the DA gave the police instructions to let them all go?

  49. Jason Miller says:

    I am of a bit of two minds about her release, although ultimately I don’t feel it should happen. Sure, her involvement in the T/LB murders was only on one day, and it’s likely she stabbed the victim post-mortem. But think about the actual act of stabbing a woman in the back. Not once, twice, but 16 – 16 times. That’s viciousness the likes of which I do not even understand where it comes from. You have to be harboring some very serious rage to actually plunge a knife into someone 16 times in a row. I think it actually makes it worse if it was post-mortem – the utter desecration of a corpse ? This was a heinous crime.

    LVH has everything going against her. Nobody in politics (especially Gavin Newsom) would ever commit political suicide by releasing a Manson family member. And the murders were just far too famous, and far too vicious, and far too bizarre to ever really lead the public at-large to be OK with any of them walking free. As others have said, she already got her parole – she was sentenced to the gas chamber and should have been gone decades ago. Through no effort of her own, but sheer luck, she was allowed to live out her life. That’s as good as it’s going to get for her.

    All in all, let’s just honestly look at the situation – can you really imagine a Manson family member present either night really being let out into society? Bar Kasabian, the star witness, who was a fairly new family member, and did not participate in the violence.

    She needs to accept the fact that she will die in prison. All of them will. Personally, I think it’s the right course, although if you wanted my personal opinion, I don’t think it’d be that big of a deal if she was to live out the remaining years of her life on house arrest, but that’s on the very far end of a liberal viewpoint that I can only take some of the time. Usually when I contemplate in detail the whole story I don’t really remain of that mind.

    I’d be curious to learn more about how/why Steve Grogan got out of prison. He served a pretty short sentence and was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Hard for me to understand how leading them to the body, or having been deemed too stupid to have been acting of his own accord could have gotten him out of prison.

  50. Michael says:

    Jason, I’ve always been a little puzzled by Grogan’s release, too. He was competent enough to commit these crimes and engage in all the post-murder coverups and strategies the others did, so I found the “incompetence” excuse a little weak.

    But in 1985, (pre-internet) when he was released, the less notorious members of the family weren’t as much in the public consciousness as Manson, Watson, and the 3 girls. That might account for Deukmejian’s willing to sign off on it. Who knows, if Bobby and Bruce were seriously considered eligible for parole back then by the board, even they might have slipped through. Remember, Bugliosi predicted relatively short prison sentences for all of them in his initial version of Helter Skelter. (15-20 years, can you believe it?) But the web keeps the details and identities alive and accessible for generations.

  51. Daniel Mulcahy says:

    Re Steve Grogan release.

    All, except Steve Grogan, were involved in one or more of the 3 Helter Skelter incidents.

    I understand that the killing of Gary Hinman was either a cause or catalyst for the Tate-LaBianca murders. His killer, Bobby Beausoleil, now claims the Hinman murder was a result of a personal drugs disagreement between him and Hinman. He does this to try and separate himself from Manson and the Helter Skelter killings because he knows continued association with this nightmare will ensure he remains imprisoned for natural life. However, the consensus seems to be that the Hinman killing was done to get money – the mysterious Hinman inheritance fund – for evacuation of the Family to the promised land in the desert. There is also testimony that the subsequent Tate Labianca murders were undertaken at least in part as a copycat crime to “prove” Bobby (in custody at the time) was innocent.

    Steve Grogan was present in the car that dropped off the La Bianca killers but did not participate. Although Grogan was convicted of participation in the murder of Shorty Shea (and originally sentenced to death), Shorty was killed for more conventional reasons. As far as I’m aware, the murder was motivated by Manson’s personal dislike of Shea, that Shea was suspected of having informed on the motor theft project and was trying to have the Family evicted from Spahn Ranch. In other words, Grogan’s crime was not tainted by association to the Tate-Labianca atrocities. That would be no consolation to Shorty’s relatives; I don’t know if any spoke at Grogan’s successful parole hearing. But Shorty seemed to be a loner and perhaps there was not the powerful lobby against his release as there is for the other murders.

    Bruce Davis, who accompanied Manson to torture Gary Hinman prior to his death, was convicted of both Hinman and Shea murders. Although almost a mere footnote, arguably the Hinman murder was the worst of the lot, given the length of time he was held in terror prior to being killed.

  52. Cybele Moon says:

    Thanks for that info put into perspective Daniel.

    Peter mentioned something about the LAPD conspiracy theories by Tom O’ Neill and is mentioned by Rich Pfeiffer in his interview.
    I don’t think the incompetence or the cover up (supposed) by the LAPDi is a mitigating factor as to the actual murders or murderers. I read the book but it got a bit heavy and convoluted I thought, with people that said this and that now long departed so no way to confirm it all. America loves it’s conspiracy theories and they do make for good reading. Most don’t hold too much weight.

  53. Gorodish says:

    Daniel Mulcahy wrote:
    “All, except Steve Grogan, were involved in one or more of the 3 Helter Skelter incidents.”

    Like you mentioned, Clem was along on the LaBianca murders night. That legally makes him a co-conspirator. He was part of Death Squad #2 that night, but Kasabian’s subterfuge aborted the mission in the Venice apartment building. He should have been indicted and convicted with Manson, Watson, et al, but someone got lazy with the paperwork and let him slide; probably due to his Academy Award performance back then, playing the spaced-out lunatic. He was also legally an adult, aged 18, during the murders. A former prosecutor, Judge Burton Katz, was his champion for parole. He also had an ace in the hole for LE, Shorty’s burial site. The lack of corpus delicti always nagged the police, and that was the main catalyst for his eventual release, Also, I don’t know why you wouldn’t classify Shorty’s murder as the 4th Helter Skelter incident. A dozen Mansonites were involved with that one.

  54. Peter says:

    It would have been exceedingly difficult to convict Clem as a coconspirator. First, there would have been no corroborating evidence other than the testimony of the coconspirators. Second they were alive when Clem left. Maybe felony murder because you might prove he was there for the commission of a felony that resulted in a death as the crime was already in progress when he left. Clem may have even abandoned the conspiracy when they buried the gun on the beach and went home. Would have been a hard case to prove.

  55. Christina says:

    Really grace was given to her by not giving her the death sentence that she deserved instead they kept her alive and we get to pay for that with our tax money hopefully she dies in prison and rotten in hell after she dies all this people that wants her out I ask to put yourselves in the victims family position special Sharon’s mom to have your daughter and her unborn baby murder I don’t think she deserves to be free and live happily.

  56. Paul says:

    Christina “all this people that wants her out I ask to put yourselves in the victims family position special Sharon’s mom to have your daughter and her unborn baby murder I don’t think she deserves to be free and live happily.”

    The problem with your statement is that Sharon’s case is pretty much irrelevant to Leslie give she’s not serving time for her murder.

  57. Christina says:

    Might as well be she was involved in other murder’s with the manson’s family and they all wanted to become one so she deserves to pay the same as all other’s, Oh you mean to tell me the La Bianca murders were less horrendous and that’s why she deserves to be free?

  58. Mickey R says:

    When trying to analyze Gavin Newson’s reasons for bending over backwards to find LVH a current danger, do not overlook the fact that he is now facing an actual recall threat. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/With-his-star-dimmed-California-s-Newsom-could-15799290.php

    Justice, following the law, etc. have little if anything to do with his thinking. It’s all politics, all the time. In California, recalls do happen – to our trial court judges, to our Supreme Court judges and to our Governors. Newson wants to be President – a successful recall will end his dream.

  59. Cybele Moon says:

    Christina, it’s interesting isn’t it? They were or became a collective in people’s minds- the Manson Family The murders are called the Tate/LaBianca murders. Murder is murder at any rate. They thought there would never be a consequence and that they would get away with it. They all became famous or infamous for the bizarre nature and gruesomeness of the crimes. Someone else here said that they joked and laughed throughout the trial. I guess that would be hard to forget for the victim’s families.

  60. JNL says:

    Stephen Kay and the Tate ladies were/are also committed to making sure that society did not forget the Manson murderers. Under criminal law, a crime is, theoretically, committed against the community and the values of it. Thus, the reason the State brings the case to court. And the reason the governors of California keep using the words “danger to society” when denying parole. If ever there were murders committed to shock a community, they were those from the Manson gang.

  61. Michael says:

    JNL, that reminds me of Watson’s instructions to Atkins to put a message in blood on the front door after the carnage: “Write something that will shock the world.” Mission accomplished. They really can’t walk that back.

  62. Cybele Moon says:

    JNL,
    that’ s a very interesting point. There was definitely a social significance to their actions in light of the whole hippy movement of the time. They twisted that movement to their own bizarre view of the world.

  63. Lee says:

    I wonder if she still thinks it was “fun” and worth it, to help start the revolution? Leslie, you don’t get a restart after what you did! You will stay where you are!

  64. Paul says:

    Christina “Might as well be she was involved in other murder’s with the manson’s family and they all wanted to become one so she deserves to pay the same as all other’s, Oh you mean to tell me the La Bianca murders were less horrendous and that’s why she deserves to be free?”

    Doesn’t matter if she was involved in other Manson family murders, the Tate case is not one of them so if you are going to make a case for the victims, keep it with the LaBianca’s. Not saying that one of the two crimes were less horrendous than the other with the expectation that fact that more people died the first night. Leslie is not serving time for 7 counts of murder like the others, she is doing time for 2 and even though her involvement is terrible, she never killed physically herself. I believe if Patrica Krenwinkel was to remain behind bars for the rest of her life, it would be primarily for the case of Abigail Folger but not for Sharon Tate as there is no evidence she interacted with her and probably wasn’t in the room when she died. I will only hold each participant accountable for the actions of each individual, not as a group because that’s a false tactic in my view, as far as i am concerned i would not hold Leslie accountable for the writing on the wall in blood or anything her crime partners did.

    Sure some don’t see it that way but that how i will always see it this way, and I think its the only fair way to make a good assessment of the situation.

  65. Michael says:

    Paul it’s true Leslie shouldn’t be held accountable for the Hinman, Tate, or Shea killings because she didn’t participate in those. But as a co-conspirator she aided and abetted all the actions of Pat and Charles W. that night, including the bloody writing.

    Pat should remain behind bars not just for stabbing Folger, but Mrs. LaBianca as well. (And of course, she was a participant in all the other killings both nights, even if she stabbed no one else.) Also, according to both Watson and Atkins, Pat was standing there when Sharon was killed.

  66. Christina says:

    I guess putting a pillow case over Mrs. La Bianca and wrapping a cord around her neck is not enough and also stabbing her after she was dead well that’s what she claims Oh and on her way to her trial she was skipping and singing like she was proud of her crime. Sorry but all these years she’s been incarcerated are not enough she was able to get married and get her degrees and so many other things that the victims were deprived of doing She actually been bless in there they have keep her warm, fed and a and a roof over her head she’s too old anyways and no good to society just keep her there till she dies Just like Her messiah Manson partner in crime Atkins.

  67. Cybele Moon says:

    Christina,
    Even were she freed I doubt that she will ever be free in the real sense of the word. She is now 71 years old and her former cohorts are also in the same boat. Adjustment to a strange and very troubled outside world of today, might be near impossible at her age- especially after 50 years in prison, as well as prior to that, having lived in a bizarre cult.
    What usually are the productive years are pretty much behind her. She will continue to be reviled by many. Such is the consequence of her actions. So either way it’s a sad situation. It’s hard for the average person to imagine including what her poor parents must have had to accept and go through.

  68. Paul says:

    Michael – “But as a co-conspirator she aided and abetted all the actions of Pat and Charles W. that night, including the bloody writing.”

    But she wasn’t the one who did therefore i won’t put that the responsibility of it on Leslie, it goes to Pat. Leslie even said she kept busy wiping fingerprints so she didn’t have to get involved in the gruesome activity of that Pat and Tex where doing on Mr LaBianca.

    “Pat should remain behind bars not just for stabbing Folger, but Mrs. LaBianca as well. (And of course, she was a participant in all the other killings both nights, even if she stabbed no one else.)”
    i’m not saying its solely for the death of Folger but primarily because she is the really the only death Pat is actually responsible for. But she was also partly responsible for the deaths of Rosemary to a lesser degree (though she did attempt to kill her) and she is responsible for the writings on the walls and puncturing the wounds on Mr. Labianca.

    “Also, according to both Watson and Atkins, Pat was standing there when Sharon was
    killed.”

    I’m not sure where you got that from, if its from Tex’s and Susan books i’ve never read them but we know Pat was at the guest for a period and by the time she returned to the house everyone was likely dead though i obviously do not know that as fact, and we probably will never know.

  69. Paul says:

    Christina – “Oh and on her way to her trial she was skipping and singing like she was proud of her crime.”

    Its funny because every time people say this to me, I see completely differently, to me its makes me realize just how skewed their mindset was during the crime and trial, their reality was so contrast to the rest of society because this long period of indoctrination and brain washing. These girls knew the death penalty was a possibility but they didn’t seem to care, in fact Leslie incriminated herself in the Hinman murder in which she was never present because she asked to by Manson, she certainly was not trying to save her own back even then.

  70. Christina says:

    Paul — These girls knew the death penalty was a possibility but they didn’t seem to care

    I think They really thought Manson was Jesus and that they all were untouchable and he was going to save them, I just don’t understand how weak minded you can be to believe in such evil character or maybe they love that life style of drugs ,sex and crime, I guess they found out the hard way that their Jesus was just like them.

  71. Cybele Moon says:

    In the end it really doesn’t matter what we think or don’t think. The gruesomeness of the crimes was enough to put them all behind bars for life no matter the details of who exactly stabbed this person or that, or wrote on this wall or not, or just wiped off the fingerprints of their partners in crime. They were all in it together whether they were crazy, brainwashed or not. They became a symbol for everything that can ever go wrong with the youth and alternative life styles, they are a parent’s worst nightmare. They did make an impact! And for that they may never get out.

  72. Michael says:

    Paul, Pat went to the guest house on Watson’s instructions after she stabbed Folger on the lawn. She went to the guest house door but decided not to enter, and to pretend no one was inside. (Per her own admissions on record)

    Meanwhile, on the front lawn, Watson finished killing Folger, then finished killing Frykowski who had managed to stagger a bit further away. Then both of them returned to the main house. (Per Watson) According to both Watson and Atkins, Patricia was standing in the living room when Tate was killed. Watson recounts Pat urging him to kill her, and Atkins recounts Pat not being able to do the actual stabbing though she stood there and witnessed it. (Per both Watson and Atkins) Also, in the car on the way back to Spahn’s, Pat recalled hearing “that girl” cry for her mother. (Per Bugliosi) Watson described Sharon crying for her mother, so Pat must have been there to hear it.

    This is all academic, though, when it comes to guilt. Whenever I read of Susan or Pat talking about who they did NOT stab, I think of an SS guard at a concentration camp saying, “Yes, I marched the prisoners into the gas chamber and locked the door, but I did not personally drop the Zyklon B pellets.”

    Who on earth cares? Participation in murder is murder.

  73. Paul says:

    Cybele – The gruesomeness of the crimes was enough to put them all behind bars for life no matter the details of who exactly stabbed this person or that, or wrote on this wall or not, or just wiped off the fingerprints of their partners in crime.

    This is exactly my point, you keep saying it doesn’t matter, but yes Cybele it absolutely does 100%, and the gruesomeness the case doesn’t change that either so I don’t understand why you think that’s relevant. You cannot keep someone in prison for the actions of their co-defendants, even if they where present at the same crime.

  74. Paul says:

    Micheal

    “Watson described Sharon crying for her mother, so Pat must have been there to hear it.”

    Did you ever see that article that apparently showed Tex’s annotations to his Wikipedia page and he crossed out the section that talked about this claim saying it wasn’t true.

    “(Per Watson) According to both Watson and Atkins, Patricia was standing in the living room when Tate was killed. Watson recounts Pat urging him to kill her, and Atkins recounts Pat not being able to do the actual stabbing though she stood there and witnessed it.”

    Even their accounts don’t cooperate each other very well, everyone’s got their own version and non match identically. I’ve heard at least three version of the events at the guesthouse as well, that Pat only got as far as then door and just turned away, another that she tried the handle but couldn’t open it, or that she actually went inside and saw no one there but just a light on. William Garretson claimed while he was using that night, he saw someone attempting to open the door
    so We will never have 100% certainty of how the events unfolded.

    “Who on earth cares? Participation in murder is murder.”

    Yes its murder but that doesn’t make a difference to my point at all, if you don’t care than that is a personal matter with you that should stay with just you,but its not an a valid excuse in the real world and especially in the legal system.

  75. Cybele Moon says:

    HI Paul,
    not sure I “completely” understand your point here re :gruesomeness! No one was actually there to see who did what, just the statements of those whose motives might be suspect or even their memories, of such a horrific event.
    However, LVH was present, we believe she held Mrs. Labianca down and aided and abetted her partners in all, repeatedly stabbed a ” corpse” ( though no one can ever be completely sure the woman was deceased) and did nothing to prevent the horror from happening. I believe that makes you just as guilty as everyone else there if not quite as bloodthirsty.
    You always say “the legal system” as though it’s a constant. It never has been. They used to execute 14 year olds, but changes occurred because “people” demanded changes etc. So don’t hold up the legal system as though it is synonymous with justice- at least in my opinion.
    That’s not to say I will be unduly upset if they do release her eventually either but I do believe in calling a spade a spade.

  76. Paul says:

    “However, LVH was present, we believe she held Mrs. Labianca down and aided and abetted her partners in all, repeatedly stabbed a ” corpse” ( though no one can ever be completely sure the woman was deceased)”

    She was very likely dead if not close to death, hopefully she was dead by then or least unconscious during Leslie infliction’s, and since she made no obvious response to it (no moan or groan etc.) she probably had expired by this point. Not saying that exempts Leslie responsibility but stabbing a probable corpse certainly isn’t a reason to keep her incarcerated for her entire life, given the fact so many killers are paroled on the regular unbeknownst to us, especially where I come from, where very rarely does a life sentences actually mean life. And lets be honest, the only reason Leslie did that was because Tex ordered her to do so, otherwise she probably would not have touched Mrs. LaBianca again.

    “and did nothing to prevent the horror from happening. I believe that makes you just as guilty as everyone else there if not quite as bloodthirsty.”

    Of course she didn’t prevent it, she intended to do what they did, because she believed it was the “right” thing to do and as horrible as the that is and we might not be able to grasp the concept some of them thought that what they did was the right thing even if found the act really difficult, which Leslie had and even maybe Susan and Pat did, but maybe not quite as difficult for them.

  77. EMH says:

    Exactly! Why are they afraid to let LVH out? Steve Grogan that actually chopped someone up and decapitated them, has been free since 1985. He finally told them where Shortys body was and they freed him.

    I’d be way more concerned about releasing him than LVH. The reason is political. The Tate murders were in a Hollywood stars home, her husband being even more famous. Had they killed unknowns that night like the Labiancas the following night, they’d all be free now.

  78. EMH says:

    Echo, tell that to all the other victims families that lost loved ones by murder, yet they’re killers are out already. LVH has become a political prisoner, period.

    They’re have been very gruesome murders since the Manson murders and many of these murderers are out after 30 years. I know one, unfortunately. He served 17 years, out for good behavior. His partner in the murder got out after serving 23 years.

    The problem is none of these other murder victims were famous. Had they only killed the LaBiancas, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. They’d all be out.

    That may seem rude towards the Tate family but its not meant to. After 52 years Debra Tate really needs to move on. She’s only out for vengeance. Vengeance is mine says the Lord. Its not ours!

    LVH is the second longest serving criminal in the Cali prison system. The first being Krenwinkle. What there’s never been any other gruesome murderers that got out? Wrong, there has.

    There’s a man that just got out after serving 34 years for murdering his wife only ten feet or so away from their infant child. He beat her so bad he split her skull into three parts and, stabbed her over 30 times. He’s now out in a half way house. Do you think her families happy? I doubt it but that’s how the law works.

  79. Thomas B says:

    I feel for Leslie but she had her chance at the trial and refused to do anything to assist with the prosecution of Manson who’s entire case rested on the testimony of Linda Kasabian. Had Leslie agreed to cooperate the trial would have been over in a 3 months instead of 9 and she would have gotten a reduced sentence. There are consequences to actions.

  80. SarcasticBimbo says:

    I’m glad she won’t be released.

Leave a Reply to Mich Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *