May. 22 – Governor Jerry Brown relied on isolated negative factors to support his conclusion that Leslie Van Houten posed an unreasonable risk if released on parole, according to a court filing made by her attorneys in response to one made by the state’s Attorney General’s office three weeks ago.
On May 3, Deputy Attorney General Jill Vander Borght defended Brown, asserting his decision relied on both the murders and Van Houten’s minimization of her role in them. Vander Borght argued that Brown had broad discretion while considering parole suitability and that the record supported his position.
In response, Van Houten’s attorneys, Richard Pfeiffer and Nancy Tetreault, filed a 39-page traverse, arguing dissonance between the record and Brown’s conclusions.
“Under the law, the standard for parole suitability must be the same for Leslie Van Houten as it is for all other inmates in California,” wrote Tetreault. “She cannot be denied parole because she is tainted by the stigma of Charles Manson. [She] must be viewed for her own conduct involving the commitment offenses, and not judged by the conduct of Manson.”
Time to let her out.
I truly believe that Leslie her lawyers are against her, trying to keep her in prison to protect their own public reputation. Because why else would they advise her to keep on lying to the parole board about Charles Manson? You do not have to be very educated to know that telling lies does never make a good impression. How can a governor agree with a parole if the lies are so obvious?
What lies are you referring to? I just want you to expand on your statement.
I am one of Leslie’s attorneys, I am working on this case for free, Leslie has earned that with the efforts she has given others through the years. I have no good reason to keep her in prison. My reputation would be enhanced only if she were released (although it would not be of my own doing, release is what Leslie has earned). Leslie has repeatedly been found by the parole Board to be honest. She has been very honest, brutally honest. Rich Pfeiffer
it won’t be easy for a nearing 70 woman who has been in prison 3/4 of her life. The stigma of and sensationalism of her crime doesn’t go away nor is the debt ever truly paid. The world has changed so much since she entered those prison gates nearly 50 years ago. Though I feel parole should not have been an option in this kind of crime, whatever happens I hope the victims families find peace.
Rich, thanks for taking the time to comment. Your take on all of this is obviously coming from a more informed and involved source than any of the rest of us. I’m among those who oppose Leslie’s release, because I don’t believe anyone who commits such a callous murder should ever be freed. I realize that others who’ve committed even more heinous crimes have been paroled, and I think that’s wrong, too. Still, it’s the law which matters, not my opinion, and it seems that the law calls for a rationale for keeping her in prison. Brown et al did not, to my thinking, provide such a rationale, because I see nothing in Leslie’s words or actions to indicate she hasn’t taken full responsibility for her crimes, displayed sincere remorse, and conducted herself in a productive and responsible way for decades. I’m with Cybele in that my sympathies are for the victims and their families more than for Van Houten, but that doesn’t negate my ability to see she has made huge strides and, for sure, has had a lot to overcome.
I’m just a small town antitrust lawyer, but I think Rich does a fantastic job representing his client. Leslie is lucky to have him in her corner. I’m always impressed with his advocacy and the quality of his briefing.
You can disagree on whether Leslie should be granted parole without slurring her attorney.
agreed!
I agree she has been a model prisoner but the facts remain the same. She willingly participated in the murders, she never experienced the fear & pain LaB’s went through, she was all about pleasing her master, CM. I know they were all on drugs & very young but they were of age to be held accountable for their actions. She could have done so many things that night to make it different but she made her choice to participate & for that she has to pay the price. It is sad for all families but justice has to be served, she is no different. I used to think she should be paroled but I think about that horrific crime & if that had been my family I would pray she never got out.
I joined Leslie’s legal team after the Governor’s reversal of the second finding by the parole board that Leslie is suitable for release on parole. I, like Rich Pfeiffer, am working for free. The legal standard for parole is whether Leslie CURRENTLY poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Her long record of reform, rehabilitation, soul-searching, and good-works proves she does not pose any current risk of danger. The law does not allow Leslie permanently to be branded as an unreasonable risk of danger when balanced against the person she is today. The law also prevents her from being denied parole because of her long-ago association with Charles Mason. An indeterminate life sentence presumes a realistic possibility of parole. The value of her 50-year-old crimes in determining her current parole suitability is zero, other than a yardstick against which her current reform can be measured. Regardless of how people view the murders, the woman Leslie is today meets the legal standard for release on parole. It benefits us all to have a legal standard evenly applied. It hurts us all to have Leslie denied parole because the Governor fears political fall out or because individuals find it preferable to ignore the law in favor of emotions.
Rich and Nancy,
You may be working LVH’s case pro bono, but you both also do receive considerable “free advertising” for your efforts on behalf of such a notorious convicted murderer. I don’t begrudge you that benefit, but it should be clear to everyone that it may factor in to your decision to work on the release of LVH rather than, perhaps, some other lesser-known convicts with your pro bono time.
As for your proofs of LVH’s suitability–well, it is hard for me to understand how any such concept can ever be proven. While proofs are possible in the world of theoretical mathematics, scientists realize (and so should you) that absolute proof of anything in the “real” world is actually not attainable. The best we can hope for are in science are increasingly plausible hypotheses that can be tested and retested in hope of refining them further–or at least until we think the answers are “good enough”. Your opinions on this matter of “who the woman Leslie is today” and whether she is suitable for release into free society are just that–opinions, not facts. Emotional statements like, “It hurts us all to have Leslie denied…” are also a matter of opinion, and I vehemently disagree that it hurts the families of LVH’s victims, or anyone who deeply empathizes with those people, to keep her in prison.
So, anyway, you folks obviously believe that LVH’s prison record gives evidence that she is “good enough” to be freed. Personally, I agree with the governor’s interpretation of her ever-evolving case–i.e., that she is still unsuitable–and I found the AG’s supporting arguments to be well-crafted and compelling.
The “accepted facts” that her PBs must consider include (1) eager participation in a horrific, brutal murder of two people selected at random, in order to catalyze a race war (2) she put a pillowcase over Rosemary’s head and secured it with a lamp cord, then held her down while Krenwinkle stabbed her (3) called Tex in to have a go (4) and had her turn in the stab-fest (5) etc, etc…
One could argue that her many years of incarceration have been spent learning how to game the system, figure out what pyschs want to hear, and outwardly toe the line and do “good works” in prison for the aim of satisfying her PBs–but Lawrence does leave the door ajar for a reasonable conclusion that the overwhelming cruelty, horror and context alone of LVH’s crime may be justifications enough for keeping her out of free society.
By definition everyone serving a sentence of life in prison is guilty of a criminal act that could be considered “egregious,” so to allow the Governor to rely solely on this factor would create a meaningless standard. The denial, even if based on the circumstances of the crime, has to be rationally related to a finding of “current dangerous.” This the Governor does not
Lawrence served only half the time in prison that Leslie has after murdering her lover’s wife by shooting her four times and stabbing her repeatedly with a potato peeler.
Flip, what is obvious about you is that you cannot understand that people generally find Leslie suitable tat you will say things like her lawyers are doing mainly for publicity or attempt to deny the evidence which is clear as day. Cybele and Michael admit this, but you can’t because your so compelled by the actual crimes, rational opinion aren’t working for you. Your comments give clear interpretation that you hear what you wanna hear then listen to the facts, which is funny because you’ve attempt to use this argument on me. The fact is your trying to make anything that proves Leslie suitably isn’t trustworthy, because of your moral standards.
Peter,
Hopefully you do realize that there are discernible gradations, even among crimes leading to life sentences. Thus, if LVH’s brutal torture-murders murders were also committed with the express aim of inciting a race war that was overtly planned to result in the deaths of many thousands, or millions, then I’d say she might still be a current danger.
This is all hypothetical, of course, but elements of exceptional brutality and cruelty coupled with LVH’s admission that “she had to do this” to help catalyze a devastating race war that would end society as we know it….yeah, I think all of that cannot, without harboring any reasonable doubts, be rehabilitated out of a murderer. LVH is a convicted murderer who really wanted to be a mass murderer on the scale of Hitler–that’s what the evidence suggests, and what she actually admits to, in so many words.
This is so ridiculous. Leave these cold blooded murderers in jail as long as their victims stay in the grave. Period. If she felt true remorse,she would never request parole. She asked to go that night, no force.
Paul, I mainly have a lot of trouble understanding the difference between fact and opinion in your version of the world.
If you tell me that anyone’s (including you) personal interpretation of factual evidence does not depend on their moral standards, then I’m calling BS.
It’s obvious that my arguments haven’t convinced you to adopt my point of view; I was really only hoping to convince you that others might be looking at the same accepted facts as you, but could actually come to a different opinion than yours.
As for what people generally think about LVH’s suitability–well, Paul, really–you must live in a vacuum. Earth-to-You: Manson-related forums do not necessarily represent a realistic cross-section of society. At her PB hearings, the number of submitted letters and petition signatures counseling against release always far outnumber the positive letters
recommending her release. The PB is not legally bound to be guided by that heavy imbalance of public opinion, but it is clearly there.
But they are all by definition “egregious.” What difference is it if one is “really egregious” as opposed to just “a little egregious” when the standard as the Governor defines it can rely on any and all gradations?
I’m also reluctant to attribute a Helter Skelter motive to Leslie. Rather than a Hitler wannabe, my impression is that she was just a f##ked-up young woman who wanted to be accepted by the people she thought loved her. I’m not saying that’s an excuse, but lets’ keep it in perspective.
Your not helping yourself Flip, the board know that the letter opposing her parole are from people like you who don’t know Leslie and obisovuly refuse to see her progression. Most of the people who wrote to the board to grant her parole actually know Leslie, and will know a lot more on the subject than yourself. You haven’t really addressed the proof of Leslie’s rehabilitation and taken it into account in your argument, and its obvious why. You have literally just proved my point, the board aren’t meant to be impacted by the pubic, but it has in the past, and you seem to okay with tat as long as it falls in line with your opinion, pathetic.
Peter,
LVH has admitted that she was eager to go out and kill randomly selected victims because she thought it was her duty. You may be reluctant to ascribe Helter Skelter to Leslie but, again, she has admitted that she believed that’s why she was at the Labianca’s home, slaying them to spark the race war.
By the way, I do also agree that she was a f##ked-up person who very much wanted to be accepted and loved by her fellow f##ked-up criminals in the Manson cult.
It’s been said before, but maybe worth repeating: Most drug-addled sleazeballs in the ’60s, even most of the members of the Manson cult, did not ever brutally murder anyone. Almost by definition, it takes a very, very special person with very unusual motivations to do the horrible things that LVH, Krenwinkle, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Manson, Beausoleil, Kasabian, etc were capable of doing. I think there is plenty of room for reasonable people to doubt that LVH has been rehabilitated to the point that she has somehow “earned” freedom.
Flip it’s being rehabilitated enough so they don’t pose a threat to society, not to earn freedom like it’s an award.
She admitted that she was eager to go out and kill randomly because she was a member of a cult. Even the State concedes the Family was a cult. And people in cults say a lot of stupid shit that they are programmed to say.
It’s not like she just showed up one day and decided to go out an commit these crimes. It was a process. She was groomed. And perhaps the scariest part, and the reason why this case still attracts the attention that it does, is that it didn’t take a very, very special person with unusual motivations. To the contrary, Leslie was conspicuously ordinary and wanting to be loved and accepted is about as universal a motive as there is.
Oh, Paul, c’mon–first, I’m not trying to help myself… Second, you don’t understand that a person’s rehabilitation cannot be proved, it can only be opined based on relevant evidence. Maybe “proved beyond reasonable doubt” is what you’re looking for. However, opinion still does not equal fact (except for your opinion, of course) and I don’t know that I can trust the opinions of LVH herself, LVH’s friends, her prison pysch’s, or her PB members who may say she is rehabilitated.
I candidly admit that I don’t know LVH and have never had any type of contact with her. And, knowing the facts of her case, I wouldn’t want to get acquainted–why would anyone want to be friends with someone who brutally murdered innocent, random people in a home invasion with the hope of starting a race war? I mean, really–don’t you have any self-respect at all?
I get it that defense lawyers professionally defend people like that in the legal system,
but I also imagine it makes their skin crawl sometimes to think about exactly who and what they are defending.
Paul,
I was also responding to what her attorney said,
“I am one of Leslie’s attorneys, I am working on this case for free, Leslie has earned that with the efforts she has given others through the years.” and “…release is what Leslie has earned”.
Comments?
Rehabilitation can be proved my friend, her prison record shows no indication of being a danger, she’s never had any 115 or 128as in the last 48 years, she’s been active in multiple programmes and classes, her psychologist reports aren’t going to make the same mistake again and again, they are professionals and will know a darn sight more than you ever will about it. She has apologized for her actions and knows now they were wrong. You can’t get any more proof than this, and in most cases, inmates even serving time for murder don’t have to prove that this much. So your denying everything than said by Leslie, her friends who know her, her multiple trained psychologists over a span of 48 years is credible enough, your obviously not taking anything into account that discredits your morals, and you don’t even try to hide it. Her attorneys knows what their dealing with and they believe absolutely she is more than suitable. It is so blatant your biased morals are making you brush off the evidence, but many people like you do this but the courts don’t give in to your cries like the governor did.
I know your trying to argue with her attorneys, but not very well I must say. By the way Flip, have you bothered to read the traverse document by her defence team?
very passionate arguments on both sides. Do I think that a 70 year old woman will be a danger in society,- probably not although I’m not sure releasing her at this late age is a kindness either. I also feel much more for the families than I do for any of the Manson clan. Leslie and the others made their horrific choices years ago. There are repercussions to this day no matter how good they have done in the structured environment of a prison.
I do have a problem in that unlike Paul and a few others I don’t buy totally into whether her crime was so much lesser than the others. She was willing with bells on by the sound of it. Dianne Lake in her book, remembers Leslie’s demeanor as gleeful when she described the stabbing to her plus she confided that she couldn’t be sure Mrs Labianca was dead. This is very different from her supporters claiming she was so reluctant. Dianne has nothing to gain as she was never charged.
Cybele Tex Watson who did most of the killings admitted that Leslie was very reluctant during the LaBianca murders, and not as enthusiastic as he and Patricia were in the murders.
Well, Paul, which way do you want it….
“…release is what Leslie has earned” as per Attorney Pfeiffer,
or “… it’s being rehabilitated enough so they don’t pose a threat to society, not to earn freedom like it’s an award.” as per Paul.
Did she earn it or not, according to you? I did read her attorneys’ filings. Are you completely sure that you read and understand all of your own assertions?
Paul, if I ever do anything wrong I hope I have you in my corner!! 😀 I give you credit for standing by your guns whether I agree with you or not!
Rich Pfeiffer is an excellent representative for Miss Van Houten. Going only by California’s own stats on Lifers, Leslie would have been released over 25 years ago had she not been associated with this over-publicized case.
Oh she has earned it because she doesn’t pose a threat to society and she has done that through the reasons I explained to you. By Law its her right but you can look at it as an reward for her efforts if you like, and in some respect that may be true.
Peter,
Do you really believe what you wrote,
“…To the contrary, Leslie was conspicuously ordinary and wanting to be loved and accepted is about as universal a motive as there is.”
Doesn’t that pretty drastically redefine the meaning of “ordinary”? And, does being needy for love and acceptance constitute some kind of mitigation, like “It was a crime of passion, to show the other cult members how much I loved them”?
I agree with you that she didn’t just show up at Spahn and decide to go murderin’…she was clearly groomed and influenced by Manson and others, especially Krenwinkle, but of course a large number of murdering Nazis had equally good arguments on their behalfs, maybe even better….I was only following orders of my superiors in wartime. Oh, wait, that’s what LVH said as well…she considered herself to be a soldier in CM’s murderous army and she was eager to please, even after learning the horrific carnage of the Tate
murders. Some of her testimony made it sound like she was downright jealous for being left out of the Cielo Drive murder party.
Flip
yes, it certainly looked that way, We are all dysfunctional human beings with issues. Most of us don’t go out an murder our neighbours in their homes. The worst Nazis who said they were only following the orders of their Fuhrer were still found accountable. I won’t argue anymore about who was worse than Leslie. Does that really matter? and how can they separate themselves from the Manson name and notoriety They were all part of it.
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
And l know you can say, “Well, Leslie didn’t have any mercy.” But that would only show that you don’t really get what mercy is.
true enough Peter.
As a child of six to eleven years, I remember the news of these trials. And as an adult, I’ve read the transcripts to form my own opinion. Leslie seemed to want to go and was very haughty at the trial showing no remorse. I have empathy for the aborted child buried in her backyard. The murders were brutal. All of the Manson family received the death penalty but the law reversed. In this case, life in prison without parole seems fair enough.
Think about how many times the victim’s families had to relive the events. And now, every year one former family member is up for parole. Horrible and injustice!
Leslie is not serving a death sentence commuted to life in prison. Her original conviction was reversed and she received a second trial where she was subsequently sentenced to life with the possibility for parole.
People keep talking about the victims’ families, but at this writing, none who were around at the time of the murders are still living except Debra Tate and Janet Parent.
Peter,
You seem much more intelligent and well-read than many of the “Free Leslie!” crowd and I can sometimes empathize with your viewpoint; however, the quote from Merchant of Venice seems to me inapt…
Those words were an emotional appeal to Shylock to forego his legal right to cut a pound of living flesh off of a loan defaulter. I would hardly put torture-murder with the intent to incite race war in the same class as loan defaulting.
Where do you draw the line, or is everyone equally deserving of social mercy? Note, I’m not asking for opinions about God’s mercy–that concept is much too abstract for me, and it doesn’t bother me that some folks may believe that their God grants “mercy to everyone”. But really, in a case where the crime was absolutely hideous, how do you ever know absolutely that rehabilitation is “proven beyond a shadow of doubt” and that the criminal should be released into free society? Shouldn’t our standards for mercy be related to the details and context of the crime?
I’m not sure what your point is Sunny but it sounds a bit callous. There are surviving family members of all victims including Steven Parents siblings. The loss is no less whether they were around at the time of the murders or whether they are more visible in the public eye by their protests.
Peter, reversed? she was granted a retrial because of the death of her attorney? and yes back then they tried to separate her from the other Mansonmembers because of her age, looks and middle class background to gain sympathy for her I believe. But make no mistake, she was a Manson follower and she was and is a murderer who knew right from wrong whether given mercy or not.
Ana, Leslie isn’t serving Life with without parole is she? Her sentence is lie with the chance of parole therefore she has the right to ask for it. Leslie isn’t serving life commuted from death as she was tried twice in the late 70s.
Cybele Don’t try to make out her defence tried to use her looks to gain sympathy from the public or the board. You keep saying she knew right from wrong, how do you know this because you weren’t there, her idea of what was right or wrong at that point could of been completely impaired by Manson.
As someone who has lost a loved one to violent crime, let me say that for me, the pain, the anger at the loss, never goes away. Yes, you do “pick up the pieces” and continue on with your own life, but nothing is ever the “same” again: ever. There truly is a sense of “before and after”. For me, the most painful aspect of it, other than the knowledge that my loved one was literally robbed of their life, was the violence, the sheer brutality of the act, and knowing that my family member had tried to negotiate with his killer, to reason with him while tied to a radiator in his own living room. Nor will I ever forget the condition of his house after the crime: the amount of blood was staggering. The sight of the gore and obvious struggle that had ensued left me speechless. All of this, and my memories of the funny, caring, unique individual who lost his life senselessly and in utter/unimaginable terror (according to his own killer) will always lurk in the shadows of my consciousness, sometimes cutting through the very fabric of my existence and bringing me back to that tragic time. But what I have always wrestled with, from the very moment of the perpetrators arrest, was the level of support for him, the rationale that was offered as if to explain the atrocity he was responsible for, and how his defense attorneys created an alternate narrative, attempting to display their client as a victim himself and someone who should be shown mercy. I guess the point of my writing this is to illustrate to those who seem to diminish LVH’s participation, or note the length of her incarceration, or ask where the victims loved ones/survivors are, or treat the La Bianca’s as “incidentals” instead of people who loved and were loved, that there are events that are so heinous, cause such grief, such harm, and which alter the lives of all those affected in the most profound ways, that forgiveness can be only be granted by the victims themselves, and that those who claim murderers like LVH or the man responsible for my cousin’s death deserve freedom/forgiveness,’know not what they speak”.
Stephen, sorry about the situation, you naturally wouldn’t want your loved ones killer out, but the government have the duty to follow the law, which was protects society and we all haven’t follow. The law can’t be manipulated by public cries and they can’t be influenced by sympathy. If you want to live in a civilized country you have to expect that laws have to be followed or your making a very corrupt government.
Stephen,
That was a very thoughtful and profound personal account–hope in the course of time you and your family do find some kind of inner peace.
Unfortunately, Paul is trying to school all of us with his simpleton version of a Civics 101 short-course; however, please know that there is real support and empathy available for you and your family in our society…and a great deal of agreement that victims’ rights should always come first. The #metoo movement is finding lots of sorely needed traction for women who have been sexually abused; hopefully, the innocent victims of vicious murderers can also get some care and concern from our society.
I’ve said it before and will say again, our legal system is built and interpreted by human beings, who cannot (in my opinion) separate their inner moral standards from their decision-making. If the same legal system that allows for LVH’s reasonable chance to be paroled also provides a legal remedy for denying her parole boards’ decisions, then society is well-served.
What I don’t quite get is, the seemingly constant assertion (even by LVH’s lawyers, who should know better) that the law absolutely guarantees LVH’s freedom at this time, and that the governor is doing something illegal by denying her PB decisions. What a pile of malarkey.
Flip you make me laugh. You even try questioning the ability and knowledge of her attorneys yet you can’t keep your argument consistent. You have made it obvious that your happy to live in a country with a corrupt government as long as its suits your standards, how pathetic this is. I’ve given the evidence that proves she’s suitable, its there and factual. So tiring seeing people like you attempt to discredit evidence for your agenda. Answer me this Flip, why has the court made the governors office explain why the Browns decision is lawful?
re: “Answer me this Flip, why has the court made the governors office explain why the Browns decision is lawful?”
Because the legal system allows LVH’s defense a legal remedy to question the governor’s decision…duh! We’ll see how the court finds…I personally find the AG’s arguments on behalf of the governor’s decision to be far more compelling than LVH’s arguments against; however, I imagine that your opinion remains very different from mine on that score.
Well you would, because your biased. If you look at the case through the actual law, Leslie meets the criteria for parole, she can’t possibly do any more to prove that.
1. Spotless prison record
2. No disciplinary write ups (No 115 or 128a)
3. Model Inmate
4. Strong parole plans and support group
5. Expressed remorse for her actions
The CDCR claim they look to rehabilitate inmates so they can return to society without being a threat, not to punish. Leslie is serving life with the chance of parole, which she fits the criteria for and has for years, not life without parole. The superior court can refuse to look at the case if they wish, but they have challenged the governors argument so it appears they aren’t satisfied with his evidence to support this theory.
Stephen, I (and I’d wager all of us) am so sorry for what you’ve been through. The misery inflicted on your loved, you, and your family, is the reason I believe murderers like Leslie should not be freed, even if they have been rehabilitated. It’s asking too much. But the legal argument for freeing her may win out, which is why I wish her sentence had been life without the possibility of parole. Her possible release may be legal, but that will never make it right.
To all those who want this killer released, would you want her free if it were your family she butchered? Save your pity for her victims. She had almost 50 years of life that she stole from her victims.
Pam this scenario is used all the time, but that doesn’t change anything. The people who are responsible for following the law have to do just that, they can’t bend the rules to satisfy public opinion.
Paul, You provide a nice numbered list of LVH’s supposed attributes, but I think you fail to understand the following:
(1) Your points 1, 2, and 3 are basically redundancies–if you are unsure what redundant means, it’s that you padded your list with three items that are actually just restatements of the first item in your list. We get it, you think LVH is rehabilitated.
(2) “Expressed remorse for her actions”…. Sure, yeah, I’ve read through her PB hearing transcripts and have watched some video of at least one of them, and I don’t trust her expressions of remorse for what she did to the Labianca family. I do think she is truly sorry that she was caught and imprisoned for what she did–that does come through pretty
clearly.
(3) Her entire record of court appearances and subsequent PB hearings looks like a long, arduous learning process during which she has often tinkered with the nuances and details of her story in order to optimize her chances of being released. Past PB members have even helped her craft her tale by telling her how she needs to stop minimizing her guilt. She seems reasonably intelligent, obviously motivated to get out, and maybe hopes that she will get out if she says the right things to her pyschs and PB members.
(4) Your list fails to mention, because you are biased, that the details of her life crime are so uniquely horrible (multiple victims, callous disregard for the suffering of her victims during the murders, mutilation, etc) that the law actually does leave the door open for denying her recent PB decisions based solely on the heinous nature of the crime. The relevant law says that this would be a rare instance, but if not applicable to LVH then who is it applicable to?
(5) Your list fails to mention, again, because you are biased, that there is some evidence that LVH still continues to minimize her role in the Labianca murders (as you certainly also do). Minimization and evasiveness about crimes of this magnitude can legally be considered as evidence that she still may constitute a danger to society.
Have there ever been any over-70 murderers in the course of our history–yes, I think there have been. Were any of them women?–I don’t know, maybe LVH would turn out to be the first over-70 woman to kill someone after being paroled. Does the risk go down with age?–yes, I’m sure it does go down, but that wouldn’t console a new victim if LVH were freed, decided she’s bitter and can’t handle the free world as well as she thought she would, and then kills again for some real or imagined provocation.
I know she says she wouldn’t do that, and her pyschs say it’s very remote, and her lawyers and friends say she absolutely wouldn’t–but why should the majority of society believe any of these biased sources?
1.) What evidence do you have that she’s minimizing her crimes, don’t think you’ve mentioned any evidence on this theory.
2.) I’m talking about her prison record. We know why they behaved like that during the trial anyway. Her prison record than proves she’s not likely to act in violence again.
3.) CDCR look to rehabilitate their inmates so they can return to society, so its her progression that really should be noted.
4.) I don’t even believe you think she’s a danger, psychologists aren’t stupid. A number of them have states she poses no risk if released. If you think Leslies is a danger, might as well keeping everyone in jail then because that’s how your logic works
5.) She has a long list of qualifications that she can use when out and he parole plans are fairly solid.
6.) Whether you believe her remorse is pretty much irrelevant, because of your view point, that’s not surprising. She could probably cry like hell and you would think she’s insincere.
7.) The thing is that her lawyers and friend actually know her whilst you do not, and probably any rational thought is past you if they say anything good about her. So many people who oppose her parole don’t actually know too much of the case, some actually believe Leslie killed Sharon. That’s another reason why the people against her parole shouldn’t be trusted, despite it being unlawful, they probably don’t even know what ere getting involved in.
8.)The governors obviously has not been honest in this statement, and again, the superior court evidently have realised this and that’s why his office now have to explain his actions.
9.) Your attempt to make out Leslie is this monster that’s still a danger is as appalling as Debra Tate’s. You don’t have a lot of ground left Flip, and you can’t even back up your theories. You discredit anything you don’t agree with, you can’t even acknowledge it like Michael and Cybele have. They haven’t changed their opinions but they have at least admitted Leslie has progressed and wouldn’t be a danger, because they know evidence when they see it. You’ll think the worst of her because the crime, well sorry people rehabilitate and change, and she has.
Okay, Paul, according to you a lengthy record of no prison violations is actual proof that LVH will never do anything bad again. Plus, she and her friends say the same thing.
So, do you think that a lengthy spotless record is also proof that a given person in free society will never do anything bad? There are actually quite a few cases in recent history where mass murderers have emerged from seemingly nowhere, completely surprised their friends and families, and killed large numbers of people as their public debut in crime…and LVH already has experience, how can you be so sure she won’t decide to kill again?
Yes it is actual proof, if she was a threat to society today, she would of shown it in the last 48 years. She literally cannot improve herself anymore than she has, in normal circumstances she wouldn’t have to do as much as she has done to rehabilitate herself. You know if the law worked your way, no one would get out, because in with your logic, if prison record isn’t good enough than no one can be trusted. You can’t keep Leslie in prison on this. Its getting to the point that all you can do is question anything, solely because it doesn’t suite your viewpoint. I do believe you know all this already know all this anyway, because I find it hard to believe you think you know better than psychologists for one thing.
You say that these things are not subject to scientific proof and then you say she needs to stay in prison because she cant sufficiently prove to you that she’s rehabilitated.
But best of all is that you need me to define “mercy” for you. That one really takes the cake.
Peter,
You don’t understand what I’ve been trying to explain. LVH’s lawyers, you, and other “Free Leslie!” folks constantly misuse the concept of proof in support of your opinions. But, asserting proof over and over again doesn’t make it so.
As I suggested to Paul earlier, maybe what y’all are looking for is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is not actually proof at all…rather, it is your interpretation of facts
that, in your opinion, leaves little room for further doubt. Not “no room for further doubt” because I doubt (hope) that not even you folks will claim omniscience.
And, your definition of mercy–I still haven’t heard from you whether you think all criminals deserve the same extent of mercy. I believe your thinking is kind of fuzzy on this topic.
Here’s a fun research project for Peter and Paul, who both appear to believe that PBs can unerringly decide when a criminal is ready to re-join society:
Google “murderers who have murdered again after parole”.
As for LVH’s age mitigation, Google “Contra Costa convicts 74 year old grandmother of murder”. I was surprised at the grisly facts of that story.
We have to realize that Leslie and her lawyers are dealing with a drugged out old hippie Moonbeam. I suspect he burned out his brain on LSD and coke years ago. He’s an idiot as are those that voted to keep him in office term after term.
A nearly 70 year old woman is a danger? MS-13 scum are not? Moonbeam the idiot forces cities and counties to release dangerous Mexicans and other illegals into the public and refrain from calling ICE, but Leslie is a threat? Call it bullshit.
The next governor of California Gavin Newsom is just as brain dead. Screw California 60 percent of the voters are insults to the intelligence of rocks. We’ll see that old fossil Frankenstein back as a US Senator as well.
Travis, try as hard as can to be coherent…otherwise, not even the “Free Leslie!” crowd will want you on their side.
Come to think of it, maybe you are really an extremely clever “anti-Leslie” mole? Hard to tell.
Whoa Paul, you have made your points but others also have valid points. It’s not so black and white as you suggest. Yes there is rehabilitation etc but others don’t buy Leslie’s diminished responsibility and yes it was always said how pretty Leslie’s was and of course those things played into the defense of a poor misguided home coming princess etc etc to garnish sympathy and it worked. Many will always believe these crimes deserved life in prison and apparently the governor and the DA’s office do see it that way too and thus the controversy over whether she gets out. It’s all manipulation of law. That’s why we have lawyers and law makers and all.
I wasn’t referring to Travis rant lol
You are the only one talking about proof. That’s your standard. The People’s return doesn’t even make a single reference to the word because they know that proof of rehabilitation isn’t the standard.
Your position is clear; the Governor is better able to judge Leslie’s rehabilitation than the parole board, the social workers, and all the psychologists, whose responsibility it is to oversee and measure it. You take this position simply because it matches your own beliefs about Leslie, punishment, and recidivism. You may require “proof,” but what you require is of no consequence here.
The question is whether the Governor has met his burden of showing that his decision is reasonably supported by the law. That’s it. Can the Governor point to something in the record to support her continued incarceration. The Governor relies on the egregiousness of the crime. Unfortunately, I think the way the law is interpreted and the deference granted to the Governor’s decision will be enough to survive any challenge. I’m not an expert on California criminal law by any means, but my impression is that in the last several decades the California courts have sought to limit the Governor’s discretion in these instances and raise the bar a little bit. This is consistent with trends in criminal law becoming a little less onerous across the country. For instance by no longer allowing the Governor to rely on the egregiousness of the crime without connecting it in some way with the inmates current danger to society. I’m not so sure the Governor can do this in Leslie’s case. And that is the sole basis for his reversal.
Peter,
I’m the only one talking about proof? Geez, guy, get a grip–now you’re just flailing.
Attorney Nancy T.– “Her long record of reform, rehabilitation, soul-searching, and good-works proves she does not pose any current risk of danger…”
“Free Leslie!” advocate Paul–“Rehabilitation can be proved my friend,…” ; “Yes it is actual proof, if she was a threat to society today, she would of shown it in the last 48 years.”, and many, many other such assertions.
I am clearly not the only one talking about proof in the LVH discussions, but I may be the only one in this thread who is actually interested in knowing the difference between the actual meaning of the word proof versus the constant, ignorant (or, possibly in some cases, disingenuous) misuses of the concept.
Once again, Peter, in the hope that it will penetrate, there can be no absolute proof of LVH’s rehabilitation. There can be “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is not actually proof–it is an individual’s interpretation of evidence that leads the interpreter to a conclusion that “there is “little room for doubt”. I.e., it is the individual’s opinion, not fact.
The “no room for doubt” crowd is practicing a form of religious belief that transcends logical thought.
There doesn’t need to be absolute proof, there doesn’t need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there doesn’t need to be room for doubt, there doesn’t need to be a preponderance of the evidence, there doesn’t need to be plausibility.
The trial is over. That isn’t what is at issue.
The ONLY question before the court is whether the Governor’s decision finds support in the record in accordance with what the law requires. If the Governor relies on the egregiousness of the crime as his reason for denial – and he is well within his right to do that under the law – he HAS TO SHOW that this is somehow related to her present danger to society. Period. Full Stop.
Cybele, Leslie’s looks are irreverent, its about the law and how Leslie has earned her parole.
Flip, do you not see the problem with your theory, rehabilitation can be proved and it has been proved because Leslie has evidently reformed herself. What it really comes down to is that you just don’t want her out so if she’s rehabilitated cannot, it doesn’t matter, because you want her to stay in prison no matter what. Your trying to discredit everything, well at least the board and courts aren’t doing this so that is what actually matters. You can’t predict the future so you have to look at the evidence. This is the criteria the board use to see if the prisoner is suitable for parole.
So Flip, how can Leslie prove she’s rehabilitated if what she has done so far aren’t effective enough as proof?
Peter,
You stop, dude…if you read thread at all carefully, you may find that I basically agree with your last post and have said much the same thing in some of my own posts.
But, you may think that yours are the only comments I have been responding to for some reason, ignoring the obvious that not all of the “Free Leslie!” crowd use defensible logic in their arguments.
You keep talking about what Leslie’s lawyers have to show. But they have shown everything they need to show. The burden is on the Governor now.
Flip, I’m glad you’ve finally come around.
re: “…how can Leslie prove she’s rehabilitated “… That’s exactly the question, Paul–and the answer is: She cannot prove it. No one can prove it. There is no possible Euclidean proof of rehabilitation. It is a matter of individual opinion, based on the individual’s personal interpretation of known facts.
In LVH’s case some of the known facts are so astoundingly horrible that quite a number of people have what they would consider to be reasonable doubts about her rehabilitation, her good prison record notwithstanding. Clearly, some other folks look at the same information and conclude that she is suitable. It all depends on how an individual weighs the various facts, so it is opinion. Not proof.
Paul, I bet Leslie would be thrilled to hear you think her looks are irreverent 🙂
Peter,
Don’t be silly–you’re glad I’ve “finally come around”? What, do you think you’re Perry Mason?
I don’t believe I’ve ever said anything inconsistent with the idea that both sides of a legal argument are matters of opinion and that the law allows for LVH’s defense team to question the governor’s decision to overturn LVH’s PB.
Make no mistake that you and I still disagree strongly about which side of the argument is most compelling. That said, did you read the AG’s complete response to the LVH filing against Governor Brown’s recent decision? If so, I’d be curious to hear your point-by-point response to his arguments.
That makes you Hamilton Burger. My rbillable rate is $850 an hour. Ill send you a retainer and then would be glad to take you point by point through the AG’s response.
Michael I think Leslie want to go earn parole on her efforts, not her looks.
Flip, this argument isn’t good enough to Leslie behind bars. how do you expect any prisoner to show their from reformed if you there’s no proof? That is proof Flip, it shows Leslie pattern of action in the 48 years, she has done everything she has needed to earn parole, which she deserves. If you have two inmates, one with a clean record and a model inmate, and other prisoner has a number of 115 violations and has not behaviour well in prison, who is likely to be seen as suitable for parole?
*keep
Paul, i get it, I was just teasing because I think the word you wanted to use was “irrelevant” instead of “irreverent.” If her looks are irrelevant, they’re not pertinent to the case, which is the point you were making and is very true. If they’re “irreverent” they are somehow disrespectful or even sacrilegious, which is a funny description of personal appearance. Off topic but that’s why I thought it was kinda funny when you said her looks were irreverent.
Well she dressed respectfully at the trial funnily enough.
We can debate on the merits of whether she’s suitable for parole, or not suitable. But let’s keep it real, no public official wants to be known has the person who released a Manson butcher,she will never get out of prison and that’s a good thing.
Pam, the courts and the board have to follow the law, she is getting closer to getting out. The courts are questioning the governors reversal statement.
ha ha Peter- I like your bill rate response.
Thanks. That rate is the real unforgiveable crime.
Flip, get your head out of your butt because you can’t see. From all the idiotic post and counter post you make, you obviously think you are a brilliant expert, but you don’t know jack-shit. The political situation in California is as I briefly explained, but dummies like you can’t understand. You might have countered the points I mentioned, but you could not. You’re a waste of air, you arrogant jackass.
Travis says:
get your head out of your butt because you can’t see…idiotic post and counter post you make, you obviously think you are a brilliant expert, but you don’t know jack-shit…..You’re a waste of air, you arrogant jackass
Travis, that kind of riposte really doesn’t help. Counter Flip’s points with good argument and argument that readers can follow, understand and apply if they agree or come to think of it, even if they don’t.
Flip says:
Don’t be silly…you must live in a vacuum. Earth-to-You:…..don’t you have any self-respect at all?…….Geez, guy, get a grip–now you’re just flailing etc
Flip, those kind of comments don’t help and certainly don’t make your arguments any more true/coherent/right. They actually detract from them.
there can be no absolute proof of LVH’s rehabilitation
I agree with you on this. But I think that most us don’t actually understand what rehabilitation is. It is actually preparing someone to take their place back in society {in the criminal sense} or getting someone fit again for physical action after some kind of injury.
The only way we’ll ever know if LVH is ready to be back in society is when she’s taking part again in society. However, to be able to make that decision in the first place, there needs to be some evidence that can be pointed to that suggests either that she is ready or that she isn’t and still constitutes a risk.
I find that it is useful to compare her with Charles Manson in this regard. He had been inside pretty much the same length of time as her, give or take some months, after the Barker arrests. After the TLB trial, did we ever see Manson admit any guilt ? Did we ever see him admit remorse ? Did we see him make the effort to improve his lot through whatever jail offered {admittedly, easier said than done} ? Did we ever see him leave behind his mode of thinking and take on board that of the society that incarcerated him ? Did we see him continuously searching himself under the microscope that numerous PBs put him under in order to explain how he came to the position he did ? Did we see him making any kind of effort {again, admittedly easier said than done} to, even within the regimented structure of jail, avoid trouble ?
There are a number of things in which we have seen LVH tantamount to jumping through hoops to improve and try to make amends and before she received a positive decision from the PB, she’d been knocked back 19 times. A look at Charles Manson sees him very willingly going the exact opposite way.
Of course we have no idea what LVH will be like if she were out on parole but I ask myself this; like or detest her, has there been any kind of evidence since the point some 44 years ago when she began to denounce Manson and that period, that she has remained in the same mindset that she was in from the mid 60s to 1974 ?
Cybele Moon says:
you have made your points but others also have valid points. It’s not so black and white as you suggest
That’s the truth. It’s not black and white, it is so nuanced that 49 years on, here we are still arguing/debating. There are valuable points made on both sides. I don’t need to agree with a person’s overall stance to see that they’ve made a good and valid point, neither do I have to dismiss every point someone makes because I don’t agree with them.
Flip says:
Here’s a fun research project for Peter and Paul, who both appear to believe that PBs can unerringly decide when a criminal is ready to re-join society: Google “murderers who have murdered again after parole”
No PB is unerring. But just as you are able to weigh up and conclude that LVH is a risk, so they are able to weigh up and conclude that she no longer is. Are you unerring ? Are you incapable of making an error of judgement ?
When LVH & co first got a death sentence, they was on a specially constructed death row wing in the prison with 2 women who were also sentenced to death. In the aftermath of the decision to do away with the death penalty in ’72, within 10 years, both those women were paroled.
Neither killed again. One of them had murdered an elderly woman in the commission of a burglary, the other one had murdered her lover’s wife. Both were brutal and deliberate.
Of the 106 people that were on death row in ’72, 42 had been released up to 2003, 3 of whom had committed murder again.
PBs obviously get it wrong sometimes.
But they clearly also get it right sometimes.
It’s always something of a gamble and a risk and each case has to be looked at individually. We shouldn’t make the mistake of lumping every case under the same umbrella. People are different, circumstances are different, the way people change or remain the same is different.
do you think that a lengthy spotless record is also proof that a given person in free society will never do anything bad?
Of course not. As you point out, many first time murderers emerge seemingly from nowhere with hitherto, spotless records. That’s no gauge for what’s going on inside a person’s head, however.
Your list fails to mention, again, because you are biased, that there is some evidence that LVH still continues to minimize her role in the Labianca murders. Minimization and evasiveness about crimes of this magnitude can legally be considered as evidence that she still may constitute a danger to society
And they absolutely should be. If LVH was saying that drugs caused her crimes or that Manson was to blame, not her or that she was forced to do it or stuff like that, I think that would be good evidence that she shouldn’t even see the front gate of the prison.
But I don’t see her minimizing her crime or her part in it.
Explaining the role of drugs and in particular, mind bending hallucinogens is not saying “I am not responsible for my actions.” It’s explaining the role they played in her personal evolution. And they did play a role, same as they played a role in John Lennon thinking he was Jesus or Thelma Moss thinking she was a baby at the same time as knowing she was an adult or Phil Phillips thinking he was soaring 10,000 feet above the earth in a bus or Michael Hollingshead being literally caught between 2 worlds, not able to get back to this one.
Emphasizing Charlie’s influence isn’t the same as saying that he alone was responsible for the murders or to put it more precisely, that LVH wasn’t. One of the true, and yet misunderstood, paradoxes of this case is the reality that LVH was fully responsible for murder as well as the reality that these killings would never have happened without Charles Manson. That’s just a reality. It doesn’t excuse LVH. But in my opinion, it’s naive and more than a little disingenuous to not bring together all the influences that created that murderous moment.
Stating that when it came to the actual moment a] she didn’t want to kill {which is why she held Rosemary initially while Pat attempted the stabbing and why she ran out to get Tex} and b] Tex made her stab Rosemary isn’t minimizing her actions either because she states abundantly clearly that having believed in Helter Skelter in all its dimensions and having heard from Pat what had happened at Cielo, she wanted to take part in what was going down if there was more killing to be done. While we know that at least Ruth Ann Moorehouse and Cathy Gillies expressed a desire to kill, LVH is the only one of the actual murderers that did so. And she admitted that back in ’69 to Marvin Part and continues to do so.
So I’m unclear as to where the “continued” minimization is.
Flip says:
there is some evidence that LVH still continues to minimize her role in the Labianca murders
These days, whenever people cite LVH saying she either [a stabbed a dead body or [b didn’t know whether Mrs LaBianca was dead when she stabbed her, as evidence of her minimizing her part in the crimes, I find a supreme irony in this, because it is that very statement of stabbing a dead body that provided the corroboration necessary to convict Leslie. Besides that she could have walked. But because Rosemary did have post mortem stab wounds, Dianne Lake mentioning Leslie’s words was hardcore evidence that not only was she present, but that she had wielded the knife. It’s possibly the only actual physical evidence against any of the LaBianca killers.
Have a read of the Dianne Lake Police interview from December ’69 on thuis very site.
What I don’t quite get is, the seemingly constant assertion (even by LVH’s lawyers, who should know better) that the law absolutely guarantees LVH’s freedom at this time, and that the governor is doing something illegal by denying her PB decisions
I don’t think anyone is saying that the law guarantees LVH’s freedom {it doesn’t} and neither is Guv’nor Brown doing anything illegal. What he’s doing is questionable. And rightly, it’s being questioned and fought.
That’s what’s meant to happen in a supposedly free democracy.
Pam says:
To all those who want this killer released, would you want her free if it were your family she butchered? Save your pity for her victims
While I understand the emotive aspect of this argument, it doesn’t really have much to do with the discussion at hand. Most people wouldn’t want the murderer of their family released, which is precisely why the families shouldn’t really be involved in the decision making process about parole.
Set against this is always going to be the anomaly of Rosemary LaBianca’s daughter, Suzan LaBerge, who, back in the 90s, became a Christian, saw life through a very different set of lenses and forgave Charles Watson and came out to bat for him in a parole hearing. So regardless of what anyone says on this wise, we know it can be done.
Cybele Moon says:
There are repercussions to this day no matter how good they have done in the structured environment of a prison
There are and there should be. However, a 70 year old woman or man may not be in the same headspace they were in at 19 going on 20.
Sometimes, perhaps we cast off a 49~50 year period {that’s most of most our lives} as though it were 10 or 15 years.
I don’t buy totally into whether her crime was so much lesser than the others
Her crime wasn’t lesser than the others, it just occurred against less people.
She was willing with bells on by the sound of it
Yes and no. She admitted to Marvin Part that she did want to go and kill in the wake of the Cielo murders. However, she did also say that she wasn’t thrilled about the idea of having to kill but was prepared to do it in line with what she felt was their divine mission. So, even LVH being willing to kill, as I said she was earlier, has nuance and context to it.
Dianne Lake in her book, remembers Leslie’s demeanor as gleeful when she described the stabbing to her plus she confided that she couldn’t be sure Mrs Labianca was dead
In her 2013 parole hearing, she explains to the board exactly why she described stabbing as ‘fun’ back in 1969 and it was in relation to Dianne Lake. It’s on this site somewhere and it’s a very interesting explanation. Having heard it and sought to understand it, it’s not a statement that I can ever hold against her again.
As for Dianne’s book, I really enjoyed it and there is so much of consequence in it. But there are also parts that are problematic. The stuff in your quote is one. What she says in the book about the dead body is not what she says in the December ’69 interview. In that interview, Dianne is adamant that it was Tex that got {she says “asked”} LVH to stab Mrs LaBianca and she is also adamant that the body was dead. What’s really eerie is that Leslie had given an interview with Marvin Part just the day before {one that was not for Police or public consumption} in which she mirrors almost everything Dianne said. There’s no doubt from either interview of her guilt.
But equally true is that from September ’69, thru December ’69 thru the trial thru all the parole hearings, LVH has always maintained that she thought Mrs LaBianca was dead.
This is very different from her supporters claiming she was so reluctant
Well, again, this has to be put into context. Willing until she got there and it actually came to the action. Then cold feet. Then galvanized by Tex.
It is crucial to stress that this neither minimizes her actions, justifies her stabbing or lessens her responsibilities. And progressively if one follows her parole hearings and interviews, one can see her understanding of this all increasing to the point where a lot of either unconscious or once inexplicable things are now very conscious and explainable.
Like you said, it’s not black and white.
Fred, that’s one of the best summations I’ve read on this page regarding Leslie’s attitude and participation. I think she wanted to go (in order to, as she said, “be a good soldier”) more than she wanted to kill. She seemed reluctant to kill, but willing to do it anyway. As for recounting it gleefully, I think she was bragging to Dianne, because in the Family it brought status to have been chosen by Charlie to kill and to have actually done it. I think she flat out lied when she said “The more you do it the more you like it.” Obviously we can’t know for sure, but I think she said that disgusting thing because it was expected of her. She could hardly have admitted to the others “You know, I really didn’t like it and didn’t want to do it.” Then by the time she got on the stand, she simply parroted Charlie’s script. None of which, as you said, lessens her guilt. Murder is murder, whether you did it enthusiastically or with hesitation.
The law says that Leslie can be denied parole based upon the horrific facts of the crime that can never be changed. The law gives the governor of the state of California that power. And despite all of the good things that Leslie has done since the crime, despite what ever may have changed within her, she will die in prison. The law in California allows the crime itself to be the deciding factor. I really do believe she is right where she belongs. I am sorry that she has done this to herself. Living the Manson lifestyle was a choice that she made. Lots of people were living alternative lifestyles back then. But murder? I am sorry, I will never be able to agree that she should be free. If she truly has any remorse at all for her deeds, she will just live out her sentence and stop torturing the living family members that loved Rosemary Labianca, who was a real human being, who was so much more than a Manson Family victim. How awful this is and was and will always be. Let these people rest in peace.
“You can disagree on whether Leslie should be granted parole without slurring her attorney.”
Yeah, but then it wouldn’t be half the fun.
But on a more serious note, you might try pointing out to counsel that there is this notion of restitution, you know, making good on the wrong. In the case of a wrongful death, such is simply not possible. And note that I said, wrongful death, and not murder, since is even true when even mere negligence is at issue. And that’s how woefully pathetic our system of justice is, since if you loved your neighbor, you wouldn’t trade all the money in the world for her or his life. And when I realized that, well, such is when this one time trial attorney put the ole shingle in a box never to be taken out again. And so if you want the critique of her lawyer, he’s a deluded soul, as I once was. The only thing to be added to that is my one and only contempt citation, now purged from the permanent record of the court, but I believe that the claimed contempt was my entirely truthful remark of, Your, Honor, if justice happens down here, it’s purely coincidental. And so he can keep on deluding himself if he likes…
good points Fred and unlike Peter you’re not even charging for this lol!
Rhonda I wouldn’t be so sure, she’s getting closer to freedom than she has ever before.
Yael says:
You do not have to be very educated to know that telling lies does never make a good impression. How can a governor agree with a parole if the lies are so obvious?
Like StarBlazers, I’m curious as to what lies you are referring to that are so “obvious.” Besides which, your point is self contradictory ¬> if she was telling lies so obvious, how come the parole board missed them and granted her parole ? And what does the Guv’nor have as part of his tool cupboard that they don’t have ?
Cybele Moon says:
it won’t be easy for a nearing 70 woman who has been in prison 3/4 of her life
Of course. But in some ways, that is something that faces every inmate that has spent even a few years in jail. And people soon get used to it !
The stigma of and sensationalism of her crime doesn’t go away nor is the debt ever truly paid
The debt is never truly paid but who is it that keeps the stigma and sensationalism of the crime going ? It’s largely us in conjunction with the news media.
The world has changed so much since she entered those prison gates nearly 50 years ago
That’s true, but it follows for many of us that were around at that time too. Even now, you still get people that long for that time that we’ve long moved away from.
Michael says:
it seems that the law calls for a rationale keeping her in prison. Brown et al did not, to my thinking, provide such a rationale, because I see nothing in Leslie’s words or actions to indicate she hasn’t taken full responsibility for her crimes, displayed sincere remorse, and conducted herself in a productive and responsible way for decades
That for me is key. The problem isn’t so much whether a governor should have the power to countermand a decision taken by a parole board that, after all are paid to make these determinations. The problem is the reason the guv gives. His last two pronouncements have really come across as clutching at straws, especially when months before he gives his decision many interested parties {including those on various forums} are speculating on which reasons he will give in support of rejecting the parole board decision !
Flip says:
One could argue that her many years of incarceration have been spent learning how to game the system, figure out what pyschs want to hear, and outwardly toe the line and do “good works” in prison for the aim of satisfying her PBs
Well, that could possibly work if her aim was to get out of jail while still secretly harbouring the same thoughts and feelings that she held from say, 1966 through to about 1974. That of course would mean that she’s basically spent the last 44 years lying her blaggers off and that she doesn’t actually care a jot for the horrors she was part of or the family she helped to devastate. That would mean that she faked her eating disorders, that the 6 months she spent out “free” during her trials was a superb display of disciplined deception because she really, deep down, wanted to get helter skelter going. That would mean that all those times she sent communications to the authorities that Charles Manson had sent her was part of some grand and diabolical scheme and…..need I go on ? It’s a conspiracy theorist’s dream but doesn’t really translate well to reality when you consider the length of time this has taken place in.
I actually think you have it backwards. All that you’ve stated about her scamming the system, simply hasn’t worked, if that was the intention. She’s had good psych reports for years. And actually, until a couple of years ago, it was always the PBs that would tell her what she needed to work on. And she’d go away and have to work on those things. Far from her scamming the system, it’s actually the system that has set the agenda.
but Lawrence does leave the door ajar for a reasonable conclusion that the overwhelming cruelty, horror and context alone of LVH’s crime may be justifications enough for keeping her out of free society
Whether this actually applies to LVH is always going to be up for debate I guess, but there are certainly some people that it definitely applies to. And not necessarily based on current dangers either. For example, being directly responsible for 8 murders, it’ll be possibly longer than he has left on earth for Charles Watson to make parole. I don’t see that his situation can be compared with that of LVH.
Rhonda says:
If she truly has any remorse at all for her deeds, she will just live out her sentence and stop torturing the living family members that loved Rosemary Labianca, who was a real human being
Over the years, I’ve heard this argument a lot. It made no real sense to me the first time I heard it and it makes no sense to me now.
One could easily argue that if you actually take remorse to its logical conclusion, being so sorry for what one has done would produce a desire to do the right thing for society, both within the prison system and importantly, out of it, if at all possible.
Now, some people may well believe that the way they demonstrate their remorse for something as final and horrific as murder is to remain incarcerated. And if the sentence given was life without parole, that would end the argument. And seeing as though there’d be no chance of getting out, it would be interesting to see how the particular inmate fared and if their attitude and behaviour changed down the years.
But where the law prescribes a life sentence with the possibility of parole, it’s kind of a bone thrown out by the state that says to an inmate that there is a possibility of a second chance. Not a guarantee, or a right, but a possibility. In other words, it might not happen. But it would be natural that where such a possibility exists, an inmate would want it. Yes, both those that are remorseful and those that just pretend to be so would go for it. Most of us, if in that situation, would go for it.
Answering the specific point of “If she truly has any remorse at all for her deeds, she will just live out her sentence,” well, Charles Manson just lived out his sentence, made no attempt to show remorse, in fact, denied responsibility for murder till the day he died. He really ended up as the polar opposite to LVH in almost every which way and didn’t make any attempts to get out paroled.
As harsh as it may seem, it does not have to be torture for the families of Rosemary and Leno, not 47 years later. And if it is, it wouldn’t be LVH that makes it so, rather, California state government. After all, this all came about as a result of their legislation.
As harsh as it may seem, it does not have to be torture for the families of Rosemary and Leno, not 47 years later. And if it is, it wouldn’t be LVH that makes it so, rather, California state government. After all, this all came about as a result of their legislation
very true
but as for the stigma of a crime- yes there is more media in the modern age. Compassion is one thing but I don’t think it’s something people should forget. People are fascinated. They write books etc. and they still remember Jack the Ripper.
Flip says:
Shouldn’t our standards for mercy be related to the details and context of the crime?
Related, definitely. But when you are talking about an event that took place half a century ago, it can’t be the sole arbiter.
In some cases, it may well be the most heavily weighing aspect that tips the scales. For example, in the case of Edmund Kemper, for me it would be.
some folks may believe that their God grants “mercy to everyone”
It’s not so much that God grants mercy to everyone, as much as God is prepared to grant mercy to everyone. There’s a huge difference.
Stephen Craig says:
that those who claim murderers like LVH or the man responsible for my cousin’s death deserve freedom/forgiveness,’know not what they speak”
I generally take the view that words like “deserve” or “earn” should not really be part of any discussion on parole. Unfortunately, because of the way the Guv’nor has tried to justify his rejection of the parole board recommendation, it is almost inevitable that in the case of LVH, those kind of phrases will emerge. I don’t begrudge her lawyers using the phrase because their job is to represent her.
In terms of forgiveness, what makes forgiveness so powerful is actually the fact that the person receiving the forgiveness doesn’t deserve it.
forgiveness can be only be granted by the victims themselves
Not true. We are social beings and are affected by the actions of others, even if they are not perpetrated on us personally. If someone attacks one’s child, it will likely affect the parent of the child {and other relatives and close people} and possibly unleash a whole series of thoughts, feelings and reactions that one didn’t ever envisage having to deal with. No longer holding those acts against the perp {which is actually what forgiveness is} can be liberating. If a victim has died, they are not in any position to meaningfully forgive, but those who have to deal with the fallout can.
Flip says:
LVH already has experience, how can you be so sure she won’t decide to kill again?
One can be sure, but no one can know for a certainty. Life is unpredictable, people can be unpredictable and life is a continuum.
However, I think it is pertinent to point out Steve Grogan for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, when he was released on parole in 1985, there was no big fanfare, it didn’t make the news the way it would today and it doesn’t appear there were huge objections.
Secondly, he was every bit as in thrall to Charles Manson and his mode of thought back in ’69/70 as Leslie was. Anyone that wants proof of that should read the infamous 25th June 1970 edition of Rolling Stone or Robert Hendrickson’s book “Death to pigs” {if you can find it !}. Unlike the TLB murders, the murder of Shorty was calculated and targeted at him.
But Grogan hasn’t returned to crime, murder, helter skelter, Charles Manson or any of the things he was associated with back in the day, in 33 years. Whether he should have been paroled after only serving 13 or 14 years for a brutal murder is of course, open to debate. But whichever way one goes {I personally think it was too short a time that he served}, the fact remains that all the objections that are levelled against LVH applied to him too and he ticks every box in the “for” column.
He’s made a life for himself that is productive and runs completely counter to his Manson period.
Go take a look at the body of Rosemary Labianca, look at her back specifically, that was “poor Leslies” handiwork, shes exactly where she should be
She will never get out. I’m not one bit worried about it. What is going on here is a big show to appease the Leslie lovers. Judges are elected or appointed officials. No judge will ever trade his or her reputation and career for LVH or any of the Manson family members.
Thank you Rich for your representation of Leslie
Stephen I’m so sorry for your loss. I will admit to you that I feel Leslie deserves to be freed but hearing stories like yours really pulls at my emotions and really does help me see it from both sides. I’m so sorry you went through this and still have to endure all this pain.
Rhonda, I wouldn’t count on it. The courts aren’t satisfied with Brown’s explanation for his reversal, and if his office can’t explain why his actions that abides with the law, they can reverse his decision.
Roger, deserves? I like Fred Bloggs explanation of this. Actually I believe LVH “deserved” a life without parole. However, because they all got a chance to be paroled I understand some who say that it is the law that they should get it if they have accomplished all the parole board has set out for them. There is now a hard core group who have taken up Leslie’s cause and try to say she was less culpable than the other murderers and even try to make her out to be some kind of martyr to the justice system. On this point I beg to differ. But if we are just sticking to the point of law then yes, all of them get an opportunity to be free should they be deemed not to be a danger to society anymore. Many are not happy about this.
Will LVH at this late date suddenly fade into anonymity and old age. The government will still be paying her bills. (OAP?) She’s past the most productive years, and I’m not sure if she has living family members. She has been punished. Whether it’s because of the media or not I don’t think she will ever live down the notoriety unless she is able to disappear from the public eye.
Cybele you bring this up a lot. In terms of her wanting to commit these murders like her co-defendants, then yes she is just as culpable. But in terms of the murders themselves, Leslie is not as culpable, for one thing, she’s in for two murders, while the rest are in for 5 or more murders. Also, Leslie probably committed superficial wounds, so in that sense she is not as accountable. Cybele, you have said you agree that Leslie should be paroled based on the law, but for years they’ve denied her that right, even though she has met the criteria for years. If she wasn’t in for murder then I doubt you would even be saying this.
Paul says:
Leslie probably committed superficial wounds, so in that sense she is not as accountable
That 8 of the 41 wounds were fatal doesn’t mean the other 33 were minor. Bear in mind that the majority of stab wounds would have been done by Tex.
In the book Helter Skelter, prosecutor Bugliosi noted:
by the time I finished my cross examination on this, Leslie had admitted that Rosemary might still have been alive when she stabbed her; and that she not only stabbed her in the buttocks and possibly the neck, but ‘I could have done a couple on the back’. (As I’d later remind the jury, many of the back wounds were not post mortem, while one, which severed Rosemary LaBianca’s spine, would have been in and of itself fatal).
LVH admits over the years to stabbing Rosemary LaBianca 14 to 16 times to the back and bum. Only 13 of the stab wounds per se were post mortem. That means that at least one {and possibly 3} of Leslie’s stabs occurred while Mrs LaBianca was still alive, if we go by Leslie’s word alone. But 36 of Rosemary’s 41 wounds were to the back part of the body, including the buttocks, and many of the back wounds were not post mortem. We don’t know which of Leslie’s stabs did what or that the fatal blow at the neck part wasn’t administered by her. After all, she admitted she could have done some there. She also had pointed out to her lawyer in December 1969 that “I mean, I lost control. I went completely nuts that moment. It was hard to get it through. Like when I thought of stabbing, I didn’t really have any idea in my mind, but it’s a real feeling. It’s not even like cutting a piece of meat. It’s much tougher. And I had to use both hands and all my pressure, all my strength behind it to get it in.”
Suffice it to say, ‘superficial’ is not a word that can be applied to the results of Leslie’s handiwork. 7 of the 8 fatal blows were to the back part of Mrs LaBianca’s body with five of those actually being on her back ~ which Leslie admits to stabbing.
I wouldn’t attempt any argument on LVH’s behalf that somehow tries to lessen accountability, much less accountability based on the degree of violence perpetrated.
Back in 2002, Vincent Bugliosi said words to the effect that if someone could do what she had done, how could anyone conclude it would be safe to let someone that had that kind of thing in them back into society. In 2002, he had a point.
I think however, that 50 years really is not a short period. It’s a damn long time. Yes, some people carry on along the same trajectory even over that kind of period and never change and sometimes get worse. But many do not.
I’d be interested to see if there have been documented cases of people that have been incarcerated for say, 35 years and more that were paroled and re~offended in serious crimes. Particularly if they had had pretty near spotless prison records.
Rhonda says:
What is going on here is a big show to appease the Leslie lovers
That’s kind of harsh. You’re rather dissing people on both sides of the debate. Some people genuinely believe that she should remain in prison. Some believe that she has turned herself around and, per the law, should now be paroled. Both sides have valid points to make but the way you cast those that question the way that the law has been applied as “Leslie lovers” in need of appeasement does you no credit.
Judges are elected or appointed officials. No judge will ever trade his or her reputation and career for LVH or any of the Manson family members
Just out of interest, what do make of Steve Grogan ?
I said probably, I know that Leslie may have inflicted wounds before death. Leslie believed at the time she had already expired by that point, but has been hasn’t in saying she wasn’t positive as she didn’t check for a pulse or anything like that. I’d agree that Leslie is probably just as accountable for wanting to commit these murders, but in terms of the gravity of the murders themselves you can’t say she’s just as culpable as Tex. She is charged for two murders while Tex is in for 7 murders, and was allegedly involved in the Shorty Shea murder also, you can’t compare Leslie and Tex in that sense.
*has been honest in saying
Paul, I do know she participated in LaBianca and not the Tate or other murders. Tex was totally a monster.
Exactly, if your talking about the extent of involvement in the actual deaths, Tex and Leslie are not the same.
Paul says:
I said probably
It was the use of the word ‘probably’ that was worrying.
Call a spade a spade. No need to minimize what Leslie did. As a matter of fact, it’s to her undying credit that she has faced what she did and as far as we can determine, turned around and worked on who she was to now become the person she is.
Of course she faces what she did. If I’m minimizing her actions by stating that her physical actions in the murders were less substantial than her co-defendants, than yes I’m minimizing and rightly so.
First, about Steve Grogan. I believe he was charged with the Shea murder only, but I am not positive about that. I do know that the jury came back with a death verdict for him. Well, the judge in that case did a highly unusual thing – he went above the jurors heads, as he was allowed to do, and reduced Grogan’s sentence to life in prison. He said that he “believes the defendant was too stupid and hopped up on drugs to know what he was doing.” What a lot of people don’t know is that Grogan had/has a lot of family that worked for the LAPD and LASO for many generations, and some had quite a bit of political pull. I believe that the judge did the Grogan family a great favor. We all know how totally unethical and illegal that is. However, a parent will do anything to save their child and I just can’t judge them for it. The fault there is with the crooked judge. Grogan had luck and well connected family behind him. He also led the authorities to the body of Shea and that went a long way to helping him achieve freedom.
As far as freedom for LVH, I just cannot advocate it. Let me share this with you. I watched an interview she did in the early 80s and it has always stayed with me because it was such powerful proof, to me, that even after having been locked up and away from Manson for at least 10 years, she still didn’t have a clue. She still showed no genuine remorse. What happened is this: the interviewer asked her “Leslie, what do you want to say to people who believe you should never be released?” She said this: “I would like people to know that I am not the same person I was at 19, I have changed.” Now here comes the kicker “You know, LIFE GOES ON, AND I SHOULD BE GIVEN A SECOND CHANCE.” Oh really? Life most certainly DOES NOT go on for Mrs. Labianca. That statement alone tells me that LVH is cold blooded, she was caught off guard and the REAL Leslie was on display and it sent chills down my spine. Life goes on. Wow.
Rhonda, Interesting about Grogan. I also heard that his IQ was below average. I also feel that LVH always had a very dispassionate or disconnected affect. Though it’s possible that she may get out based on the law, I still have always felt that all of them were lacking some kind of empathy that allowed them to participate in these kind of murders. In spite of all her achievements in prison ( and she is very intelligent) I still wonder about this.
Rhonda, You can’t conclude Leslie is cold blooded on this interview, that’s a ridiculous claim. To be honest, she probably was remorseful, and I think I’ve seen the interview your referring to, but your looking at it with a biased viewpoint so your would probably say she had crocodile tears if she even cried in the interview.
I’m sure she made references to rosemary and how her actions were appalling, why haven’t you bothered to bring those parts up?
Paul, some people believe that LVH and the others have “somewhat” sociopathic tendencies. Their soft, childlike voices as the calmly described what they did has always chilled me. The only one I ever saw cry was Pat Krenwinkel but it was possible she was crying for herself as opposed to the crying for the victims or their families.
Cybele first of all, I’ve seen Leslie cry an interview before, and at parole hearings. Also, do they have to cry on camera to be remorseful? Someone who knew Leslie wrote a book about Leslie and she said that Leslie’s remorse often came at night when she’s not doing anything and left with her thoughts, because she always keeps herself active and busy during the day. You can’t judge them on how they talk, Leslie just talks how she sounds.
Rhonda says:
the judge in that case did a highly unusual thing – he went above the jurors heads, as he was allowed to do, and reduced Grogan’s sentence to life in prison
There are not many countries on the planet where a Judge is not allowed to overrule a jury if that judge believes that a jury has ruled wrongly and that a miscarriage of justice is likely to take place. That’s what Judge Kolts was doing in overturning the jury’s verdict. During the trials of Charles Manson and Bruce Davis on the combined Hinman-Shea deaths, the juries returned verdicts of life imprisonment. Now, ask yourself this. If two guys on trial for 2 murders each are found guilty in both instances of both murders and get life sentences, is it serving justice to give someone else who was neither the leader and only took part in one of the murders a death sentence ?
Incidentally, Manson at one point put in a plea of guilty, stating that he had chopped off Shorty’s head. The Judge in that trial refused to accept the plea. 7 years later when Shorty’s body was found, he had not been beheaded.
Judges often come across as stuffy old prunes, but as Judge Dell once said to Manson, “We in the black robes do our thing, too.” They often see the whole picture whereas we focus on a tiny point of the picture.
What a lot of people don’t know is that Grogan had/has a lot of family that worked for the LAPD and LASO for many generations, and some had quite a bit of political pull
Can you actually verify that ? As far as is known, Grogan’s older brother worked in law enforcement {this is mentioned in Bugliosi & Gentry’s “Helter Skelter”} but that was about as far as it went. There have been internet rumours about his family and LE for years but no one ever substantiates or verifies this. When someone can verify the great influence and the supposed huge political pull, and give it some real world context, then I’ll look into it and be in a position to believe it or not.
I believe that the judge did the Grogan family a great favor. We all know how totally unethical and illegal that is. However, a parent will do anything to save their child and I just can’t judge them for it. The fault there is with the crooked judge
It’s a real stretch to say that Judge Kolts was crooked. In point of fact, maybe he should actually be commended for not allowing the Manson connection to influence his actions. Earlier, you stated No judge will ever trade his or her reputation and career for LVH or any of the Manson family members which kind of implies that you think that it’s right that the law shouldn’t be the deciding arbiter when it comes to matters of parole involving any of the former Family members. Perhaps some of those Judges you refer to, if such actually exist, could take a leaf out of Kolts’ book.
Grogan had luck and well connected family behind him. He also led the authorities to the body of Shea and that went a long way to helping him achieve freedom
Grogan led the authorities to Shea’s body in 1977 but it wasn’t until 1985 {and a few more parole hearings later} that he was paroled. But it was evidence that he was “showing willing” and had gone through changes.
Although he originally got the death penalty, within a few months it would have been academic because California did away with it.
I don’t see how his family had anything to do with the parole board’s decision.
But when I asked what you felt about Grogan, I meant, what do you say about someone who was just as much, if not more so, a player in the Family murder stakes as LVH, being under all of the same objections that people have regarding LVH but in 33 years has kept his nose clean and not shown the slightest inclination to house any of the same mindset or actions that he had in those days ? If he fooled the authorities to get out, who has he fooled staying clean ?
Like Rosemary LaBianca’s daughter and her forgiveness of Tex, Grogan continues to be the grey that keeps matters arising from this case from being the black & white that some people want it to be.
As far as freedom for LVH, I just cannot advocate it
No one’s asking you to. But those with the opposite view to you have their well held reasons too and don’t need to be presented in a negative light for doing so.
I watched an interview she did in the early 80s…..That statement alone tells me that LVH is cold blooded
Is or was ? The early 80s were 34 or more years ago. I don’t know your age but if you were around then, have you not changed in some of your outlook ? I turned 17 in 1980 and believe me, I am not the same person I was between then and say, ’85. Not only that, but successive parole boards and instruments within the prison system have worked with LVH, both through rejecting her parole applications 19 times and in readjusting the mindset she initially came to prison with. That’s what happens in rehabilitation.
Is she perfect ? Hell no. Have there, even since renouncing Manson around ’74, been attitudes that could have posed an unreasonable risk to the public if she’d been out ? Possibly. But as people point out to you your failings or flaws, you have a responsibility to deal with that. And if you move away from those flaws, you should be given credit where credit is due.
My Mum used to, as Mums can, remind me of some of the dumb things I used to say {and do} as a kid or teenager. It was a long time before I realized that she really meant it. I was flabbergasted that she’d connect something I said or did when I was younger with what was then my current age and thinking. I have always agreed that not everyone goes through deep seated changes, but some people do. And it’s not always reality to gauge someone by what they felt 40 years ago.
Life goes on. Wow
But it does. Life is a continuum.
While I am against Leslie’s release, in all fairness, I don’t think some of her clumsier comments should be held against her. Saying “Life goes on” wasn’t very bright, and smacked of insensitivity. But weighed against the many other statements of remorse she’s made over the years, I think it’s fair to say she is not cavalier about the damage she’s done. Neither she nor any of the other “family” members in prison can be expected to fully appreciate the horror they caused, because nothing like that has ever been done to them. Unless they themselves are butchered alive, or someone they love experiences that, they’ll never fully grasp what they’ve done. As for Grogan, I think it was completely wrong to release him so early, but I’d say he is Exhibit A for the argument that a former Manson follower is not necessarily a danger to society. The question is, should such a follower who killed ever be freed, danger or not? I say no.
I agree Rich and thank you for your service .