• Van Houten Denied Tex Tapes Again

Van Houten Denied Tex Tapes Again

Wednesday, October 11th, 2017

Oct. 11 – Judge William C. Ryan has denied a motion that asked him to reconsider his ruling on whether Leslie Van Houten could have access to the Tex Watson tapes.

Ryan has previously denied Van Houten access to the recordings twice before, most recently on September 12th, when he ruled she wasn’t entitled to discovery and that the tapes only contained information already well known.

On September 21, attorneys representing Van Houten filed a reconsideration motion, which Ryan denied on the 29th, stating that they had failed to show “new or different facts, circumstances, or law as to warrant a different result upon reconsideration.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Van Houten Denied Tex Tapes Again

  1. Fayez Abedaziz says:

    The prosecution is allowed to own and to keep evidence such as these ‘Tex Tapes.’
    This is something to be questioned. I do.
    There are two sides, in most court heard cases, civil or criminal.
    So, why does the prosecution get to keep evidence and they and only they may and can listen, read and study whatever is there?
    These words by Watson were said to a defense attorney, they did not belong to any prosecuting office.
    This ‘evidence’ or, as we know it as ‘tapes, a recording,’ a verbal exchange between our old friend Tex that is, and his attorney at the time had a ‘chain of custody,’ which is a term our other friends, the police and detectives use.
    That had the tapes go from Tex’s dead attorneys office to the bankruptcy’s trustee who then gave them to the L.A.- D.A . office.
    That is something else I question.
    Why? Would the dearly departed lawyer from the great state of Texas approve?
    No way, I say.
    So, that prosecuting office is saying that this is now our property.
    But, if it’s not important to the defense, which they say, then why are they taking all this time
    and effort to deny a listen of those tapes for the defense to have,
    and…why are Leslie’s attorneys’ not simply invited, in an office here or there to hear them?
    At the same time, times, actually, with Barbara Hoyt being used by the offense, and others, at parole hearings and in continuing publicity, that of innuendo and hate against Leslie, well, I ask…
    that’s relevant and ‘real’ … but something as important as the guy, ‘brother’ Tex who was there at the crime scene and he’s talking to his lawyer about what occurred isn’t so important?
    She, our girl Barb here, was nowhere near the crime scene/scenes, as it were, and she is now… an expert- hey hey- and so, the acid, hash, pot, speed, the young age of someone as young as Leslie was, along with brother Charlie’s philosophy lectures and so on, that the prosecution so casually used during the trials and in talking freely about quite often, leads me to ask:
    which is it, all those influences or the crimes were committed with a clear mind on a girl’s own.
    See, that’s one of the frauds of the trial that Leslie was in.
    They were controlled,
    oh they acted on their own,
    oh it was Charlie’s drugs and mantras,
    ah, oh it was the girl on her own.

    Oh, okay, whatever you say, but that dog, or in this case/situations, those dogs don’t hunt, as they say in the country ( Colorado, Texas or even in California)
    you know that’s where Americans have ‘right on’ common sense, out in the rural areas.
    And so, now that y’all read this, thanks

  2. Louise says:

    What are you babbling about Fayez??? Have you been drinking?? What you wrote makes no sense. Are you a Charlie follower? No sense makes sense?

  3. Fayez Abedaziz says:

    It’s interesting, is it not that Dianne and Kitty Lutesinger were being interviewed, as was cute Susan ( Sadie, y’all) not long after the visits to the Barker Ranch by the friendly local law authorities, who by the way, were polite, I heard.
    What I’m saying is that the Tate-LaBianca cases, along with poor Hinman’s, were gonna be opened and the suspects arrested, with or without Susan’s Grand Jury testimony, for an example on that situation.
    Not much later Paul Watkins and others will be ‘spilling the beans.’
    And, that doesn’t even consider the other evidence, physical that is, such as Patricia and Tex’s fingerprints at the Tate house, for example.
    How anyone could think that they would not be found sooner or later, well, whatever.
    Still, Dianne really went through some tough and weird mind trips and too, at such a young age.
    Actually, why not wish that all former members of the Spahn ‘commune’ that did not commit violent crimes do well? Let that be to live their lives. If that person or other did not hurt someone else purposely, that is.
    Also, yeah, Sandra Good, among some others may be un-liked, but she hurt no one.
    Can you relate

  4. Rosie says:

    And just how do you know that Sandra Good did not ever hurt anyone? To this day she is a follower of Manson and if you have ever seen her speak about the murders you would have second thoughts about her unless you are a follower of Manson. You asked if we can relate. Absolutely. I am the same age as Pat Krenwinkel. Many times I saw the women referred to as “children” when they were on trial. Disgusting. They murdered in cold blood and viciously. I have no doubt that if Mary Brunner and Sandra Good had not been in jail on the nights of the murders, had Manson told them to go along with Tex, they would have done it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

  5. Louis says:

    There is no evidence that Good hurt anyone. As for her and Mother Mary being in jail at the time…I think Charlie sending them off with a stolen credit card was his way of getting them out of the way.

  6. Rosie says:

    You are correct. There is no evidence Good hurt anyone and they were sent off with stolen credit cards . I doubt it was to get them out of the way. Brunner had already proved herself to Manson when she was at Hinman’s house with Beausoliel and Atkins. To this day Good is an adamant supporter to Manson. I do think Good would have acted out with violence had she been told to. But just my opinion.

  7. Fayez Abedaziz says:

    we see that picture of Dianne Lake there with the heading of interview back when she was young and fresh from the Spahn, Barker and Myers shows

    she was really young so what did we expect with the way she saw how the world was from hogs farm to Charlie and those whacky kids and the gangs fun places

    there she was with some people older and experienced how was she to know much else
    she came through it all pretty good wouldn’t you say and so give her the benefit of the doubt and book or not she seems to and deserves to be and feel alright
    you gotta say that’s cool enough and well
    out of sight

  8. Louise says:

    It’s groovy too.

  9. Fayez Abedaziz says:

    George Harrison said,
    ‘making love making song’- ‘Love To You’ – Beatles Revolver Album-
    and that will be fine with no violence like you know John Lennon said so
    you all should know
    and if you see and want,
    George Harrison said,
    Here Comes The Sun- Beatles Abbey Road Album
    ‘the smiles returning to the faces’
    that’s true for Dianne and hopefully soon, for Leslie
    that’s what I and you and you want to see
    some of you anyway agree with George and me

  10. Louise says:

    Fayez- maybe you and Louis could write a poem or a little ditty about Leslie’s parole. You could call it “Acid Dreams of Release.”

  11. Louis says:

    Could be Rosie…that Good would have acted out violence. But for me, I view her more like Charlie, in that, she liked to get others to do the dirty work. I blame her for getting Red all worked up, and going out and pointing a gun at Ford.

Leave a Reply

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