Van Houten Granted Parole for the Fifth Time

Tuesday, November 9th, 2021

Nov. 9 – Leslie Van Houten was found suitable for parole at a hearing held today by the California Board of Parole Hearings. This was Van Houten’s fifth consecutive parole suitability recommendation.

Today’s decision will undergo a review by the Board of Parole Hearings. Then it will be reviewed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who will either confirm, reverse, modify or take no action on the grant. The decision will be finalized no later than April 8, 2022.

Van Houten is also waiting on a ruling from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal regarding Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2020 parole recommendation. Van Houten’s attorneys are arguing that Newsom’s reversal came too late. Van Houten was recommended for parole on July 23, 2020. The cut off date for Newsom to reverse the grant was November 20, 2020. However, Newsom didn’t reverse the grant until November 27th. California law allows the governor to review and weigh in on parole grants. However, the governor is not required to review grants for them to take effect, leaving the door open for Van Houten to walk because Newsom acted too late.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Van Houten Granted Parole for the Fifth Time

  1. Missy says:

    She doesn’t deserve parole or probation, if she was truly sorry she would take The sentence and accepted. After all she has her life. She claims she doesn’t have any other violence in her past however it seems she does. On a personal note I don’t believe believe she is sorry after all of her interviews and what she has read on philosophy and psychology

  2. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    Her sentence was 7 years to life, she took that sentence. If the DA didn’ty like that sentence, they could have appealed but didn’t. It’s too late now. What you really want is her sentence changed 43 years later. If the law is not enforced equally, the government becomes a lawbreaker. It sounds like you don’t want parole for any murder convictions. I suggest you contact your legislature and get them to change the law for future cases, but don’t change sentences that have already been handed out by experienced judges who heard all of the evidence.

  3. Mike says:

    Regardless of her suitability, the question remains: is society ready for one of Manson’s killers to be free? How could Van Houten possibly adapt after spending more than 2/3 of her life in prison? Who would offer her a job or even live next door to her, knowing who she is and what she’s done?

    Never mind political expediency: does Gavin Newsom want to be the governor who grants parole to a perpetrator of one of the most infamous crimes in the past hundred years?

    I say no parole for Van Houten – or any of the others.

  4. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    Are you voting for Newsom in his next election? If you read the transcripts, Leslie has job offers, places to live, and a well developed plan for supervised parole. The question is not whether the majority are ready for her release, the question is whether or not the law should be followed. Leslie is not one of notorious criminals this century, that would be Manson. Leslie is guilty and she is the first to say so. But she is not Manson. Why can’t some of you get that straight? Please read the parole hearing transcripts (they are on cielodrive) and then you might know enough about the facts to make relevant arguments.

  5. Fayez Abedaziz says:

    Leslie has legally and morally met the terms/rules/ set by the system, from court rulings to prison conduct and so forth.
    The Parole Board did their job.
    The ‘know it’s all,’ including the haters, talk as if they’re Leslie’s jury.
    I have news for those opposing Leslie’s absolute right to be freed. It isn’t a popularity contest and all those that have been empowered in the prison system, including the one Leslie is in know her and support her release.
    Leslie is a good, decent woman.
    As far as some of the tired excuses/tirades against Leslie, like ‘what’s she gonna do…what work…’ What are you talking about. Really? Yeah, sure, y’all are concerned about, yeah, whatever. I would support her if she lived down the block or whatever. I’d even give her, through the mail, of course, a gift of, say, have this amount, have a nice beverage or a dinner out on me. Let her go, she’s done more time than many of those actually killed 1 or 2 or more, directly by hand. Also, since I was a kid, we learned that Americans are, among other fine attributes, generally a people that say: “we can understand, we believe in giving the next guy a break, a second chance…”

  6. Alexander Hill says:

    Well at least the Superior Court Judge deciding her case is different than the one she had in the past. Currently, she has Suge Knight’s judge who is incarcerated with Tex. And having Justice Chaney on the Appellate Court again would be helpful. Oddly enough, her previous judge reversed Newsom’s parole denial of an Armenian terrorist who killed a Turkish diplomat. I am interested to know if Van Houten talked about Krenwinkel’s apparent cancer in the hearing.

  7. Alexander Hill says:

    Maryland recently voted to remove their governor having the power to override parole grants.

  8. Roger says:

    Free Leslie!!!

  9. Peggy says:

    I would live next door to her. She’s paid her dues. Let her out!!!

  10. Billy Esquire says:

    Same things…..every single year. She’s found suitable for parole, then the governor(s) say, “No!” This is such a waste of time and money. Nothing’s going to change as long as the incompetent Newsom can overturn her parole for political reasons. The only reason she’s been held for the past several years is COMPLETELY for political reasons…..everyone knows that.

    Hopefully, the cut off date technicality will prove beneficial for her. Something like that is the ONLY way she’s going to get out. I’ve wondered if Newsom went past the date….”accidentally on purpose”. Nah….😉

    Thanks for educating the ignorant, Rich!

  11. Wolf's Stare says:

    Why should we believe what you believe what she believes?

  12. Wolf's Stare says:

    Sorry that was for Missy.

  13. Wolf's Stare says:

    I would live next door to her and offer her a job, would probably be a lot better than the neighbors I have now.

  14. Wolf's Stare says:

    Billy Esquire, are you insinuating Newsom may have missed the date so that she gets let out on a technicality and his hands are clean?

  15. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    Respondent argued that Ms. Van Houten is not ever going to be entitled to obtain the requested discovery that indicated when her parole matter was referred to the Governor for his review, even if an order to show cause is issued by the superior court. (Answer, p. 8.) Instead, Respondent wants this Court, and Ms. Van Houten, to use Robin Soward’s declaration that does not state when the matter was referred to the Governor, it just states that it was done prior to 120 days. But we knew that because the Governor reversed the grant of parole in less than 150 days. What we still don’t know is when the matter was referred to the Governor. Until that information is revealed, it is impossible to determine if the Governor exceeded his period of jurisdiction. What is even more troubling is that Respondent relies on the deliberative process privilege indicating that the BPH’s communications with the Governor contained advice, recommendations, and opinions of the BPH in this matter. Because the BPH provided the Governor with advice, recommendations, and/or opinions that the Governor may have relied on, it remains impossible to address whatever it is the BPH provided the Governor, without disclosing the requested discovery.

  16. Janet Palirano says:

    Novemebr 27, 2020 was only 127 days after her July 23, 2020 parole hearing. The parole board gets 120 days to review it’s decision- then the Governor gets 30. So Governor Newsom was not late in his decision at all. He was earlier than he could have taken!

  17. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    Not true Janet, while the statute gives up to 120 days to review the hearing, the COVID protocols require that the decision review be done in 90 days if the inmate was found suitable for parole. If there was a COVID outbreak at the inmate’s prison, the review has to be done faster. There was a COVID outbreak at Leslie’s prison, she contracted COVID and was hospitalized on oxygen. For certain, either the BPH violated the COVID protocols, the Governor exceeded his 30 days, or both. Some suspicious things are that the reversal was done the day after Thanksgiving. The only ones who work on Black Friday are those who work in stores. Then the refusal of the Governor to say when he got the case referred to him. If he acted properly, he would give up that information but he’s choosing to hide it. He has only 30 days but refuses to say when the 30 days started. Finally, the first three reversals were done much faster without the COVID protocols in place.

  18. Janky-dog says:

    Leslie Van Houten has served way too much time already for, according to Tex’s recent hearing, stabbing a dead body. She will have a challenge re-entering to our messed up society and likely will have a supervisor.
    Newsom’s more of a threat to society than Leslie.
    It’s time.

  19. Billy Esquire says:

    Wolf’s Stare said: “Billy Esquire, are you insinuating Newsom may have missed the date so that she gets let out on a technicality and his hands are clean?”

    Who knows? It’s GOT to be getting a little uncomfortable for these governors to continue to say NO! to the parole board when they continue to find her suitable for parole every single time she comes up for parole….year after year after year after year after year! At some point (actually it was already long ago), it becomes quite clear to anyone and everyone paying attention that the governors aren’t REALLY weighing the suitability and appropriateness of her parole. Nope, not at all. They are simply saying NO! because they don’t want to deal with the political fallout.

    And then there’s this to think about. What level-headed person would TRULY think that Leslie has NOT met the conditions for parole, that she is NOT suitable for parole, and that at 72 years of age…..with a PERFECT record….she is STILL, and WOULD continue to be, a danger to society? I mean….WHO would TRULY believe that if they are mentally competent and can look at evidence and facts?

    Well, of course, only an incompetent fool would REALLY believe those things. Actually, I think it’s worse than that. NOBODY would REALLY believe those things when faced with the reality of her record since entering prison all those years ago. The ANSWER to whether she should be paroled is as clear as dark is from light….there is no debating.

    So, considering this, the ONLY reason for a politician to CONTINUE to go against the State’s OWN parole board year after year would be that they aren’t thinking of Leslie at all, they aren’t thinking about what’s right or wrong at all…..they are just thinking about what’s best for THEM personally and politically.

    I think any level-headed person would agree that Leslie should be paroled. I think for the reasons I outlined above, even Newsom thinks deep down she should be and would probably like to let it happen. But he’s scared to let it happen. So IF it happened because of some technicality…..OOPS!

    But as I said, who really knows? I do know that if politics had NOTHING to do with Leslie being paroled, she would have been paroled the very first time it was granted. What was that….5 years ago? I can’t remember anymore. But she is so clearly a political prisoner. It’s a sickening situation and what’s happening is so, so wrong.

  20. Brian Personett says:

    Mr. Pfieffer first of all thanks for responding to this thread. I don’t believe her sentence has changed any at all. She received a life sentence with possibility of parole in 7 years, which as I understand it is the same sentence her original sentence was commuted to. She is serving her life sentence and still has the “possibility” of parole. Yes she appears to be everyone’s grandma now, but the fact remains she was a willing participant in these murders. I can appreciate the positive changes she’s made in her life, and perhaps she is “rehabilitated”. But in my opinion she as well as the others involved still incarcerated have yet to repay their debt to society. I truly can sympathize with the pro-Leslie stuff, I still maintain, part of being in prison is punitive.

  21. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    Brian, do you believe the law should be followed? If so, and you appear to concede Leslie is rehabilitated, why should she remain in prison? If you want to take the punitive route, isn’t 50+ years punitive? I think that you want to ignore the law and say that once you’ve done something bad, no matter what the courts rule, the “bad” person should have to pay more to satisfy the “punitive” part of the sentence? Have you ever done something bad? If you have (and we all have) done something bad, should you have to pay a bigger penalty than the law demands? That seems to be what you are advocating.

  22. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    PS Brian, Leslie’s sentence was not “commuted” to 7 to life, her death sentence was reversed, not commuted to 7 to life. I think you need to see that difference. None of the others(Manson cult members) had their sentence reversed, but Leslie did and you need to respect that difference, otherwise, you are not willing to accept the law.

  23. Fred Bloggs says:

    Brian Personett says:
    She received a life sentence with possibility of parole

    If you understand that, then you can’t emphasize the first part and ignore the second.

    as I understand it is the same sentence her original sentence was commuted to

    Her original sentence no longer exists. The other defendants’ sentences can be spoken of in real terms, but not Leslie’s. That it was reversed means it is as though it was never given in the first place.

    Yes she appears to be everyone’s grandma now, but the fact remains she was a willing participant in these murders

    This is true. However, it must be pointed out, yet again, when she was originally on the death row wing of the prison back in 1971, there were two women there already. Both women had been sentenced to death. Both women had committed brutal murders. Both women, from that specially constructed death row, were paroled within 10 years of the death sentences being commuted. That means that by sometime around 1982, yes, ’82, when there was still a Soviet Union, a Yugoslavia, a Czechoslovakia and a communist maintained Eastern block, long before there was any Islamic terrorism, while Mrs Gandhi and Mrs Thatcher were the female prime ministers of their respective countries, indeed, while Britain was at war in the Falklands, those two women walked free. They were willing participants in their murders, one murdering an elderly woman during a robbery, the other murdering her lover’s wife.

    I can appreciate the positive changes she’s made in her life, and perhaps she is “rehabilitated”. But in my opinion she as well as the others involved still incarcerated have yet to repay their debt to society

    Here’s the thing. It’s not our opinion that determines whether a person has paid their debt to society. It’s the law that determines that.

    I still maintain, part of being in prison is punitive

    I totally agree. In fact, I’d say that its main function is punitive. But that isn’t its only function.

  24. Fred Bloggs says:

    Missy says:
    if she was truly sorry she would take The sentence and accepted

    That’s precisely what she has done.

    Mike says:
    Regardless of her suitability

    That’s an interesting conundrum. You accept she’s suitable, yet at the same time you seem prepared to dismiss the fact that she’s suitable.

    the question remains: is society ready for one of Manson’s killers to be free?

    I don’t think this is even an issue any longer. Every society has always had matters foist upon it, regardless. And throughout the ages, people have just had to get on with their lives. Not to sound trite, but murderers are released from prison fairly often. When Steve Grogan was released back in 1985, there was no big fanfare. If LVH was going to be released, unfortunately, there would be a big “to do” ~ but that’s primarily because of the repeated reversals of the guv’nors. And the various media outlets have stories to write in an ever competitive industry.

    How could Van Houten possibly adapt after spending more than 2/3 of her life in prison?

    The same way anyone adapts to a situation. I live in England and even now, I see people from a variety of countries that have been here 30, 40 years and they’ve not really adapted. Kids always adapt, but adults adapt as they see fit and at the pace they choose, and sometimes not at all. I don’t see LVH’s adaptation as any kind of problem.
    Also, as various societies change, many people are forced to go along with those changes. For example, those people that like to go to the bank or post office or even to their doctor have had to adapt to the increasing encroachment of the online systems. One gets used to it, even as one ages and doesn’t like it.

    Who would offer her a job or even live next door to her, knowing who she is and what she’s done?

    At the age of 72, does it occur to you that some people might not want to work ? Why should LVH spend her latter years looking for a job ? Granted, over here, the retirement age gets later {once 60 for women and 65 for men, it’s now 67 for both}, but honestly, in this world, wherever you go, few people are looking for jobs at 72. I certainly wouldn’t be !!
    As for living next door, well, you’re right. Some people wouldn’t want her living next door to them. But some people wouldn’t want you living next door to them. And as a man who is black, I can assure you that there are some people that wouldn’t want me living next door to them, or even in the same town ! Some people don’t want young people living next door to them or people with children. There are not many places where you can force a person out of their house just because you don’t like the fact they live there. Now, if LVH was blaring Led Zeppelin and Nazareth at full volume through the night when folk are trying to sleep, people might have a case……👺

  25. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    Fred, you hit all the issues spot on!

    Basically, all that want Leslie to remain in prison (when conceding she is not an unreasonable risk to public safety if placed on supervised parole – the legal standard) do not want the law to be followed. We don’t get to pick which laws we like and only follow those.

  26. guess who says:

    Sorry folks. I can’t forget the murderer’s victims as easily as you. I can’t forget the ripple effect the families have gone through for decades.

    Follow the law you say? Governor has the opportunity to do just that. And he will deny her again. And again. And again.

    That’s called justice.

  27. Fred Bloggs says:

    guess who says:
    Sorry folks. I can’t forget the murderer’s victims as easily as you. I can’t forget the ripple effect the families have gone through for decades

    Don’t take this the wrong way, guess who, but it is insulting when anyone implies that the victims of a crime are somehow being forgotten, or trivialized because someone points to the law in matters of parole. It first must be pointed out that it isn’t the criminal fraternity that came up with the laws by which people live.
    It must also be pointed out that had any of the Family murderers been given LWOP sentences, I very much doubt they’d be heard of again.
    It’s also worth making the point that very rarely is there any argument from anyone that Pat Krenwinkle should be released. And there’s never any argument that Charles Watson should be. Which sort of indicates that not all of the participants in this case are viewed in the same light and interestingly, the actual court sentences and parole recommendations have reflected that too.
    I don’t mean to be harsh when I describe the notion that any opinion other than “they should all be locked up forever and/or let them rot in Hell” is insulting ~ but it is. Trying to balance everyone in this saga is by no means easy. That, however, is no reason to take the easy route.

    Follow the law you say? Governor has the opportunity to do just that. And he will deny her again. And again. And again.
    That’s called justice

    But is it ? When you say “And he will deny her again. And again. And again”, I think you’ve left the road of justice. What you’re then doing is superimposing your own standards and feelings without attempting to be balanced. It is arguable that you are actually interested in “justice.” Because you have already decided what justice is and it has nothing to do with the laws of the state that has set those laws. Justice requires looking at the life while incarcerated of LVH and asking, genuinely, is she suitable for parole. You may conclude “yes she is” or you may decide “no she is not” but whichever side you may come down on, it is a travesty if you have not arrived at that decision in a fair and just manner and looked at the totality of all the evidence set before you. Having an already made up mind, no matter what may be shared in the process, is actually the antithesis of being just.

  28. Billy Esquire says:

    Rich Pfeiffer said: “We don’t get to pick which laws we like and only follow those.”

    Well, except Gavin Newsom, of course. 🤨

  29. W . Guild says:

    Excellent points Mr. Pfeiffer.

  30. W.Guild says:

    I think she’s no longer a threat to society. She has had an exceptionally good record of 50 years of imprisonment. She’s well liked and a big contributor to the other inmates . Leslie is highly intelligent.

  31. guess who says:

    Fred Bloggs says he’s insulted. I’m insulted by people who put murderer’s rights above the victim and their families. Victims are forgotten not only by society but the parole board. I don’t need to dissect every syllable of someone’s opinion and finger wag if it doesn’t fit my narrative.

    I won’t bother posting here anymore. It’s obviously pro murderers. You even have her attorney back clapping her supporters. Not exactly the type of company I’d keep.

    In parting, if she does get out on parole she won’t last long. She’ll have a target on her back with the next murderer who wants to make a name for themselves. Just. Like. She. Did.

  32. Michael says:

    It’s not fair, Guess Who, to label this site “pro-murderers.” Some of us favor Leslie’s release, some don’t. But none of us have expressed anything but compassion for the victims and their families. I can recognize that Leslie is legally suitable for parole, though morally, I don’t believe any of them should be freed. But it’s the law which needs to be applied, not my moral position. I am not sympathetic to Leslie, but I can recognize and appreciate her rehabilitation. Her release will anger some of us, but I don’t think it will endanger any of us.

  33. CybeleMoon says:

    I better weigh in here .
    Truly for me how much time is a life worth. I’ve always felt more sympathy for the victim’s families. I felt that their crimes were horrible enough to warrant life without parole. However, that’s not what happened and now the likes of Tex Watson. Patricia Krenwinkel and Bobby Beausoleil take up tax payers money to have parole hearings etc.

    I may think some laws need changing but I don’t live in the states and I do believe Rich Pfeiffer knows the law and he believes in it and also has more compassion perhaps than many of us who protest. In England they never let Myra Hindley free for her crimes though she was eligible at the time and had her supporters

    I look at the face of an old woman who I don’t believe is a danger anymore. She alone must live with what she has done and know what she has missed by her actions . Yet, how many times can a governor reverse a parole decision?

    Someone said she has a job waiting for her but I wonder if she is not eligible then for Old Age Security. Yes she would need a lot of help both financially and emotionally. She is coming into a very different world than the one she left 50 years ago. She will be restricted. It’s hard enough for most of us. She may even get more support than many of us do who have been law abiding.

    It’s a bit scary in the states today with all the anger, insults and politics. I’m in Canada now but ‘m going back to Ireland where they “may” have a few IRA disturbances in the North since the Brexit talks faltered and they have had their troubles. Other than that it is a purely magical and peaceful place.

    All the best to everyone

  34. Fred Bloggs says:

    guess who says:
    Fred Bloggs says he’s insulted

    Um, no I did not. I said that it is insulting to imply that anyone that doesn’t have the view of “they should all be locked up forever and/or let them rot in Hell” is forgetting/ignoring/doesn’t care about the victims or their families and the devastation that the families of the victims may have had to suffer. And it is.
    I’m not personally insulted. But when different people have a view that is different to yours, or who try to explore different aspects, and you conclude that basically, they don’t give a shit about victims or their families, well, I look at that and I see that as insulting to those people.

    I’m insulted by people who put murderer’s rights above the victim and their families

    Well, I think it is beyond the pale to put the rights of a murderer above that of anyone. But that is not what is going on with Leslie Van Houten. Her rights are not being put above those of Debra Tate or Louis Smaldino or Kay Martley or anyone else.
    See, what happens in democracies in the West is that everybody has rights. The good, the bad and the ugly. And from time to time, exercise of those rights clash. And when that happens, we get cute debates like this. As I stated earlier, it is not the criminal fraternity that make, determine and enforce the laws by which we all live.

    Victims are forgotten not only by society but the parole board

    This is where nuance for me rears its head. On one level, you’re right. Society does forget victims. Do you endlessly remember all the black people that were lynched or unfairly convicted of crimes that they did not commit simply because of their race ? Can you remember their names, any of them ?
    But there’s the other side of your point ~ parole boards. The very fact that they exist tells us that, like it or not, there are jailbirds that will be considered for early release {although 50 years is hardly an early release}. Those parole boards don’t forget the victims. LVH was knocked back at least 19 times from 1978 until around 2016.

    I don’t need to dissect every syllable of someone’s opinion and finger wag if it doesn’t fit my narrative

    Comment sections imply precisely that. People make comments. And other people reply to some of those comments. And various discussions take place. And many of us will say something at some point, that will spark a train of thought in someone else or with which they’ll agree or disagree and want to comment on it. And do so.
    As yet, this is not North Korea.

    I won’t bother posting here anymore

    Why not ? Are you saying that your opinions are not worthy of being commented on ? Or that you can’t robustly defend what you think when someone disagrees or doesn’t like the way you frame something ?
    You came into this conversation with a critical view towards those you saw as belittling the victims of this crime and their families. Why is it OK for you to call people out but not for you to be also ? Are you one of these people that likes one-way conversation ? Come on guessy, extend the same courtesy to people that you, by your opening comment, obviously expect.
    There are plenty of commenters here that have a similar view to you or share aspects of your view. And they continue to share why they feel their way. It makes for some great conversation, pretty civilly, even if it gets a little heated at times. And is that a bad thing ? No. Good disagreements between people that are respectful towards each other make for some of the best debates.

    You even have her attorney back clapping her supporters. Not exactly the type of company I’d keep

    Why shouldn’t her lawyer, if someone can see where he’s coming from and happens to agree, not be told so by said lawyer ?
    You also assume a lot in the dismissive way you refer to “her supporters.” Just because someone doesn’t fawn all over the direction of your point does not make one “a supporter.” Speaking personally, if you’d ever read anything I’ve said on the murderers connected to this case, you’d know my stance.
    As for “Not exactly the type of company I’d keep” ~ mate, that’s cheap. Not a single one of us has any control over who posts comments here. And the commenters here are from all over the place. You keep the company in cyberspace of whoever happens to where you are commenting.
    But you know what ? I’d happily cook a meal for and sit down and chat with Rich Pfeiffer, Leslie Van Houten…….and you. I’d do the same for Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Barak Obama. I’d even chat happily with Pam. 🧜‍♀️

    if she does get out on parole she won’t last long. She’ll have a target on her back with the next murderer who wants to make a name for themselves

    You may well be right on that. But I do wonder. LVH isn’t exactly top drawer. It would be interesting to fathom exactly the percentage of people that have heard of her, much less those that think that she would be worth going after to kill.
    The most worrisome aspect of your assertion though, is the relish with which you state it and the implicit hope in your words.

  35. W. Guild says:

    The saddest thing obviously besides the murders , is that Leslie was not only very beautiful and classy, she was brilliant. She could have been a senator’s wife or a professor.

  36. Billy Esquire says:

    Fred, you have the patience of Job. Thank you for speaking for so many who simply don’t want to take the time to reply to the inflammatory rhetoric of those who try to make false assumptions, and put words in our mouth if we don’t agree with them. You’re to be commended for your excellent responses.

  37. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred,
    though you are very often right in your insights and especially from a spiritual point of view you too are a bit condescending in putting down other’s opinions from a moral high ground or showing them the errors of their ways? ( Remember, I asked you once if you were a Jesuit lol)

    People like to vent and these forums are one way of doing it. LVH has both her supporters and detractors. As to “inflammatory rhetoric” or putting words in other mouths?
    Billy E. there are those that minimize and excuse her actions and those who think she is totally responsible for her own actions. The Manson crimes evoke a lot of emotional responses even today. But as Fred said I wonder how many of the millenial generation even know that much about it.
    Interestingly W. Guild, I think many of those girls were smart and talented. But something went terribly wrong.

  38. Michael says:

    A minor but relevant point – Steve Grogan was released in the 1980’s and he was involved in both the La Bianca and Shea murders, actively participating in Shea.

    To my knowledge no one ever attacked him, and if he was not attacked when the murders and all involved were much fresher in the public’s mind, it seems unlikely that Leslie would be in danger of attack after all this time.

    (Then again, we have no clips of Steve skipping down the hall laughing and singing during his trial as we do of Leslie, and no doubt those clips continue to hurt her.)

    Anyway, I think the “she’ll get attacked” or “she can’t find work” arguments aren’t convincing. If she’s released, I don’t think justice will have been served, but the law will have been obeyed. It will be awfully hard on the victim’s families, to whom my heart will really go out.

  39. Lee says:

    This woman isn’t going anywhere. Why should she?

  40. Billy Esquire says:

    Lee said: “This woman isn’t going anywhere. Why should she?”

    Read ALL the responses above, and you’ll know why. If you want the brief answer, she should be released because it’s the LAW! She has met the requirements for parole many times over. That’s why the parole board has recommended her for parole FIVE straight times. The parole board is doing their job and following the law, but there are those who are circumventing it, likely for personal political purposes.

    The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants, either as the price for obtaining pretrial release or as punishment for crime after conviction.

    IMO, holding someone when they have repeatedly met the criteria for release more than meets the criteria for CRUEL (and unduly harsh) punishment and should be disallowed. Those responsible for it should be punished under the law. There is no clearer case than this one.

  41. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    you too are a bit condescending in putting down other’s opinions from a moral high ground

    Can you give me some examples ? I obviously don’t think I’m being condescending; however, I’d like to see what someone, who does think I am, views as me being that way and rather than assume, I need concrete examples.

    or showing them the errors of their ways

    Again, could you be more specific ? If you mean that in terms of factual aspects, I can see where you’re coming from. I suspect however, that you don’t mean that.

    People like to vent and these forums are one way of doing it

    Ah, so where does one draw the line, Cybele ? If people like to vent and the forums are one way of doing so, then isn’t everyone and everything said, fair game ?

  42. Missy says:

    Have we all forgotten about the victims Didnt the victims beg for their life? Didn’t they work for their life. I understand she did her time according to the law (that was changed). but how do we say that that’s OK, You can have your freedom, because you worked hard, did therapy and studied also you were on your best behavior. I am glad she has people to support her, and her accomplishments. However she was originally put on death row because of the horrendous acts she committed. Legalities? Aren’t we mocking the jury who decided (which I am sure wasn’t an easy decision) that she should have the death-penalty. Yes I believe if someone has or had the death-penalty they should be kept in prison until they die. Especially since I personally feel strongly that there should have been a Grandfather clause to that law.

  43. Missy says:

    To Wolf’s Stare and Fred boggs. The article isn’t about me but I only put my opinion I never asked anyone to believe a word I said however, there are many interviews in which have stated she was violent in the past. I doubt if she would be violent now at her age. I was simply stating my opinion as you have yours I have mine. But while you questioned me I can honestly say I cannot get past the factor of how many times she stabbed Rosemary La Bianca You know how she smiled and skipped down the hallway singing like she didn’t do anything serious.

    My word is not law It is only an opinion As far as breaking a law She was put on death row Until the law changed To a life sentence. Personally I believe Grogan And anyone else who has gotten out of prison who has committed horrendous acts of murder who had, or has gotten a life sentence should continue to stay in jail, after all what is so cruel and harsh about 3 meals A-day, a place to sleep, along with books, TV, medical, dental, and all those other amenities that she receives while in prison. Or are we all concerned about the cost?

    And just for the record, I am glad that she has taken the time to make herself a better person. But even so, How do we excuse what she has done Just because we forgive her let’s not forget who the true victims are

  44. Missy says:

    By the way Fred boggs you bring up a lot of good points thank you.

  45. Fred Bloggs says:

    Missy says:
    But even so, How do we excuse what she has done

    Her actions 52 years ago can’t be excused. I’ve never argued that they can be excused, neither would I. Even when one forgives, the very power of forgiveness is that the action is not excused, but no longer held against. At least in my mind, there’s a big difference.

  46. Missy says:

    Fred Blogg: That makes sense to a point. Your feedback is appreciated thank you

  47. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    Missy, you are working on misinformation. Leslie’s death sentence conviction was overturned by the CA supreme court. Her legal sentence is 7 years to life. (3rd trial) So may are confused in the same manner, they all lump Leslie in with Manson, Tex, Pat, and Susan. Their convictions were not overturned like Leslie’s.

  48. Pam says:

    It doesn’t matter what this vile butcher’s lawyer does. Gavin will deny her parole. I see Fred is still making accuses for Lulu. She will die in prison.

  49. Fred Bloggs says:

    Pam says:
    I see Fred is still making excuses for Lulu

    You’ve kind of lost me there, Pam. Can you tell me which ones ?

  50. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred,
    apologies. It was just a tone that I thought I could sense in some of your responses and yes it’s all fair game as long as people are somewhat respectful to the posters.

  51. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    We all need to be respectful of other’s opinions, even those opinions o0f those who don’t want the law to be followed.

  52. Missy says:

    Rich Pfeiffer: first of all I wasn’t lumping her together with anyone, because she is an individual who is accountable for her own actions.

  53. Missy says:

    Rich Pfeiffer: first of all I wasn’t lumping her together with anyone, because she is an individual who is accountable for her own actions. Just as Tex, Susan and Patricia are accountable for their own actions.
    Also, so you are aware, I wasn’t confused either about her 3rd trial I just don’t agree with it. And just because somebody doesn’t agree with the law doesn’t mean that they don’t want the law followed. I stated in an earlier post that they were my opinions and they don’t matter.

    Personally I feel if you take a life(s) without it being in self-defense or protecting your family and home it deserves a life sentence for life. I am honestly against the death penalty.
    Also I am sorry for having an attitude, voicing an opinion, and not just thinking about the law.

  54. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    apologies. It was just a tone that I thought I could sense in some of your responses

    I probably do have a tone at times. I can be sarcastic, I can be sharp, I can be humorous, I can be passionate. My tone tends to be adapted to whom I’m addressing and the type of tone they may be taking with me or what they are saying to me. And of course, when one has had a number of encounters online with a person, even though we don’t know one another, in a sense we are getting to know one another so that might also account for differences in tone.
    That said, it’s never my intention to belittle anyone. And as far as I can determine, I don’t. But I make no bones about the fact that I do argue forcefully at times, and I’ll also admit quite openly that I can get a little irritable if people quote wrong facts in the backing up of their opinions. I think those that do that should actually have more respect for their own opinion.

  55. Rich Pfeiffer says:

    Cybele, I respect your comments and having seen enough of them, I know you respect other comments that might not agree with yours. We all say things that in hindsight we wish we could have worded differently. This is not a problem. Like you, I get FRUSTRATED with the comments based on incorrect facts. Folks, if you don’t care enough to find out the true facts, then maybe it’s best you not comment at all.

  56. Cybele Moon says:

    Rich , you have been very gracious to everyone on these forums and you have my deepest respect – and I have to admit you are correct according to the laws which for me might as well be arguing religion with the pope ( or Fred) ! lol it’s due to your dilligence and perseverance and knowledge of California law to even come this far where Leslie has a chance to be freed whatever I believe all their sentences should have been originally.
    – And to both you and
    Fred Bloggs, as Bertrand Russel said, “Would I die for my beliefs, good heavens no, I could be wrong!”

Leave a Reply

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