Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

    I invite everybody to read the John Waters' articles on Leslie Van Houten - one of the so-called Manson girls in 1969.

    Already in 1980, Judge Bob Krug said:
    "I cannot find any indication where miss Van Houten has done anything wrong in prison. They can't keep using the crime forever and ever. That turns her sentence into life without parole. If I was miss Van Houten, I wouldn't have a clue what to do at the next hearing."

    And still in 1980, the Prosecutor himself (Stephen Kay, who argued against parole) said she shouldn't be locked forever, but should wait until she is 40 years old.

    30 years later, aged 61, Leslie Van Houten is still locked.
    She's spent four decades in jail.
    How many killers have been released in the meantime ?

    She did participate in something horrible when she was 19, but as has been noted :
    "If Leslie Van Houten had never existed, the LaBiancas still would be dead" (Attorney Paul Fitzegald in the Los Angeles Times).

    Indeed, horrible as it has been, her implication is minimal if compared to that of other Manson zombie-killers. She did not participate in the Tate murders, and on 10th August, Watson had already stabbed Rosemary LaBianca to death when he ordered Leslie : "Do something!"
    And she then stabbed Mrs LaBianca as she was dying, or already dead.
    Whatever, Leslie takes full responsability for the crimes.

    She even doesn't argue that Manson's influence should be considered a mitigating circumstance, saying:
    "I blame myself. I'm part of what made him a leader. A follower is as responsible for allowing a leader to lead them foully."

    All experts agree she is suitable for parole and no longer a danger for the community.

    Suffice to watch the cruel game of parole hearings to see how sincerely and deeply remorseful she is. How ashamed.

    Leslie Van Houten is also ashamed to have been a Manson follower. It hurts. She's smart and has long understood the vicious little bastard he is. Pleaing for her release is therefore anything but worshipping Manson.

    In fact, it seems that each time she is denied parole, Manson wins and justice looses, for I have no doubt that if the Manson murders had not been so famous, Leslie would have long been granted parole.

    In this respect also, she's a Manson victim. It's unjust.
    Justice should consider the facts,not their fame.

    And as a matter of fact, I've never seen a case more suitable for parole.

    Here are the links to John Waters articles (from his book "Role Models", to be published in May):

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w..._b_246953.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w..._b_246996.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w..._b_247025.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w..._b_247113.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w..._b_247142.html
    Last edited by DVV; 03-17-2010, 05:04 AM.

  • #2
    I don't believe in paroling any murderers myself. As far as I'm concerned everyone convicted in the Tate and LaBianca killings should have been executed long ago. I have no sympathy for any of them.

    John Waters should stick to filmmaking.

    Comment


    • #3
      David,

      I agree. Our society either spends too much time worrying about harsh punishment or too much effort in letting criminals off lightly. There must be something between those extremes that allows for reevaluation of people. Everyone has changed in his life. What made people commit crimes when young isn't always something that's still in them.

      Mike
      huh?

      Comment


      • #4
        Sorry, but none of the Manson gang has shown any real remorse or accepted any responsibility for their actions (with the possible exception of Bobby Beausoleil, who ironically was already in jail before the madness went down).

        Van Houten may not be quite as evil as Atkins, but the difference between the two is negligable.

        As far as I'm concerned, they already got their parole when when their death sentences were commuted to life.
        Last edited by Magpie; 03-17-2010, 08:55 AM.
        “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Magpie View Post
          As far as I'm concerned, they already got their parole when when their death sentences were commuted to life.
          I think that statement sums it up perfectly!

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Magpie,

            Sorry, but none of the Manson gang has shown any real remorse or accepted any responsibility for their actions
            That's simply false. Leslie Van Houten is truly remorseful. Moreover, she takes full responsability for what she did. Obviously, you haven't read John Waters not watched Leslie speak at her parole hearings.

            (with the possible exception of Bobby Beausoleil, who ironically was already in jail before the madness went down).
            I disagree. The less we can expect from a convicted murderer is to tell the truth.
            Years after, Beausoleil denies the established fact that Manson came to Hinman's house and cut his face and ear (which was almost a death sentence).
            In this respect, he seems still under Manson influence, and does not deserve parole.

            Van Houten may not be quite as evil as Atkins, but the difference between the two is negligable.
            Oh no, really no... Atkins is implicated in two murder cases (Hinman and Tate).
            And beside Manson influence, she seemed to have murderous instincts of her own. It's also obvious that she was never right in her mind. She was thus hardly suitable for parole.

            Worse, in her book, Atkins denied having stabbed Sharon Tate.

            As far as I'm concerned, they already got their parole when when their death sentences were commuted to life.
            No. That would be saying that Manson and the girls are equally guilty, which is a complete nonsense and misunderstanding.

            Leslie has been tried thrice, and got at last a life term with parole. The first two trials have no more value.

            She's suitable for parole, it's more than obvious.

            The problem isn't about our feelings and opinions regarding punishment, death penalty, etc... but about : how should the law be applied ?
            Her sentence gives her a chance to be paroled.
            She complies all criterias.
            So why she shouldn't be paroled after 40 years ?
            Because her case is famous ?

            As John Waters remarked : she has served more time in jail than any Nazi criminal judged in Nuremberg - except for those sentenced to death, of course, and Albert Speer.

            She must be free.
            She's far better than those who are free but still support Manson.

            Amitiés,
            David

            Comment


            • #7
              As John Waters remarked : she has served more time in jail than any Nazi criminal judged in Nuremberg - except for those sentenced to death, of course, and Albert Speer.
              Rudolf Hess, I think, Dave.

              Speer only served 20 years. Interestingly, Van Hounten will have spent more time in confinement even than Hess in a year or two.

              All the best,
              Ben

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
                David,

                I agree. Our society either spends too much time worrying about harsh punishment or too much effort in letting criminals off lightly. There must be something between those extremes that allows for reevaluation of people. Everyone has changed in his life. What made people commit crimes when young isn't always something that's still in them.

                Mike
                Thank you, Mike,

                First, we can grant her some mitigating circumstances: she was 19, estranged from her family, under the influence of Manson and of the Family life style.

                Her prison records are perfect.
                While Atkins and Watson have turned Jesus freaks (what an easy way to escape guilt and remorse...), Leslie kept rational, studying philosophy, thinking daily of the pain she has caused.

                More importantly, she has completely freed herself from Manson influence, more than any other family member (including Linda Kasabian, imo).

                As we can see, she has been denied parole since 1980 without a single valid argument.
                What has been recently said against her parole (Judge Sequeira, for example) is utterly ridiculous. It's a shame for Californian justice.

                She's still in jail because of lobbying, that's all, and it's just unfair.

                What can I do ?
                I feel like publishing an opinion column in Le Monde, but I'm not sure Governor Schwarzenegger can read French.

                Amitiés,
                David

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ben View Post
                  Rudolf Hess, I think, Dave.

                  Speer only served 20 years. Interestingly, Van Hounten will have spent more time in confinement even than Hess in a year or two.

                  All the best,
                  Ben
                  Thanks, Ben, yes, Rudolf Hess...

                  You see, Ben, the guys we are talking of... Speer, Hess...

                  What does a poor lost teenager of the flower power era who never planned any murder has to do in such a category ?

                  Amitiés,
                  David

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    F**k Charlie,
                    Free Leslie!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      We may be wishy-washy on the death penalty but we keep them locked up here in Illinois. Chester Weger has just pasted 50 years and William Heirens has been inside 64 years this summer. Each was arrested for killing three.
                      This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

                      Stan Reid

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi Stan,

                        Heirens is a serial killer and can't be released, just as Weger apparently (whom I don't know).

                        I'm sure that even in Illinois many murderers, especially with mitigating circumstances, true remorse and perfect prison records, etc, are released before serving 40 years.

                        All benefit for Charlie's cult, as if he was not a mere vicious and insane killer, but the super-Villain he wishes to be.

                        The truth is that Manson and Leslie Van Houten have nothing in common.
                        She should be released, he should not.

                        Amitiés,
                        David

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hi David,

                          Not that one is worse than the other but Weger beat three women to death in a robbery attempt.

                          Admittedly, we did let Nathan Leopold out as well as Neill Cream.
                          Last edited by sdreid; 03-17-2010, 06:43 PM.
                          This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

                          Stan Reid

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by DVV View Post
                            Hi Magpie,



                            That's simply false. Leslie Van Houten is truly remorseful. Moreover, she takes full responsability for what she did. Obviously, you haven't read John Waters not watched Leslie speak at her parole hearings.
                            Sorry, that's just false.

                            This is taking responsibilty: "I killed two people. It was wrong and I deserve to be in jail. I am sorry"

                            This is Leslie: "I was under Charlie's influence. Rosemary Tate was already dead when I stabbed her (30 times, no wait, 20 times, ah maybe it was 16 times, oh wait is was "numerous" times). Charles (Watson) was the actual killer, not me. I didn't kill Leno, I shouldn't have been charged with that. I only stabbed Rosemary because I was told to do it. Susan is more guilty than I am. Rosemary would have died anyway. I don't remember garrotting Rosemary with a lamp cord. The system was out to make an example of that. I did it because I was scared. I didn't "murder" anyone--I just "contributed to their deaths", yada, yada, yada."




                            Years after, Beausoleil denies the established fact that Manson came to Hinman's house and cut his face and ear (which was almost a death sentence).
                            In this respect, he seems still under Manson influence, and does not deserve parole.
                            Bobby killed a drug dealer in a drug deal gone bad, and has been in prison for over 40 years. He's admitted it, he's accepted that his association with Manson means that he's never getting out--people seem to want him to endorse Bugliosi's fantasy account of events.





                            Worse, in her book, Atkins denied having stabbed Sharon Tate.
                            And Van Houten repeatedly denies having killed Rosemary Bianca...


                            No. That would be saying that Manson and the girls are equally guilty, which is a complete nonsense and misunderstanding.

                            And according the the law, they are equally guilty. Everyone who was in the LaBianca house that night as part of the attack is equally guilty of what happened. That's the way the law sees it.
                            Last edited by Magpie; 03-17-2010, 10:05 PM.
                            “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DVV View Post
                              Her sentence gives her a chance to be paroled.
                              She complies all criterias.
                              So why she shouldn't be paroled after 40 years ?
                              Because her case is famous ?
                              Not just because her case was famous, but because her crime was heinous, and she still refuses to accept full responsibility for it.

                              And under Californian law, that's enough to deny her parole.
                              “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X