Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[Ally]

So I am counting. And still not coming up with five.

Not according to the State of California, there were no facts that she had knowledge of Tate prior to the crime. She found out the morning after from PK.

I never said that she knew prior. I said she knew when she walked into the labianca house what had occurred the prior evening and what was going to occur that night. And the minute that she knew of prior murders and agreed to participate in future she became an accessory after the fact and a conspirator in any future murders. Whether California chose to PROSECUTE her is not the point. The Green River killer has not been prosecuted for dozens of murders we know he committed. That doesn't mean he isn't guilty of them.

So that's one and you were the one in error not me. Keep the rest coming.

[DVV]

So from now on when you post the driviel about Krug, I'll simply point out that you're lying and leave it at that.

I certainly don't need to lie in such a discussion, nor do I need to say you lie just because our opinions differ.

And, even though they can deny her parole because of the nature of the crime (I know this very well...indeed, they have no other argument to come with), judge Krug has pointed out a patent contradiction.

[Magpie]

Let's see if it works...

Judge Krug

made a point, since

Leslie cannot change

the nature

of her crime,

denying her parole on such a basis amount to

give her

life without parole

which is in plain contradiction

with the

sentence she

received.

You're lying. For reasons amply illustrated.

Gee, that's a lot easier.

[Magpie]

Perhaps, but the more guilty of all is Manson. Then we have Tex, Susan....and at the bottom of the list, Leslie.

If if mass murder were an Olympic event Manson Tex and Susan would get Gold, Silver and Bronze and Leslie would be the footnote that no-one remembers.

Unfortunately for you mass murder is a crime, and the law says that every conspirator's hands are equally dirty.

[DVV]

Let's see if it works...

Judge Krug

made a point, since

Leslie cannot change

the nature

of her crime,

denying her parole on such a basis amount to

give her

life without parole

which is in plain contradiction

with the

sentence she

received.

[Magpie]

And just to explode the emerging myth about the only reason for denying Van Houten her parole is the nature of the crime, the parole board also included these reason's for denying her request:

Minimization of her involvement in the crime and the enormity of the crime.

Unwillingness or inability to recognize the racial motivations for the murders or the intended purpose of the crime (i.e. to start a race war with the attending loss of life)

Withdrawal from all prison programs and activities for some time prior to her parole request.

[Magpie]

Magpie, thanks for the fun.

You're most welcome.

Now that you've passed up my last opportunity to explain what it is about the Appeal Court decision that you don't understand, I'll assume you finally grasp it. So from now on when you post the driviel about Krug, I'll simply point out that you're lying and leave it at that.

[Magpie]

You're welcome to disagree, but like it or not, dozens of criminals are paroled every year.

Amitiés,
David

I figured you'd try this nonsense at some point, so I checked the stats.

In California, between 4500 and 5500 prisoners serving life with parole apply for parole per year. Between 140 and 150 are actually recommended for parole-- not granted, recommended.

So contrary to your claim, Van Houten is not some exceptional case being denied something that is routinely handed out to others.

[DVV]

Magpie, thanks for the fun.

[DVV]

Please do point out where I said disagreeing with me is a mental disease, DVV?

My English is poor, but I guess "loony fringe" wasn't a compliment.

She is DIRECTLY responsible for the murders of both people in that house. And she is culpable for every single death that occurred as a result of that plot. She could have been and should have been tried for those crimes as well.

Perhaps, but the more guilty of all is Manson. Then we have Tex, Susan....and at the bottom of the list, Leslie.

And considering that she was originally given a death sentence, life without parole is a suitable substitute.

That's an acceptable opinion, but not mine.

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

"They can't use the crime forever and ever. That turns her sentence into life without parole."
Judge Krug

.

Jesus Christ, what will it take to make you comprehend?

THE APPEAL COURT SAID THAT KRUG WAS WRONG.

Or maybe this will work:

THE

APPEAL

COURT

SAID

THAT

KRUG

WAS

WRONG!!!!!

Which particular words in this sentence are giving you trouble? Tell me, please, so I can try and explain it to you.

California LAW--the law, not your opinion--says that in the case of an exceptionally egregious crime, the parole board can deny parole solely on the basis of that crime.

I've only explained this to you about 6 times now, leading me to believe that your insistence on making sure your bull**** about Krug appears on almost every page of this thread is either wilful ignorance or some form of mild retardation.

.
And she knew full well of the Tate murders and she bears equal responsibility for their deaths.

Not according to the State of California, there were no facts that she had knowledge of Tate prior to the crime. She found out the morning after from PK.

They dropped the conspiracy count in the third trial. The original conviction was overturned, the second trial ended in a mistrial due to a 7-3-2 hung jury.

Stephen Kay was worried and took the safest path in the third trial, even the silliness of adding a burglary charge over the food, clothes and a few coins.

FreeLeslie

[Ally]

And considering the above is what passes for logical debate by her fervent supporters, I feel comfortable.

Please do point out where I said disagreeing with me is a mental disease, DVV?

So let me ask you this DVV if someone stood guard while someone else butchered your family and they only stabbed ONE of your family members, does that mean they aren't responsible for the others? They only are to blame for ONE death and not all the deaths that occurred in that house?

She is DIRECTLY responsible for the murders of both people in that house. And she is culpable for every single death that occurred as a result of that plot. She could have been and should have been tried for those crimes as well.

And considering that she was originally given a death sentence, life without parole is a suitable substitute.

[DVV]

Ally,
With all due respect, I have spent countless hours reading and reviewing testimony, coroner's report, parole hearings, California law, etc. You do not want to get into a discussion of the facts with me. There are five factual errors in your response rant above.

Your best bet is to stay out there on the edge and lob insults and innuendo.

Your beliefs to not bother nor threaten me, I wish you well.

FreeLeslie

Isn't that funny, Freeleslie ?

Disagreeing with Ally is a mental disease, apparently.

No wonder if she accused Leslie Van Houten of mass murder.

Leslie Van Houten killed six millions people, in fact.

All stabbed in the back.

Amitiés,
David

[Ally]

[QUOTE=FreeLeslie;127285]Ally,

You do not want to get into a discussion of the facts with me. There are five factual errors in your response rant above.

Five huh. Wow. And you'd rather write this twaddle than point them out?

Your beliefs to not bother nor threaten me, I wish you well.

Apparently they do threaten you since you'd rather write idiotic blather about how you are the man and know it all rather than engage in a debate on the facts of the case.