Originally posted by Ally
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole
Collapse
X
-
And when those others are on the parole board, their views might mean something.
Why aren't you defending Krenwinkel?
Defending a murderer is something new to me, you know...
Don't go too fast...
Amitiés,
David
Comment
-
Originally posted by Magpie View PostExactly. Even Leslie said that when Charlie started up with the "Helter Skelter" schtick, large numbers of "followers" simply rolled their eyes and moved on outta Spahn.
I just express my wish to free her, after 40 years.
Already quite a punishment, don't you think ?
She was 19.
She's 61.
My God told me : "Il y a plus de place au Royaume de mon Père pour un pécheur repenti que pour 100 justes."
Amitiés,
David
Comment
-
Originally posted by belinda View PostWould you be willing to have van Houten live next door to you if she were free?
Btw, she was free during some months, around 1978.
I will even be happy to have her live next door, and if I support her parole, it's because I've seen goodness, repentance, and intelligence in her.
Amitiés,
David
Comment
-
Originally posted by DVV View PostOh, please, Belinda... This is the weakest argument I've ever heard.
Btw, she was free during some months, around 1978.
I will even be happy to have her live next door, and if I support her parole, it's because I've seen goodness, repentance, and intelligence in her.
Amitiés,
David
And I can tell you I wouldn't want her anywhere near me. I also find it interesting that you have ignored my points about her prior history of violence before she met Manson
I am aware she conned her way out of gaol for a brief period but she was sent back.
Comment
-
Have you met this woman?
And I can tell you I wouldn't want her anywhere near me.
I also find it interesting that you have ignored my points about her prior history of violence before she met Manson
Amitiés,
David
Comment
-
[I remember something about lobbying, on which we agreed last night...
We agreed it was a factor.
We disagreed on whether or not it was a good thing.
And to be honest DVV, you only seem to find lobbying a problem when it's against Leslie. People lobbying for her release seem to be a-okay by you.“Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”
Comment
-
Originally posted by DVV View Post
Hope that will tell you something (more) about Manson, and about how he was obeyed, even by a nice person like Linda Kasabian.“Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”
Comment
-
Originally posted by doris View PostWhat does remembering piffling details have to do with repentance?
doris
With respect, Leslie has claimed a few times that not a day goes by that she doen't think of Rosemary and the horrible nights. That it constantly preys on her mind and haunts her days. You'd think somewhere during that preying and haunting some of the details of the victim that she claims to think about every day would percolate through.
To illustrate:
Imagine if you will a parole hearing (not Leslie's) of a sincere, repentent murderer who we'll call Dave.
A: And do you regret your actions that night?
Dave: Lord yes! There's not a day goes my that I don't think of Brian and what I did to him. His face haunts me. I kneel in my cell and pray to almighty God that Brian knows how deeply sorry I am for taking his life.
A. Steve.
Dave: What?
A: Your victim's name was Steve.
Dave: Steve? Are you sure? It wasn't Brian? Or Brett? Something like that?
A: No. It was definitely Steve.
Dave: Crap! Oh well, see you next year...“Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”
Comment
-
5. She fell in love (or became infatuated) with BB, met Gypsy and ended up in an environment that many say was "wonderful" until about June-July 1969. She was too young and immature to do what many did (got the hell out of there) when the situation changed.
Unlike many of the other Manson "girls", Leslie came from a stable and supportive home. She had a decent education and was what we'd call a "student leader". That she chose to later reject them and "drop out" does not mean that she did not benefit from having had them.
She also had a history with other fringe groups prior to Manson's family (which she seemed to have no problem "getting the heck out of there" when she deemed prudent), and had had minor run-ins with the law, which she managed to manipulate into walking away with no record.
By her own admission she was not what DVV would call a "Manson-zombie" and considered herself more connected to Bobby than Charlie (and to repeat once again it was Manson who was pursuing Bobby, not the other way round). Thanks to her connection with Bobby she was not isolated or cut off from non-Family contact, even while staying at The Ranch. She has repeatedly claimed that she had no particular physical attraction to Manson, going so far as to claim she was never intimate with him. She did, however, choose to subscribe to the whole "Helter Skelter" malarky despite witnessing large numbers of people "getting the hell out of there" as soon as Charlie started ranting about it.
So the characterization of her as some innocent, naive, babe-in-the-woods who was lured into a wilderness of mirrors and couldn't escape is a crock. She was better equipped, mentally and experientially, to realize what was going on and get the hell out of it than most of the misfits and losers that were at Spahn at the time.Last edited by Magpie; 03-19-2010, 09:08 AM.“Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”
Comment
-
Let me jump in here (and get slaughtered). There is a parole system, but for many people, it is just a concept and they will never be free. Why is that? Well, many reasons have been mentioned. The frustration lies with the idea that some people will never be paroled though they come up for it. Why do we have a system that allows for parole for people that won't be paroled? It's asinine. It's better to execute them or change the law so that there is no parole for certain crimes. Folks can be model citizens (though few are) and be constantly denied because there is no real code to be followed with regards to what constitutes good enough behavior to be allowed an opportunity to re-enter society. It is seemingly arbitrary , and depends upon too many human factors. Do I want cold-blooded, remorseless murderers to be walking the streets? Aside from Bush and Cheney, no I don't. How does one show remorse? Let a panel of numbskulls decide? I think it's nuts. Make penalties fairly stiff and then let people out if they have parole opportunities and have shown some furtherance of self in prison, such as gaining education or learning job skills. Those who we will never let out, need to be given sentences with no parole (though I don't really care for that), instead of being brought forth, at the waste of tax-payer dollars, only to be slapped back into a cell.
Cheers,
Mikehuh?
Comment
Comment