Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[Magpie]

No my friend, you're wrong again.

What remains to deny her parole ?

Answer : the horror of the crimes,

Which, to repeat again, the Court of Appeals has ruled is entirely permissable.

How can I put this any more simply? The. Court. Of. Appeals. Has. Ruled. That. The. Parole. Board. Can. Deny. Leslie. Parole. Based. On. The. Horror. Of. The. Original. Crimes.

And barring intervention from the Supreme Court (which ain't happening), that is that.

Whether you believe that to be morally right is irrelevant. Legally it is a dead issue.

[DVV]

One thing I want to repeat :
denying her parole is somehow praising Manson.

Manson is such a GENIUS MONSTER, his crimes were so ENORMOUS, that none of his fFOLLOWERS, even not a poor youth of 19, should be granted parole after 40 YEARS.

Please stop it.
Manson was a little bastard, and Leslie a poor lost acid-freak, 40 years ago.

Now Manson is still a little bastard.
And Leslie an admirable human being.

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

Lobbying is lobbying.

That's right--so why is it okay for people like John Waters and the "Friends of Leslie" crowd to lobby for Leslie's release, but not for the extended circle of The Family's victims to lobby against it?

It's starting to look like your major complaint is that the anti-Manson lobbyists are more effective than the pro-Manson ones...

[Magpie]

Stop being dishonest.
Who said so ?

Lesilie said so in her own parole hearing testimony:

"I wanted to do what Manson asked us to do and I was battling with my own sense of I was in something I was--was not capable of handling."

"I stood in the hallway and I looked into a a blank room that was like a den. And I stood there until Tex turned me around and handed me a knife and said "Do something."

[DVV]

One person's "lobbying" is another's "eternal vigilance".
I don't deny that Leslie has been denied parole because people are willing to take the time to remind people just what she did. The thing is, I don't see anything at all wrong with that. More power to them, and long may they be successful.

Lobbying is lobbying.
Mrs Tate had not to be there.

That said, I like you words here. Very much.

But the truth is that Leslie is such an incredible and wonderful case of repentance and understanding that society shouldn't be blind and dumb.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

What part of "Krug was wrong" do you not get?

Krug said "They can't keep using the crime forever and ever."

The Appeals Court said "Damn skippy, they can"


Now if you want to agree with Krug's statement as a point of personal opinion, then that's fine. But you didn't just do that.

You claimed that Krug's statement was a legal decision, which perhaps it briefly was, until the Appeals Court overturned it, at which time the Appeals Court decision is the one that counts. The legal position is that the parole board can use the LaBianca murders to deny Leslie parole as often as they wish.

No my friend, you're wrong again.

A parole hearing isn't another trial, believe it or not.
And Krug did not express his personal opinion, like it or not.

Once again, all experts agree Leslie isn't a danger. Not at all.
All agree she's truly remorseful.
All agree she's understanding and sincere.

What remains to deny her parole ?

Answer : the horror of the crimes, Sharon's sister...and the omission of strong mitigating circumstances that Leslie cannot allude to for fear to be accused of "not taking full responsability".

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

Patty (?) Tate was present at Leslie's parole hearing and it is just unfair, but I wouldn't insult her.
Certainly not. She wanted to show her concern to the LaBiancas, which I very well understand.
That's the parole board's mistake, not hers.

I was referring to Debra, who has a long history of dragging herself in front of the cameras at every opportunity and presenting herself as the noble keeper of Sharon's memory.

Now that you agree with me, can't you understand that Leslie has been denied parole because of this lobbying and the "parole hearing = another trial" syndrom ?

One person's "lobbying" is another's "eternal vigilance".
I don't deny that Leslie has been denied parole because people are willing to take the time to remind people just what she did. The thing is, I don't see anything at all wrong with that. More power to them, and long may they be successful.

[DVV]

Thanks for posting Alice LaBianca's letter.

The victims are not to be forgotten, not their family and friends.

And Leslie will never forget them.

That's why she dares to stand for parole.

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

Hey, are you serious ???

What are you saying ?

Krug was, and is still right, as proven by ALL expert opinions : she's truly remorseful and no more dangerous for the community.
These are experts words. More than 15 reports. All agreeing.

In case you don't know, parole hearings are not another trial.
Hence Judge Krug saying : "They can't keep using the crime forever and ever."

Period(s).

What part of "Krug was wrong" do you not get?

Krug said "They can't keep using the crime forever and ever."

The Appeals Court said "Damn skippy, they can"


Now if you want to agree with Krug's statement as a point of personal opinion, then that's fine. But you didn't just do that.

You claimed that Krug's statement was a legal decision, which perhaps it briefly was, until the Appeals Court overturned it, at which time the Appeals Court decision is the one that counts. The legal position is that the parole board can use the LaBianca murders to deny Leslie parole as often as they wish.

[DVV]

Patty (?) Tate was present at Leslie's parole hearing and it is just unfair, but I wouldn't insult her.
Certainly not. She wanted to show her concern to the LaBiancas, which I very well understand.
That's the parole board's mistake, not hers.

Still, it's obviously lobbying.

You asked me what was my point ?
That's odd. I made it clear already. More than once.
LOBBYING.
The horrors of 1969 as opposed to Leslie's perfect and admirable rehabilitation and understanding.

Now that you agree with me, can't you understand that Leslie has been denied parole because of this lobbying and the "parole hearing = another trial" syndrom ?

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

These are your very words:



The Appeals court said that the law disagrees with Krug. It 100% fails to agree with Krug. Krug was wrong. Period.

Hey, are you serious ???

What are you saying ?

Krug was, and is still right, as proven by ALL expert opinions : she's truly remorseful and no more dangerous for the community.
These are experts words. More than 15 reports. All agreeing.

In case you don't know, parole hearings are not another trial.
Hence Judge Krug saying : "They can't keep using the crime forever and ever."

Period(s).

[DVV]

Except when she's up for parole, when she emphasizes that she didn't stab Labianca until a) Watson ordered her to, and b) Labianca was already dead. Golly gee, she wasn't killing a person, she was merely stabbing some meat. The fact that 40 years on she still can't understand why people don't see much of difference between the two is reason enough to deny parole.

But Magpie, that's just true.
Watson ordered her, she stabbed...when Mrs LaBianca was already dead, or dying. Sadly, that was what happened.

But Leslie, once again, takes full responsability for the murders: that of Rosemary, and that of Leno.

And she has logically been sentenced for these two murders.
She is not denying anything, she's providing details, as much as she can.
When at Spahn Ranch, she told Kasabian that she had stabbed someone who was already dead.

You're also omitting why she claimed that Watson even had to tell her to stab Labianca--because she was reluctant, that she "froze", or that she was somehow trying to avoid stabbing her.

Stop being dishonest.
Who said so ?
I don't know why Mrs LaBianca has been stabbed by Patricia first, then Tex, lastly Leslie.
I don't know, have never known, and never said I knew.
But that's how it went, as far as the investigation tells us.

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

I maintain that Leslie is a victim of Manson's fame and lobbying.

Okay, at least we have one point of agreement.

Now tell me : how come the sister of Sharon Tate attended the parole hearings?

Because she is a relentless attention whore. What's your point?

The relatives of the LaBiancas aren't glamour enough ?

Obviously not glamorous enough to garner the media coverage when for instance they sent this letter to Leslie Van Houten's parole board:

:To Board Of Prison Terms
Manson and his minions thrust our family name into public focus when they murdered Sharon Tate and her house guest one night, then they killed my former husband and his wife in a most brutal manner the next night. Their shocking criminal actions became known as the TATE-LABIANCA MURDERS. We lost our privacy and our obscurity.
My family never became vocal, we did not become activist, we relied on the justice system to seek and find the justice that was due us. We have never been asked by the District Attorney’s Office to participate in opposing the release of any of the killers. After all, they all received the death penalty, and that was all our family could expect.

But we can no longer remain silent. Let me preface my remarks by this statement:

We do not desire to become activist. We do not desire to be bombarded by the media and have our privacy destroyed. Yet, we must make a statement about the parole hearing for convicted murderer , Leslie Van Houten.

She entered the home of Leno, father of my children, that August 10th, 1969. She participated in the deaths in that home. I know, she says she only stabbed Rosemary after she was already dead from the relentless stabbing of Tex Watson. I know she denies having stabbed Leno. I even understand she has been a model prisoner for all these years. It doesn’t matter!

Leslie Van Houten has been fed, given medical care, clothed and housed for nearly thirty years. I understand she even completed a college degree and a Masters degree. My children had no such gifts. They, like other law-abiding citizens growing up, have had to face the realities of life without the help of their father. It has not been easy for them. I know Ms. Van Houten has a web site with Susan Atkins. I know she has a lot of friends who work for her freedom. That is unfortunate.

Leslie Van Houten chose her own path. She chose to follow the instructions of Charles Manson. She chose drug crazed killers as her family and she became one of them. But what about my family? When do we get our parole? When does Leno get his parole?

Sympathy for these killers, and especially this one is misplaced. Sympathy, understanding, and compassion should be given to the victims of murder and not the killers. In all these years, not one of those killers have expressed remorse to our family, -- not even Leslie Van Houten who says she did the least in the murders. If she is really ready for parole then amends to the family should have already been done.

When Leslie’s father appeared on Larry King Live, my family was denied speaking on air by the producers to answer Mr. Van Houten’s accusations that the LaBianca’s didn’t care!! Not one of us was allowed on the show.

Make no mistake about it, the entire LaBianca family has suffered untold deprivation, frustration, anxiety and financial ruin because of these murders. Leno’s mother died of a broken heart just six years after her son’s murder, losing the business to merciless creditors – the family business that Leno was managing and she and Leno’s father had founded in the late 1920’s.

We emphatically oppose the release of any of the Manson menage. When the death penalty was repealed after their convictions, their sentences were converted to Life with possibility of parole. Even the California State Legislature found that unacceptable! They voted to make the entire Manson family an exception! The California voters also took action so we now have "Life without parole" as it should be!

It’s a sacrilege to Leno’s memory that the family has to be confronted with parole hearings for these individuals every few years. We are glad for her maturity and her model prisoner status, but that does not equate to freedom.

We also want to say that Suzanne LaBerge, daughter of Rosemary, the murdered wife of Leno at the time, does not represent the LaBianca family. She certainly did not represent us at that May 4, 1990 parole hearing for Tex Watson, when she made that pathetic appeal for his release because she "forgave" him.

As Ms. Van Houten continues her incarceration, let her continue to remember that what she did that fateful night was forever. The Manson family mark on this society is deep. As deep as the stab wounds to their helpless victims.

Alice LaBianca, author of NO MORE TOMORROWS through her friend, Bill Nelson, author of MANSON BEHIND THE SCENES, and a leading Manson family expert. www.mansonmurders.com

It was the encouragement from Nelson, that our family is speaking out. Please do not believe our silence has been uncaring.

Alice LaBianca

[Magpie]

What ??

I just said the parole was denied without good reasons, and that's the simple truth.
What was right in Krug's mouth in 1980 was hundred times right in 2007.

These are your very words:

Once again, see Judge Krug : "They can't keep using the crime forever and ever."
Do you understand he is talking about law, not about his own feelings ?

The Appeals court said that the law disagrees with Krug. It 100% fails to agree with Krug. Krug was wrong. Period.

[DVV]

I maintain that Leslie is a victim of Manson's fame and lobbying.

Now tell me : how come the sister of Sharon Tate attended the parole hearings?

The relatives of the LaBiancas aren't glamour enough ?

Amitiés,
David