Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[Magpie]

Magpie, you're unfair.


Are you serious ?
Yes, she has been told to "do something" by Tex Watson. That's a fact.
And she obeyed.
WILLINGLY, and even HAPPILY, as SHE HAS ADMITTED MANY TIMES, EVEN COMPARING HERSELF TO A WOLD BEAST.

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.

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.

[DVV]

Now you're moving the goalposts.

A moment ago you're saying that Judge Krug's word was a legal ruling. Then when I point out that that ruling was legally overruled, now you're arguing that Krug was right, the Appeals Court was wrong, and Krug's the one we should listen to.

It doesn't work that way--The Appeal's Court word is--literally--law.

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.

[DVV]

So Charlie, who never actually killed anyone, deserves the chair but the women who wielded the knives don't?

That's awful and insulting for the victims.

That means : if I pay somebody or use my influence to have you shot, I'm not your murderer ?!

And what about Shorty ?
What about tiyng the LaBiancas and send Tex and the girls to kill them ?

And do you seriously believe that 10050 Cielo Drive was Tex choice ?

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

For no good reasons, as Judge Krug already told us...30 years ago.

A very sad prophecy, if you want my opinion.

Leslie Van Houten is now a better person than I would ever be.

I haven't paid the price to be that good, thank God.

Amitiés,
David

Now you're moving the goalposts.

A moment ago you're saying that Judge Krug's word was a legal ruling. Then when I point out that that ruling was legally overruled, now you're arguing that Krug was right, the Appeals Court was wrong, and Krug's the one we should listen to.

It doesn't work that way--The Appeal's Court word is--literally--law.

[Magpie]

That's a pure nonsense, Bobby phoned to Manson like a little child when he was at Hinman's residence.
Bobby used to orally service Charlie...
Bobby never had followers who thought he was...the Soul.

So in this particular case, Leslie's word can't be trusted?

[DVV]

What do you feel about her 2002 claims that Bobby Beausoleil was not under Manson's control, but on the contrary it was Charlie who sought Bobby's approval.

That's a pure nonsense, Bobby phoned to Manson like a little child when he was at Hinman's residence.
Bobby used to orally service Charlie...
Bobby never had followers who thought he was...the Soul.

[DVV]

Magpie, you're unfair.

She takes full responsability, not only for the murders, but for having been a Manson follower, which means she takes responsability for murders during which she was even not present.

What more can she say ?

Now you are keep saying : "She said she was told to stab Mrs LaBianca! That means she escape responsability!"

Are you serious ?
Yes, she has been told to "do something" by Tex Watson. That's a fact.
And she obeyed.
WILLINGLY, and even HAPPILY, as SHE HAS ADMITTED MANY TIMES, EVEN COMPARING HERSELF TO A WOLD BEAST.

She has even made clear that it took her about 3 years to get rid of the Family influence.

You'll have a hard time to fight the truth.
You may hate this woman, it's up to you, but you can't make her badder than she is.

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

DVV: Since Leslie Van Houten is so honest

What do you feel about her 2002 claims that Bobby Beausoleil was not under Manson's control, but on the contrary it was Charlie who sought Bobby's approval.

[Magpie]

Just false, unless you can prove what I've quoted in post#1 is wrong.
And you can't

That's a completely specious argument. Just because she said what you quoted doesn't mean she can't have said what I quoted. Difference is that the quotes I provided undermine every self-serving statement you provided.

That's what she said, and said again.

And then she says:

I didn't kill Leno
Watson killed Rosemary.
Pat and Tex are more guilty than I was
Rosemary was dead when I stabbed her
I stabbed her because I was told to.

This is not accepting equal responsibility. It is not honest. It does not show remorse for anything except getting caught and convicted.

Why you got me wrong is beyond me.
She is serving a sentence pronounced after her third trial, and not a commuted sentence.
That's all I'm saying and that's the simple and official truth.

But not the complete truth. The court did not have the option of sentencing her to death or to life without parole, and that is what is reflect in her sentence, not some sort of difference between her guilt and say, Manson's.

It was the gas chamber and Manson deserved it.
Not Leslie.

So Charlie, who never actually killed anyone, deserves the chair but the women who wielded the knives don't?


[/quote]
Now I get you. You would like her to be nasty and cruel, unfortunately she's sensitive and true.
[/QUOTE]

And the Krays loved their mum.

[DVV]

For no good reasons, as Judge Krug already told us...30 years ago.

A very sad prophecy, if you want my opinion.

Leslie Van Houten is now a better person than I would ever be.

I haven't paid the price to be that good, thank God.

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

Now I get you. 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 ?

And once again the Court of Appeal said that Krug was wrong.

[Magpie]

No, she never said so.
Never and ever.

Leslie's own testimony:

"The more she said 'police', the more panicked I got"

" It's difficult to describe, but what I have seen the police do, they instill a very big paranoia fear inside of me. And the more she would name it, the more I would be frightened that she would and they would come"

[DVV]

Nope, everything I noted came from Leslie Van Houten's own lips, either from interviews or parole hearings.

Just false, unless you can prove what I've quoted in post#1 is wrong.
And you can't.

she was there, she was there voluntarily, and she shares equal responsibility for everything that happened in that house that night, legally and morally.

That's what she said, and said again.

Bull****, see above.

Ditto.
.

Lack of co-defendents is irrelevant: she was convicted of TWO counts of first degree murder, and two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. The law is clear--she murdered Leno AND Rosemary, acting in a conspiracy of others. The only reason there were no "co-defendant" was because they'd already been tried and convicted. The retrails were based on a technicality that has nothing to do with evidence, testimony or anything else of substance to the charges.

Why you got me wrong is beyond me.
She is serving a sentence pronounced after her third trial, and not a commuted sentence.
That's all I'm saying and that's the simple and official truth.

I'm well aware that those who denied her parole are lacking arguments.

And according to the parole board she deserves to stay right where she is. Who's opinion is more relevant? (Hint: it's the parole board)

Well and good. Just read about and tell why they deny her parole.
There isn't one single valid argument.
Have I to quote Judge Krug once again ?

Unfortunately the chance of justice disappeared when Charlie and his lackey escaped the chair.

It was the gas chamber and Manson deserved it.
Not Leslie.

"Ain't fair" is having to plead with the corrections system to keep the woman behind bars who butchered your parents, dressed up in their clothes, showered in their house and grabbed a light snack from their fridge before heading giggling and singing into the night. A woman who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the full horror of her actions and actually has the gall to claim victimhood.

Now I get you. You would like her to be nasty and cruel, unfortunately she's sensitive and true.
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 ?

Leslie takes full responsability, and is fully aware of the horrors she did. More than we can be.

If it wasn't for Manson fame, she would have been released for years and you wouldn't have known, nor cared.

Leslie knows and cares, and will ever. Please, have a honest look at her.

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

As to the crime itself, here is (again) what Judge Krug said in 1980:

"They can't keep using the crime ever 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 what the Court of Appeal said when they overturned Krug was "that the courts must uphold the board’s exercise of it's discretion to find an inmate unsuitable for parole as long as there is “some evidence” to support it. And that evidence can come solely from a review of the circumstances of the crime "

The Court of Appeals ruling is the final word unless the Supreme Court decides to step in, and they have repeatedly refused to do so.

[Magpie]

You're wrong, Magpie, this is not Leslie. This is those who defend her, and they have the right to say so.

Nope, everything I noted came from Leslie Van Houten's own lips, either from interviews or parole hearings.

Just check, and you will find out that, even according to the prosecution witnesses, Leslie Van Houten has always said, when at Spahn Ranch and discussing with her friends, far before they were suspected, that she had stabbed a woman that was already dead.

Not that stabbing a dead body 20 times requires any less sadism, but there is no evidence to support Leslie's claim that Rosemary was already dead when Leslie stabbed her. Leslie finally admitted in the 2000's that she did not know that Rosemary was dead. She might have told herself that she didn't deal a killing blow, but it's irrelevant--she was there, she was there voluntarily, and she shares equal responsibility for everything that happened in that house that night, legally and morally.

[/quote]
No wonder, since poor Mrs LaBianca had been repeatedly stabbed by both Krenwinkel and Watson.
But no matter, since Leslie wants to take full responsability.
[/quote]

Bull****, see above.

False. Leslie is now serving the sentence pronounced at her third trial, in which there was no co-defendant

.

Lack of co-defendents is irrelevant: she was convicted of TWO counts of first degree murder, and two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. The law is clear--she murdered Leno AND Rosemary, acting in a conspiracy of others. The only reason there were no "co-defendant" was because they'd already been tried and convicted. The retrails were based on a technicality that has nothing to do with evidence, testimony or anything else of substance to the charges.

She not serving a "death-penalty commuted into life term", but life term with parole, for her own participation in the LaBiancas'murder.

No offense, but so what? Due to a technicality, she was re-tried and re-convicted of the same crimes with the same verdict at a time when the same sentence was not available. She wasn't given a life term with parole because her "participation" in the murder was considered less heinous than the others--she was given a life term with parole because it was the harshest sentence to court could impose.

According to all experts, as well as to her perfect prison-records, she's suitable for parole and should have long been released.

And according to the parole board she deserves to stay right where she is. Who's opinion is more relevant? (Hint: it's the parole board)

Justice must be done for the LaBiancas, it hasn't to be a sadistic and purposeless revenge.

Unfortunately the chance of justice disappeared when Charlie and his lackeys escaped the chair.

Once again, she's in jail because of Manson's fame, and it just ain't fair.

"Ain't fair" is having to plead with the corrections system to keep the woman behind bars who butchered your parents, dressed up in their clothes, showered in their house and grabbed a light snack from their fridge before heading giggling and singing into the night. A woman who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the full horror of her actions and actually has the gall to claim victimhood.