Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[DVV]

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 (16 times), I only stabbed her because I was told to do it. She would have died anyway, my absence wouldn't have changed that. The system was out to make an example of that. I did it because I was scared, yada, yada, yada."

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

I've quoted her own words regarding her responsability. And she takes full responsability.
And none of the fatal wounds was delivered by Leslie - but it doesn't matter, since she takes full responsability.

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.

It wasn't a drug deal gone bad. That is Manson and Beausoleil's fabricated version. Mary Brunner and Susan Atkins explicitly deny that it was a drug burn. Both were present at Hinman's residence. It's a case of torture, then murder, for money.
Beausoleil said he had to pay the bikers, of whom he was supposedly too scared.
But once he killed Hinman, he just kept the cars, hanging around several days, then started some kind of run, until things get cool.
What things ? Not the bikers. The murder itself.
Curiously, Bobby is no more afraid of the bikers, he even didn't try to give them the cars (which was an easy way to save his life, if he is to be believed).
Then, Bobby, as I've pointed out, denies any Manson implication. Fortunately, from Atkins, Brunner, Davis and even Beausoleil original testimony, we know Manson did come to Hinman's - and badly slashed his face.
Beausoleil is thus still lying.
Leslie is not.

And Van Houten repeatedly denies having killed Rosemary Bianca...

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.
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 (edit):
"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."

False. Leslie is now serving the sentence pronounced at her third trial, in which there was no co-defendant.
She not serving a "death-penalty commuted into life term", but life term with parole, for her own participation in the LaBiancas'murder.

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

She's no Hitler, she's no Kemper.
She's remorseful, ashamed, sincere, understanding.

If you are to keep all people like her in jail for more than 40 years, then be ready to pay more tax. Far more.
For no purpose.

I have no doubt that at the present time Leslie is a nicer person than I will ever be myself - even if I refrain from stabbing dead bodies when my guru tells me so.

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

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

For the record, I'm not a militant against death penalty, nor a Human-Rights freak.

Parole hearings do exist in hope there is, sometimes, people like Leslie.
The more I accept her remorse, the more I hate crime.


Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

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.

Why don't you listen to her, read John Waters, or read my replies ?

She takes MORE responsability than she had.
What more can she say ?

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."

So yes, that's about fame and lobbying.

Criminals far more dangerous than she is (she isn't a danger at all, this is beyond doubt) and far less remorseful are released daily.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

I did it because I was scared.

No, she never said so.
Never and ever.

Just read John Waters.
She confessed she felt just like "a wild cat" and willingly did what she did, frenzily.

Take the valid points, please.

Amitiés,
David

[belinda]

She deserves as much sympathy as she showed the woman she murdered. Let her rot.

I do not believe she is sincerely remorseful.

I have seen her interviewed on television several times the only thing she seems sorry about is getting caught

[DVV]

Hi Belinda,

She deserves as much sympathy as she showed the woman she murdered. Let her rot.

Nobody denies the murder was horrible.
Leslie knows it more than we do.

I do not believe she is sincerely remorseful.

You should, Belinda, for that's the truth.

I have seen her interviewed on television several times the only thing she seems sorry about is getting caught

Listen to her again, then, I beg you. Look at her. Her remorse isn't only genuine, it's even beyond what I've ever seen.


Elvis told me not to be cruel.

To a heart that's true.

Amitiés,
David

[sdreid]

Sirhan Sirhan has be inside since 1968. He turns 66 Friday.

[DVV]

She deserves as much sympathy as she showed the woman she murdered. Let her rot.

This may apply to Susan Atkins, not Leslie Van Houten.

Why do clever casebookers want to equalize all Manson familily members, whereas the case is obviously fascinating because of the different levels of guilt and responsability it suggests, brain-washing, LSD background, lost children of a wonderful and vicious decade ?

Manson is still playing. Others are too.

Leslie Van Houten is truly suffering and just can blame herself.
And she does blame herself everyday, every hour.
Good over evil, that's what she means when she stands (or rather humbly sits) for parole.

Amitiés Magpie,
David

[DVV]

I have seen her interviewed on television several times the only thing she seems sorry about is getting caught

Oh no.
She's a repentant sinner/killer.

I know such things seldom happen, and some can't believe they're real. So it takes a little time. Decades.

But they happen sometimes, and it then should be a joy for the imperfect "system" we are all part of.

Amitiés,
David

[Rick Mattix]

She can repent endlessly for all I care. It won't bring the victims back. She can still rot in prison forever with the others. As far as I'm concerned the only injustice done here is that Van Houten and the others weren't executed decades ago.

I realize this sounds like vengence but is there any justice at all if no spirit of vengence is included?

I don't favor releasing any paroled murderers, no matter how repentent they are or how many years or decades they've served. It's true that many are released but that doesn't justify it in my book. I'd burn 'em all.

[DVV]

I sincerely think denying parole to Leslie is unjust and counterproductive.

It's just kicking words such as rehabilitation or hope or humanity out of dictionary.

And I know, they're empty words long since.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

She can repent endlessly for all I care. It won't bring the victims back. She can still rot in prison forever with the others. As far as I'm concerned the only injustice done here is that Van Houten and the others weren't executed decades ago.

I realize this sounds like vengence but is there any justice at all if no spirit of vengence is included?

I don't favor releasing any paroled murderers, no matter how repentent they are or how many years or decades they've served. It's true that many are released but that doesn't justify it in my book. I'd burn 'em all.

Hi Rick,

you may think yourself harsh with that post, but trust me, you're not.
I even think you're living in a perfect world that is unknown to me.

In the world I know, my best friend has killed 4 cops in 1991. Not in California, I'll grant you that. None of the victims were famous. He never served one day in jail for that (coup d'Etat in Ethiopia at that time).

One of my schoolmates has stabbed a tourist to death on the beach. It was 25 years ago, or so. He's free. I sometimes have a drink with him.
Is he remorseful like Leslie ? Certainly not.
Still dangerous ? Perhaps. While Leslie is not. Not at all.

You may be right, and perhaps we should do like centuries ago. Kill them. Burn them. Frankly spoken, why not ? You said revenge instead of justice? Why not? No problem with me. But here you have to burn Manson before you deny parole to any of his accomplices.

Still, my problem is about Leslie's case, in 2010. Things being what they are, I can't see why she shouldn't be treated like others are treated.
And in that book, except for Manson fame, she would have been released for years.

California Lawve.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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"