Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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

[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."

[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...

[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]

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.

[Magpie]

And Leslie an admirable human being.

Amitiés,
David

You what would be admirable? If Leslie Van Houten said "I did a terrible, unforgivable thing. I should have been executed 40 years ago and every day that I'm still alive is a undeserved gift that the Universe has bestowed on me. I do not deserve to be alive, let alone free, and therefore I respectfully decline my right to demand any further parole hearings."


That would be admirable.

[DVV]

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...

You shouldn't say so, Magpie.

I'm clearly against Manson, hence my sympathy for Leslie.

The more I trust Leslie, the more I hate Manson. That's the way.

As to lobbying, I've never seen John Waters attending a parole hearing.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

You what would be admirable? If Leslie Van Houten said "I did a terrible, unforgivable thing. I should have been executed 40 years ago and every day that I'm still alive is a undeserved gift that the Universe has bestowed on me. I do not deserve to be alive, let alone free, and therefore I respectfully decline my right to demand any further parole hearings."


That would be admirable.

You're almost right.

Almost.

That's why Leslie is even more admirable.

Good over evil. Life over shame.

We can't judge her as if we were God. We can merely judge her as fellow human beings.

Thank God, I'm humble enough to realize she's better and stronger than I'd ever be.

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

You shouldn't say so, Magpie.

I'm clearly against Manson, hence my sympathy for Leslie.

The more I trust Leslie, the more I hate Manson. That's the way.

As for the lobbying, I've never seen John Waters attending a parole hearing.

Amitiés,
David

Now you're moving two sets of goalposts.

First by trying to carve Leslie out a special niche among The Family.

Secondly by limiting the definition of lobbying to those who specifically show up at the hearings. Let's see, publishing a book about how great Leslie is and how she doesn't deserve to be in prison and hitting the press-release and talk-show circuit to use his celebrity status to call for Leslie's release isn't lobbying?

So I guess Sarah Palin isn't really lobbying against healthcare reform because she hasn't given testimony to any of the relevant committees?