Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[belinda]

It's very easy for them all to blame Manson while not taking full responsibility themselves.

Linda Kasabian who drove the car on both nights refused to kill in spite of Manson repeatedly telling her to.

They made a choice.

Manson sickens me but not as much as Van Houten,Watson,Atkins and Krenwinkle

[Ally]

[QUOTE=DVV;127368]

Very well. Now can you tell us more about her implication ?
Did she give instructions to Tex ?
Did she send him to 10050 Cielo Drive ?
Did she give them knives and rope ?
Did she order Linda to drive ?
Has any family member ever say he was under Leslie's influence ?

DVV. Go kill Magpie. Tie him up. Slaughter him. And then mail his head to the American embassy. Are you going to do that? No, want to know why, because you have free will and you are perfectly capable of saying no, just like she was. She WANTED to go, she chose to go and she is guilty of knowing full well what occurred at the Tate house the night before and she was ANGRY she wasn't allowed to participate. Did she go to the police when she found out? No she pouted til she got to go on the next slaughter.

Agreed.
And Leslie agrees too.

No she doesn't. And she's said so in interviews.

False. She is simply telling that she thinks Rosemary was already dead, which is likely, since she had been repeatedly stabbed by Krenwinkel and Watson.

Except for pesky things like the autopsy which proves some of her stabs were premortem. Details, details.

Anyway, that doesn't make her less guilty.
She's definitely responsible for the two murders.
She knows it, and she admits it.

And she denies it as often as she admits it. You choose to believe the admissions of guilt, I'll choose to believe her when she says she doesn't believe she was guilty of killing Mr. Labianca.

No she's not a mass murderer.
What she did is horrible enough, though.
A quoi sert de charger la mule ?

So then by your logic, Manson is not guilty of any murders correct? You believe he is innocent of all the killings and should be freed?

Stephen Kay doesn't know what to think.
Trouble is that he talks too much.

He knows enough to say she shouldn't be paroled.

Equally guilty ? Certainly not. They're all guilty, no doubt.
Still, the murders were masterminded by Manson, and this has been proven by all accounts, and has been essential for the prosecution.
Without Manson, the LaBiancas wouldn't have been killed.

And without Van Houten they wouldn't have either.

She killed more people than Manson did. So either they are all mass murderers or Manson is not. You cannot have it both ways.

Lastly, why so much hate ?

Why so much love? Did she promise you kinky sex or costumes if you get her released? Do you have naked pictures of her you sweat yourself to sleep each night.

I love how people who have lost an argument attribute it to the over emotionalism of their opponent. It has nothing to do with hate. She's a murderer. She's where she belongs.

40 years in jail, that's something, no ?
If only all murderers could serve such a long time behind bars...

It's something. Is it enough? No.

[DVV]

I would say that Manson is the least guilty.

No comment.

edit: just one, finally : Charlie's rap is still working.

[belinda]

I would say that Manson is the least guilty.

Can of of Miss Van Houtens professed remorse bring Rosemary La Bianca back to life.

No.

There is no parole from death.


Let her rot.

You have not mentioned the fact that her Lawyer wanted to use a previous history to mount an insanity defence for her for events prior to her meeting Manson

[DVV]

She was part of the conspiracy that resulted in Sharon Tate's death. So yes, she was associated with Sharon Tate's death, and was convicted both times of conspiracy.

Very well. Now can you tell us more about her implication ?
Did she give instructions to Tex ?
Did she send him to 10050 Cielo Drive ?
Did she give them knives and rope ?
Did she order Linda to drive ?
Has any family member ever say he was under Leslie's influence ?

As has been explained umpteen times before, in a conspiracy all conspirators are equally guilty of all actions undertaken by any member of the conspiracy. By entering the house with Tex with the intent to commit a crime, she is legally responsible for what Tex did.

Agreed.
And Leslie agrees too.

And in parole hearing after parole hearing after interview after interview that she didn't kill Rosemary and that she just stabbed a corpse a little bit. She didn't start admitting that Rosemary could have been alive when she stabbed her, but she continues to stick to the "I stabbed a corpse" bulldookery in every parole hearing.

False. She is simply telling that she thinks Rosemary was already dead, which is likely, since she had been repeatedly stabbed by Krenwinkel and Watson.

More importantly, the very first time she said so (ie: Mrs LaBianca was already dead) was just after the murder, that was not at a parole hearing.
Anyway, that doesn't make her less guilty.
She's definitely responsible for the two murders.
She knows it, and she admits it.

Accurate? Maybe not. True? You betcha.

No she's not a mass murderer.
What she did is horrible enough, though.
A quoi sert de charger la mule ?

Bulldookey. Stephen Kay has appeared at every parole hearing to argue against her release. He has stated that he can foresee a point in the future where she could be released--that is NOT the same as saying she should be.

Stephen Kay doesn't know what to think.
Trouble is that he talks too much.

Leno and Rosemary Labianca. For reasons stated above.

She hasn't stabbed Leno LaBianca, that's a fact.
She's one of his murderers.
And she knows it.

Saying the murdering scum who murdered at least 8 people are as guilty as the murdering scum who initiated the slaughter is not being a "Charlie lover". This is a pointless and despicable strawman argument.
And Ally is absolutely right because (sing along, you should know the words by now): in a conspiracy all conspirators are equally guilty of all actions undertaken by any member of the conspiracy.

Equally guilty ? Certainly not. They're all guilty, no doubt.
Still, the murders were masterminded by Manson, and this has been proven by all accounts, and has been essential for the prosecution.
Without Manson, the LaBiancas wouldn't have been killed.

Lastly, why so much hate ?
40 years in jail, that's something, no ?
If only all murderers could serve such a long time behind bars...

Amitiés,
David

[Ally]

Thank you Magpie. I knew I had read that she had wanted to go and that there was some reason that she had been selected due to her willingness after being left out the night before.

If FreeLeslie wants to split semantic hairs and say "she never said "can I go?", that's peachy,

FL seems to be the king of hair splitting. I love the logic of how Van Houten who only killed one is not responsible for everyone else's death, but Manson, who killed no one is responsible for them all. You can't make crazy like that up.

[doris]

I would just like to point out that despite recieving a little veiled opprobrium re my piffling comment, Iam not a member of the release Van Houten camp.

All I want is for her and anyone else to be allowed access to a fair parole hearing.

And with regards to slaughtering criminals, irrespective of their crime I fail to see how anyone can deny that such a punishment is 'cruel and unusual'. Every 'civilised' country in the world refuses to kill criminals, and I think it is an enormous black mark against the normally admirable US that they continue to kill people.

I believe that the entire eye for an eye concept belongs in the dark days of history.

Even if one is happy for society to kill its criminous members my contention is that capital punisment demeans all the members of that society.
Imagine being a defense lawyer and your reward for sloppy debating skills is to consign a fellow human to death, and what about the doctors who involve themselves in the process (despite their hippocratic oath promising to preserve life) why are they not struck off? And Iam sure it must effect the most flint hearted 'screw' seeing someone they have know for years watching them march to their doom.

doris

(stands back and ducks head under the parapet)

[Magpie]

Magpie,

I knew I had read somewhere that she had requested to go along on the second night but I cannot find the reference. Can you link me please? I thought it was at one of her parole hearings but cannot remember which one.

Here's the testimony from her parole hearing:

Q: Did you--had you asked to go prior to that or indicated--

A: No. But everything in my personality, you know, body language, I made it very clear I wanted to go.

If FreeLeslie wants to split semantic hairs and say "she never said "can I go?", that's peachy, but the fact remains that it's clear (especially given her other testimony that she expressed anger about being left out the previous night) she put herself forward as a volunteer.

Here's the link, and looky-looky who appears in the replies:

http://truthontatelabianca.com/topic/3253-leslie-vanhouten-parole-hearing-dec-28-1993/

[Magpie]

• You have stated that Mrs. Labianca was alive when Leslie stabbed her, Do you care to share how you know that fact?
  
  Missed this one. There's no absolute way of saying that Rosemary was alive when Leslie stabbed her, but given the number of stab wounds (42) the number of times Leslie stabbed her (around 20) the fact that 7 of the 8 fatal wounds were to Rosemary's back and 100% of Leslie's stabs were directed to that very area, it's statistically likely that at least one of Leslie's stabs was one of the fatal ones.
  
  In the final analysis however, it's irrelevant. Leslie was guilty of Rosemary's death the second she entered that house.

[Ally]

Oh and one more thing to point out, it has only been SINCE she was asked about the ages of the victims in a 1991 parole hearing that now Van Houten makes a point of dropping their ages and the years into her public statements. Further proof that she manipulates and says what she thinks people want to hear.

[Ally]

Magpie,

I knew I had read somewhere that she had requested to go along on the second night but I cannot find the reference. Can you link me please? I thought it was at one of her parole hearings but cannot remember which one.

[Magpie]

• Associated Leslie with Sharon Tate's death.
  
  She was part of the conspiracy that resulted in Sharon Tate's death. So yes, she was associated with Sharon Tate's death, and was convicted both times of conspiracy.
  
• Associated Leslie with killing Leno Labianca.
  
  As has been explained umpteen times before, in a conspiracy all conspirators are equally guilty of all actions undertaken by any member of the conspiracy. By entering the house with Tex with the intent to commit a crime, she is legally responsible for what Tex did.
  
• Stated that Leslie was convicted twice. Convicted once, overturned, Second trial hung jury. Only ONE conviction.
  
  No, She was convicted. That conviction was set aside and she had a second trial. and then a third trial where she was convicted again. Split semantic hairs all you want, but the truth is that two separate juries both found her guilty of the same crimes based on the same evidence.
  
• Stated that she murdered several people.
  
  See above. When she entered the conspiracy she became legally responsible for the actions of her co-conspirators.
  
• Stated that Leslie said she stabbed a dead body. Even in the trial testimony, Leslie says she thought Mrs. Labianca was dead, but she couldn't be sure.
  
  And in parole hearing after parole hearing after interview after interview that she didn't kill Rosemary and that she just stabbed a corpse a little bit. She didn't start admitting that Rosemary could have been alive when she stabbed her, but she continues to stick to the "I stabbed a corpse" bulldookery in every parole hearing.
  
• You repeatedly call Leslie a serial and/or mass murderer. Neither description is true nor accurate.
  
  Accurate? Maybe not. True? You betcha.
  
• You say no one has recommended her parole. Probably your most ludicrous thought...Bugs and Stephen Kay at different times has stated she should be released.
  
  Bulldookey. Stephen Kay has appeared at every parole hearing to argue against her release. He has stated that he can foresee a point in the future where she could be released--that is NOT the same as saying she should be.
  
• You state that she asked to go on Night #2..There is no evidence of this
  
  Aside from Leslie's own testimony at her parole hearings, you mean?
  
• You state she "slaughtered half a dozen people" Really? Name two?
  
  Leno and Rosemary Labianca. For reasons stated above.
  
• You state that the family members are as equally guilty as Manson. You might lose your audience here...No one believes that....I pray you are not one of those Charlie lovers, they seem to abound even 40 years later.
  
  Saying the murdering scum who murdered at least 8 people are as guilty as the murdering scum who initiated the slaughter is not being a "Charlie lover". This is a pointless and despicable strawman argument.
  And Ally is absolutely right because (sing along, you should know the words by now): in a conspiracy all conspirators are equally guilty of all actions undertaken by any member of the conspiracy.

[Magpie]

An Apology to DVV.

Looking back over the postings I believe I have pinpointed the cause of your misunderstanding of Kurg's statement.

Kurg made two statements, 22 years apart. The statement you have been quoting (for which I do not know the context) from 1980, and his ruling on Van Houten's habeas corpus suit in 2002. Problem is that Krug is not only wrong about his conclusions, but he is also singularly unimaginative, since he used the exact same wording both times. The 2002 wording was used in a legal ruling, which was consequently overturned on appeal. The decision of the Appeal Court remains the final word on the legality of the situation unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case.

I'm not sure whether you were aware of the 2002 decision, in which case we were talking at cross-purposes and your assertion that you were mistaken rather than lying is entirely reasonable. In which case I humbly offer my sincere apologies for calling you a liar. I will, in future, attempt to refrain from leaping to such conclusions.

This doesn't change anything about the legal status of Krug's statement--he was wrong and continues to be legally wrong. As a personal opinion, I don't doubt that Kurg continues to believe what he said and that's his right, and it's entirely your right to agree with him on a personal level without being called a liar for your trouble. Krug's personal opinion carries no particular legal weight though.

[Ally]

I hate to be the one to attempt to bring a bit of reality into your delusions, but Van Houten is GUILTY of Mr. Labiancas death as well as Mrs. In this country in which we live, if you participate in a crime that results in the death of someone, you are GUILTY even if you didn't pull the trigger yourself.

And she is guilty as an accessory after the fact in the TATE murders. I realize you don't like to have the facts brought up or actual legalities but the simple truth is, if you participate in a crime you are GUILTY even if you don't pull the trigger.

As for knowing that LaBianca was younger than her big whoop. I know Lindsay Lohan is younger than I but I have no idea what her real age is. You know why that is? Because I don't consider Lohan important enough to know what her age is. If you consider someone important enough to have slaughtered them, you ought to be able to remember their age. When asked DIRECTLY how old they were in response to this, she couldn't answer. So NO, doll, sorry she didn't obviously know their ages.

I can understand how you are now refusing to answer me again considering I shoot down your every argument as the false pap it is, but what the heck, let's show you for the "knowledgeable" debator you are.

* Associated Leslie with Sharon Tate's death.
* Associated Leslie with killing Leno Labianca.

Already addressed.

* Stated that Leslie was convicted twice. Convicted once, overturned, Second trial hung jury. Only ONE conviction.

Sigh and you having read so much more and being so much more cognizant of the facts than I. WRONG. Convicted once, overturned, hung jury; tried A THIRD TIME AND convicted. You must have skipped that third trial in all your readings. If there had only been two, she'd be free right now. She was freed for several months AFTER her hung jury and was returned to prison after the third trial.

You don't seem to be as up on all the facts as you claim to be. Yeah I can really understand your reluctance to respond to me further if these are the "FACTS" you claim I am getting wrong.

* Stated that she murdered several people.

I said she was RESPONSIBLE for the murder of several people. If you are going to claim I said something in the future quote it, you look like less of a dumbass when I prove you wrong that way.

* Called her a murdering bitch. Most think she is very nice and not a bitch at all; a bitch would be a hard core, mean spirited person. That does not describe Leslie since at least 1973.

And that's your and their opinions. I think she's a murdering bitch.

* Stated that Leslie said she stabbed a dead body. Even in the trial testimony, Leslie says she thought Mrs. Labianca was dead, but she couldn't be sure.

I didn't STATE anything. Her exact words were "I didn't take Mrs. Labianca's life" I understand how you rabid believers have difficulty distinguishing reality, but when you quote someone's EXACT words, you can be pretty sure that you have gotten what they said correct.

* You have stated that Mrs. Labianca was alive when Leslie stabbed her, Do you care to share how you know that fact?

Reports says that some of the wounds attributed to Van Houten were administered post mortem. The fact that some were administered post mortem leads to the conclusion that some were administered PRE mortem.

* You repeatedly call Leslie a serial and/or mass murderer. Neither description is true nor accurate.

Yes it is.

* You say no one has recommended her parole. Probably your most ludicrous thought...Bugs and Stephen Kay at different times has stated she should be released.

First, i didn't say NO ONE has recommended her for parole. She has her dingbat supporters recommeding her all the time. Bugs? Would that be Bugs bunny? Because at no time and in NO place has bugliosi the prosecutor recommended her for parole. It never happened;; it hasn't happened. If it has happened in some place you and you alone know about, please feel free to post the evidence because everyone else who keeps saying Bugliosi recommended her for parole can't provide the evidence either, probably because it doesn't exist.

And Kay has never once argued for her parole or recommended it either. Flat out invention by the more delusional of her team. In every parole hearing and in every interview he says that while he is not saying she should be locked up forever, it's too soon to release her. And he's been saying that for decades. Or if you have evidence to the contrary, again post it.

* You state that she asked to go on Night #2..There is no evidence of this

Perhaps not. I can't remember where I read that. So I will search and if I can't find it, I will retract it. But the fact is she willingly went to kill and be a good soldier. She didn't turn it down. And considering she wasn't picked to go on the first mission, how did she end up on the second? Hmm....let's think about that for a minute.

* You state she "slaughtered half a dozen people" Really? Name two?

I realize that you and your hero share a similar ability to twist facts to suit your whim, but sorry not going to happen. What I said EXACTLY is:

"She was a willful participant in action and support in the slaughter of half a dozen people. The fact that she only wielded the knife once is irrelevant."

It's awful when the facts get in the way of your beliefs isn't it? Reality is difficult for the challenged.

* You state that the family members are as equally guilty as Manson. You might lose your audience here...No one believes that....I pray you are not one of those Charlie lovers, they seem to abound even 40 years later.

I think you are full of it. Plenty of people believe that grown adults are responsible for their own actions. Leslie herself in one of her mea culpa moments in a Larry king interview Where LARRY KING said she was more responsible than Manson, agreed with him. Of course she was just trying to earn brownie points, and she retracted it later, but no, anyone with a functional logic ability does not excuse grown adults from the responsibility of their actions because some nut ball told them to.



As you have said you won't be responding, and truly I can understand why, you aren't very good at it, I would avoid the desert and anyone with crazy eyes, you seem ripe for becoming a "good soldier".

Yeah I am sure she's deeply remorseful over killing two people whose ages she can't even remember.

Leslie has said at four of her parole hearings that she feels horrible because Rosemary LaBianca was younger than her at the time of the hearing. She obviously knew Mrs. Labianca's age.

In the last couple of days you have:

• Associated Leslie with Sharon Tate's death.
• Associated Leslie with killing Leno Labianca.
• Stated that Leslie was convicted twice. Convicted once, overturned, Second trial hung jury. Only ONE conviction.
• Stated that she murdered several people.
• Called her a murdering bitch. Most think she is very nice and not a bitch at all; a bitch would be a hard core, mean spirited person. That does not describe Leslie since at least 1973.
• Stated that Leslie said she stabbed a dead body. Even in the trial testimony, Leslie says she thought Mrs. Labianca was dead, but she couldn't be sure.
• You have stated that Mrs. Labianca was alive when Leslie stabbed her, Do you care to share how you know that fact?
• You repeatedly call Leslie a serial and/or mass murderer. Neither description is true nor accurate.
• You say no one has recommended her parole. Probably your most ludicrous thought...Bugs and Stephen Kay at different times has stated she should be released.
• You state that she asked to go on Night #2..There is no evidence of this
• You state she "slaughtered half a dozen people" Really? Name two?
• You state that the family members are as equally guilty as Manson. You might lose your audience here...No one believes that....I pray you are not one of those Charlie lovers, they seem to abound even 40 years later.

It seems you are clueless about this case and only carry with you a real hate for Leslie Van Houten. You just throw things out hoping to scare and incite the uneducated.

You also use your position in this forum to distort the truth, ridicule the participants, and throw your weight around.

I'll not respond to you again,

FreeLeslie