Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[Magpie]

And it mentioned that the parole people had considered what the public think. Why?
WHat do the public know about the complex matter of awarding parole to infamous prisoners? Nothing other than what their knee-jerk reactions tell them.

The public knows whether they want a a vicious mass murderer in their midst or not, and they have the right to make their feelings known. The fact that 40 years on people are still shocked and appalled by these crimes is a testament to their egregiousness.

[DVV]

It fits exactly. You claim she is treated unfairly and her punishment doesn't fit the crime. You are again contradicting yourself. If she is guilty of participating in the mass murders of seven people, she is being punished EXACTLY as such a person would be: no person who is responsible for the mass murders of seven people by deed or conspiracy has ever been released for parole.

That's not exactly my thoughts.
If she's never paroled, I'll have to accept that.
She has taken two lives.

What I feel is that she's remorseful, genuinely, and that after 40 years, she should be released.

[DVV]

Board member Sharon Lawin said she was not impressed with Van Houten's "superficial expressions of remorse."

Many others have a different view.

She and other Manson followers entered the LaBiancas' Los Angeles house in 1969, believing that random murder would lead to an apocalyptic race war. Van Houten held down Rosemary LaBianca as Tex Watson stabbed her. Then she took the knife and continued stabbing.

Not exactly. Van Houten held down Mrs LaBianca while Krenwinkel stabbed her.
Then Tex stabbed her too.
And then he told Leslie : "Do something!"

Relatives of Rosemary and Leno LaBianca told the board that if Van Houten could not be executed, she should remain in prison forever.

"Leslie Van Houten is a vicious and evil killer," said Louis Smaldino, nephew of the LaBiancas.

Well, no wonder. What she did was evil and vicious.

[Ally]

I've agreed hundred times.
And still agree, although the tag "mass murderer" doesn't really fit.

It fits exactly. You claim she is treated unfairly and her punishment doesn't fit the crime. You are again contradicting yourself. If she is guilty of participating in the mass murders of seven people, she is being punished EXACTLY as such a person would be: no person who is responsible for the mass murders of seven people by deed or conspiracy has ever been released for parole.

[Magpie]

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 ?

I thought I was quite clear. The Tate's were killed as part of a conspiracy. Leslie as a part of that conspiracy. Ergo, Leslie is associated with the Tate murders.

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.

Then you and FreeLeslie better get your story straight, because he just said exactly the opposite.

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

Irrelevant. The point is that he didn't say what FreeLeslie said he did.

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

Irrelevant.

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.

Do we have to start this again? It doesn't matter what you, personally, may think. The law says that all conspirators are equally guilty. You can put your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la" as loud as you want, it doesn't change what the law says.

40 years in jail, that's something, no ?

Not if it hasn't resulted in a genuine understanding of what she did, then no.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=DVV;127393]

Even Manson doesn't deny he was at Spahn Ranch when they went to kill Tate.

Manson was not there when they went to kill Tate. This is confirmed by every source.

If you really want to prove he wasn't there, well...good luck.

I'd say the same regarding your claims. No one has ever said Manson was actually at the Tate killing. It is well known he wasn't there.

[DVV]

Even though she only killed a single person she is guilty of all their murders.

I've agreed hundred times.
And still agree, although the tag "mass murderer" doesn't really fit.

[belinda]

-----------------------------

Board member Sharon Lawin said she was not impressed with Van Houten's "superficial expressions of remorse."

All five Manson cult members are in jail, but Van Houten was considered to have the best chance for parole.

She and other Manson followers entered the LaBiancas' Los Angeles house in 1969, believing that random murder would lead to an apocalyptic race war. Van Houten held down Rosemary LaBianca as Tex Watson stabbed her. Then she took the knife and continued stabbing.

The previous night, cult members - minus Van Houten - killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and painted slogans on the walls in her blood.

Relatives of Rosemary and Leno LaBianca told the board that if Van Houten could not be executed, she should remain in prison forever.

"Leslie Van Houten is a vicious and evil killer," said Louis Smaldino, nephew of the LaBiancas.

[DVV]

As to "Manson killed noone", well...Hitler didn't kill anybody.

[Ally]

I am going to try to use the small words to make you understand. Charles Manson did not directly kill anyone. He did not stab anyone. He is guilty of everyone's murder by conspiracy. He is equally guilty of every murder he had prior or post knowledge of by virtue of his willing complicity and silence and assistance before and after the fact.

Even though he did not directly kill a single person he is guilty of all their murders.

Now I am going to take that same paragraph and apply it to Van Houten:

Van Houten did directly kill someone. She did stab someone. She is guilty of everyone's murder by conspiracy. She is equally guilty of every murder she had prior or post knowledge of by virtue of her willing complicity and silence and assistance before and after the fact.


Even though she only killed a single person she is guilty of all their murders.


Van Houten is a mass murderer. Just like Manson.

[DVV]

I ask you again What have you read?

Bugliosi, Sanders, Manson in his own words, Tex Watson's book, Atkins book.

Even Manson doesn't deny he was at Spahn Ranch when they went to kill Tate.

And his presence is confirmed by Kasabian, Atkins, Tex, etc.

If you really want to prove he wasn't there, well...good luck.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Ally, I do not absolve anyone.

Even if Leslie is paroled, she will still be guilty.

And at least, I'm not stupid enough to absolve Charlie.

[belinda]

I ask you again What have you read?

[DVV]

Very well.
But that wasn't the point.

If you still think Manson didn't know that Tex and co went to kill on August 9, then I have to ask you again: what have you read ?

Amitiés,
David

[Ally]

Ha ha!

Leslie didn't stab Leno but is her murderer. (I agree)

Manson selected the LaBiancas residence, tied them both then sent his butchers, but he is...what ??

I'm far less hypocrite than you are stupid.

No you are both a hypocrite and stupid. Manson killed NO one. No one had to go in there and kill the LaBiancas. Manson didn't even go to the Tates. He wasn't there either.

So how can he possibly be responsible for murders that occurred when he wasn't in the vicinity. Once again, you are accusing Manson of crimes you absolve Van Houten of, and he was FAR less involved than she was. He stabbed NO ONE. She did. He wasn't at the Tate residence. Neither was she. If she's absolved, he is more so, because he never stabbed a single person and she willfully plunged a knife into a helpless woman 16 times.