Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[DVV]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Many of The Family were musicians. Charlie was a musician. Bobby was something special for Charlie, and it's telling that Bobby's sudden removal both put Charlie in undisputed control of Bobby's "harem" and started the downward spiral that peaked with the Tate-Labianca murders.

Sigh....
Bobby was a real musician, not like others.
He still is.
When he was living on his boat, alone, Manson came to pick him up, so that they could play and record together.

Yes, Charlie loved Bobby, and Bobby loved Charlie.
That's why Bobby is still stupidely exonerating Manson in the Hinman case.

[Magpie]

That Bobby had not the profile of a complete Manson-zombie doesn't mean he wasn't at all under his influence at all (hence Manson's role in the Hinman murder - and please note Bobby was at that time with Mary Brunner and Atkins, not with his own girls), and it doesn't mean either that Manson did not control the Family - so to speak.

You want we should get you some coasters for those goalposts? I'd hate to see you hurt your back or anything.

Just a couple of hours ago you were claiming that Bobby was so under Manson's spell that he'd explode if Manson didn't give him permission to fart.

[Magpie]

That's why Bobby is still stupidely exonerating Manson in the Hinman case.

That's right. The jammed together so Bobby, who apparently was now not completely under Manson's control, still takes responsibility for the murder he committed...oops, I mean still takes the rap for the murder that Charlie's actually responsible for, while the myriad of complete Manson-zombies (your description) all sold Charlie out the moment it became clear it was in their best interests to do so.

Well that's consistent...

[DVV]

Ha ha.
You've been proven wrong, and are unable to quote me about Manson and Bobby.

Then you start being insulting.
I was there for an honest discussion, so go enjoy.

[Magpie]

You've been proven wrong, and are unable to quote me about Manson and Bobby.

.

And again, you haven't pointed out precisely what quote you were supposedly challenging me to provide.

Get back to me when you remember what it was.


edit: My apologies, I hit "edit" when I thought I was hitting "quote". The point remains--this is teh second time I'm asking you to provide this information.

[Magpie]

Then you start being insulting.
.

I'm sorry you find my pointing out your constant backtracking insulting.

How about you stop doing it, I'll stop pointing it out, and then nobodies feelings get hurt, 'kay?

[DVV]

I was proven wrong?

It's just the beginning.

One day, you'll realize you are just talking to yourself.

Don't want to interfere.

[DVV]

I'm sorry you find me pointing out your constant backtracking insulting.

How about you stop doing it, I'll stop pointing it out, and then nobodies feelings get hurt, 'kay?

Don't get me wrong.

I'm sorry for you but am not hurt.

[Magpie]

I'm sorry for you but am not hurt.

Thank you. I'll sleep so much better for knowing that.

[Magpie]

It's just the beginning.

One day, you'll realize you are just talking to yourself.

Don't want to interfere.

Okay, whatever.

So to sum up for the day:

Me: Inquest testimony, trial testimony, interviews, and court decisions.
You: Starry eyes and moist knickers.

Whenever you're done sulking and want to discuss actual facts and, you know, stuff like that, I'll be here.

[Stephen Thomas]

A most interesting discussion, gentlemen.

Magpie

I've admired your posts here for several years

Would never have guessed you were the flog 'em and hang 'em populist type.

David

Once upon a time when I was young and handsome I took a plane to New York and hitch-hiked to California and one day I met and talked with Manson who was with an entourage of very sexy babes. Happily I wasn't invited on to his school bus. Strange days.

[kensei]

Sorry to come into the discussion so late, but I was just perusing all the posts and was surprised that no one seems to have made comparisons to what just recently happened with two of the other Manson girls, one at each end of the spectrum. Susan Atkins, for those who might have missed it in the news, is dead. She died six months ago in prison after having lobbied unsuccessfully for release because she was dying of cancer (a strategy that worked for the Libyan terrorist in the Locherbie bombing case, who by the way has now made a comeback in his health which I think should mean he should go back to prison). I guess it was decided that the person who actually killed Sharon Tate and stabbed her unborn baby in the womb should never be released for any reason. But meanwhile, seven months ago, Squeaky Fromm- WHO TRIED TO ASSASSINATE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES- was released from prison and is now free.

I don't find myself taking a position on whether or not Leslie should be freed. But it does make me rather philosophical on the whole subject of redemption and forgiveness. I do absolutely believe that you can forgive someone and yet still expect or even demand that they pay for what they did. But should every murderer be required to die in prison? Has no murderer payed for their crime until then? I don't know, I think that question may be up to higher forces more wise than myself. I remember Vincent Bugliosi on a Geraldo Rivera t.v. special way back in the late 1980s saying he thought some of the Manson people might be getting out in the next five or ten years, his tone implying that he was pretty much resigned to it. Of course there are the worst of the worst, predators like serial killers and serial rapists who are hard-wired to continue to stalk their prey if they were released, and I do not have a problem with the death penalty for them- for instance Night Stalker Richard Ramirez, who has been cheating death now for 21 years!- but for lesser offenses with extenuating circumstances, I do think there should be some room for leniency. But again, that's not to take sides in the debate over Leslie.

[Magpie]

A most interesting discussion, gentlemen.

Magpie

I've admired your posts here for several years.

Why thank you, kind sir

Would never have guessed you were the flog 'em and hang 'em populist type.

That's me A suspended sentence should mean six feet of hemp...

Seriously, I'm not. I'm 100% for the death penalty in principle, but I'm 100% sure that there's not a government on this planet that can be trusted to apply it justly.

I'm for people being given every chance to redeem themselves and to be given a second shot at life if they deserve it. Leslie Van Houten doesn't fit that catagory. She spent 32 years of her sentence denying that she killed Rosemary Bianca. In 2002 she finally conceded that it was possible that she did. Full kudos for finally admitting what everyone else figured out 40 years ago--not enough progress to say she deserves freedom.

She's spent all of her sentence so far blaming Charlie for her actions. She's made no effort to apologize to the family of the woman she killed--going so far as to walk out of a parole hearing rather than face Rosemary LaBianca's niece. It's funny that someone who professer to be a dedicated and earnest 12-stepper, Van Houten has signally failed to apply any of those steps to the LaBianca murder.

People trying to rewrite and distort history to make Manson or any of his minions into folk heroes, political prisoners, or victims of the system is ridiculous. Ignoring or omitting evidence, distorting facts and just plain making stuff up in the process is something that, as a researcher, I find appalling.They did it, they got a fair trial (in Leslie's case two of them) and they got convicted. They should be counting themselves lucky that, through no merit of their own, they weren't executed; instead they spend year after year whining about how hard done by they are by not being released.

Despite what David claims the parole board is legally entitled to deny Van Houten's parole solely based on the egregious nature of the crime, and despite his conviction that she is now ranked among the pure and the good, she has never accepted full responsibility for what she did. Period. None of the Tate/Labianca killers have, and as long as people let them play the "Charles Manson controlled my mind" card, they never will.

[DVV]

I don't know if you're lying, Magpie, or if you just don't understand what you're talking about.

Once again, Leslie takes full responsability. Quite easy to check out.

Not only for the LaBiancas murder, but also for having been a Manson follower...

You can repeat the same nonsense over and over, people have internet access, and at all her parole hearings, Leslie takes full responsability.

Indeed, that's why ALL experts (psy) agree that she is suitable for parole.
They couldn't say so if it wasn't the case.

The "egregious nature of the crime(s)" is the only reason why she is denied parole.

And it's the only thing Leslie cannot change.

It has therefore little to do with parole hearings, who should primarily deal with the following questions :

-is still Leslie a danger for the community ?
-does she understand the terrible pain she has caused to the victims and their relatives?
-is she genuinely remorseful ?

Leslie is no more dangerous for society, she's understanding and remorseful.
You may disagree, but that's the opinion of ALL experts.

And her prison records are perfect.

She's therefore suitable for parole, but to the present day, lobbying keeps her in jail.

40 years in prison means she is whether the ultimate American monster, or still a danger for the community.
But you know she is not.

Amitiés,
David

[doris]

Hi Stan,

Heirens is a serial killer and can't be released

Amitiés,
David

Is he?

Everything I read seems to indicate he is innocent, no evidence, a host of illegal actions by the rozzers and a rubbish confession.

doris