Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

Throw it at the wall and see what sticks....

Just for the record, this is utter crap.
Unlike many of the other Manson "girls", Leslie came from a stable and supportive home.

Paul Van Houten, Leslie's father was an alcoholic. When Leslie was 14 her parents divorced. The divorce rate in 1963 was not near what it is today; Leslie took the divorce very hard. She started taking drugs later this year; and her drug use continued throughout high school.

She became pregnant when she was 15 and her mother made her have an abortion. Van Houten was deeply angered, and the relationship with her mother became extremely difficult. Leslie and her mother did not reconcile until the early 70s.

[Ally]

No, but I try to be in touch with her, and would be so happy to meet her.

Amitiés,
David

Okay, I missed this post as it occurred after I went to sleep last night. And now I have just realized what is going on here. I thought it was only weak-minded, pathetic women who fell in love with mass murderers and wrote them in prison under the deluded impression that they could see their souls. I realize now what DVV is. And it's disappointing. As insane in his own way as she is in hers. The reason he is incapable of logic and a reasoned argument and can only say what he "feels": He's a murder groupie.


And therefore, impossible to argue with. He has no reason, he only has feelings. Vomit. We've had them on the boards before, and no doubt we'll have them again, but I refuse to further feed his little lovefest or allow him to wax philosophical about his gal pal wish she'd answer my devoted letters. At least the last skank was actually married to the dirtbag she defended.

I have a feeling this conversation is going to make it into one of his letters he writes her, a "see how I defended you, I am devoted to you" missive and I refuse to help him further. He actually said on another thread he'd write her about this board, and I thought he was joking. Now that I see what his game is, nope, I am out.

[Ally]

Once again you dodge the question. Her "essentialness" is irrelevant. Her actions are. She is guilty by deed of conspiring and assisting in the slaughter of seven people.

Period. She stabbed more people than Manson. She is a mass murderer if he is. Plans don't mean diddly squat without someone being willing to pick up the knife and actually kill---which is something Manson never actually had the stomach for.

So his plans would have come to naught without his essential soldiers willing to kill. Which she was. And therefore essential. He needed people to kill for him and she VOLUNTEERED.

She was essential. Without crazy bitches like her willing to slaughter peopel, it never would have happened.

And one can argue, with her track record, if she hadn't found Manson, she'd have found someone else to start her on a murder spree.

So again you can't have it both ways. She was more willing to kill than Manson. She might well have found someone else to lead her to do it.

Manson, never killed anyone. She did. She's a cold-blooded murderer by action. He's only one by association.

And I presume your final sentence means that you cannot find a single other instance of someone guilty in conspiring in the murders of half a dozen people who has been released on bail. Because there isn't one. Because she is being treated just like what she is: a mass murderer.

[DVV]

Quite simple, Ally.

Leslie was a (non-essential) member of an organization that is guilty of mass murder.
As an individual, she is hardly a typical example of what is a mass murderer.

And yes, the Manson murders, their motive(s), etc, are something rather strange. Hence their fame.

Amitiés,
David

[Ally]

Hi Robert,

I maintain that, if it wasn't for Manson's fame, she would have already been released.

Amitiés,
David

And again you are WRONG. I have asked you to find me ONE other case where someone guilty of the conspiracy in the mass slaughter of 7 people, has ever been released from prison.

Do it then. If you MAINTAIN despite all evidence that it is only the fame of the Manson case that is keeping her in jail, find me ONE person, who has been released on parole, after having been convicted of being complicit in the mass slaughter of seven people.

Do that, and you can maintain it's just the fame. Otherwise you are just arguing from a point of irrationality where you are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lallalalallala I won't hear you."

Where is the precedent to back up what you "maintain"?

[Ally]

And no, the tag "mass murderer" doesn't really fit.
She is implicated in a very strange murder case which is definitely hard to classify.
For what she did, she can hardly be considered a mass murderer.

From a dictionary:
"Van Houten (Leslie): American mass murderer who stabbed one person in 1969."

She is not implicated in a strange murder case. She is guilty of conspiracy and being complicit in the slaughter of seven people. That is the EXACT definition of a mass murderer.

Once again I have to wonder if you actually are able to hold a complete thought for two minutes.

Once again, by your logic, then Manson is not a mass murderer either. You cannot have it both ways.

Either they are all mass murderers or Manson is not a murderer at all.

Which is it? Pick one. Is Manson a mass murderer or not?

[The Good Michael]

David,

Re: your posting about her life's circumstances. One thing that irritates the piss out of me is that we all can see through the study of sociological issues, that people who are born into various sets of circumstances, whether it be poverty, or exposure to ethnic hatred or whatever, have a greater likelihood of becoming troubled. Ultimately it comes down to personal choice... or does it? The factors that go into what makes someone a murderer are far more than just a personal choice. Saying someone chose is an easy way to get rid of them, but it does nothing about root causes which are legion. This black or white thinking is what gets us into wars. It's what our politicians use to create propaganda. It is the very antithesis of thought. I suggest that criminals need, at times, to be taken off the street, but also that hard and fast rules of legality are not a deterrent to crime and that there must be many more options instead of simple incarceration. Most of us are not criminals because we have not been submerged in all the factors that create criminals. Therefore, we must attempt to understand these factors before judging so harshly. Maybe I'm liberal in my thinking, but I've been to a lot of very poor places in the world and have seen, first-hand, the squalor and violence into which many people have been born. I have a hard time deciding upon which path I would have trod had I been born without any visible paths.

Mike

[DVV]

Sorry for my brief interruption to this ridiculous thread. I just don't see the point in fighting for the release of a convicted murderer. who freely admitted to her crimes, when their are countless innocent people languishing in jail cells all over the world. My compassion and energy I save for those people. Murderers, repentant or not, are unworthy of my time and lenity.

Robert

Hi Robert,

what about those who spend their energy to keep her in jail, whereas she has served 40 years and her life is already destroyed ?

Acknoledging that she's truly remorseful and suitable for parole would be an honorable thing to do.
I maintain that, if it wasn't for Manson's fame, she would have already been released.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Let me jump in here (and get slaughtered). There is a parole system, but for many people, it is just a concept and they will never be free. Why is that? Well, many reasons have been mentioned. The frustration lies with the idea that some people will never be paroled though they come up for it. Why do we have a system that allows for parole for people that won't be paroled? It's asinine. It's better to execute them or change the law so that there is no parole for certain crimes. Folks can be model citizens (though few are) and be constantly denied because there is no real code to be followed with regards to what constitutes good enough behavior to be allowed an opportunity to re-enter society. It is seemingly arbitrary , and depends upon too many human factors. Do I want cold-blooded, remorseless murderers to be walking the streets? Aside from Bush and Cheney, no I don't. How does one show remorse? Let a panel of numbskulls decide? I think it's nuts. Make penalties fairly stiff and then let people out if they have parole opportunities and have shown some furtherance of self in prison, such as gaining education or learning job skills. Those who we will never let out, need to be given sentences with no parole (though I don't really care for that), instead of being brought forth, at the waste of tax-payer dollars, only to be slapped back into a cell.

Cheers,

Mike

Thanks, Mike,

that's true and well said.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Just for the record, this is utter crap.

Unlike many of the other Manson "girls", Leslie came from a stable and supportive home. She had a decent education and was what we'd call a "student leader". That she chose to later reject them and "drop out" does not mean that she did not benefit from having had them.

From wikipedia:
"In 1963, her parents divorced, with her father moving out while the children stayed with their mother. Van Houten took the divorce very hard and later started experimenting hallucinogenic drugs and marijuana. At 15, she became pregnant and her mother arranged an abortion. She wanted to keep the child but was forced to undergo an abortion. Van Houten was deeply angered and the relationship with her mother became extremely difficult."

By her own admission she was not what DVV would call a "Manson-zombie" and considered herself more connected to Bobby than Charlie (and to repeat once again it was Manson who was pursuing Bobby, not the other way round).
She did, however, choose to subscribe to the whole "Helter Skelter" malarky despite witnessing large numbers of people "getting the hell out of there" as soon as Charlie started ranting about it.

I hope you can see the contradiction. True, she wasn't much attracted (physically) by Manson.
But the very fact that she suscribed to the ridiculous Helter Skelter prophecy proved that she was under Manson's influence. Helter Skelter, as far as I know, doesn't come from Bobby Beausoleil.

Needless to say, the sad "abortion episode" and Manson's influence don't minimize her guilt and responsability.
But you can't portray her as a youth coming from a perfectly stable family, who came to kill for Helter Skelter although she didn't care about Charlie.
It wouldn't be true, and would make no sense.

Amitiés,
David

[RJM]

.
Frankly, Magpie, isn't 40 years enough ?

I was watching a documentary produced in the 1990s recently. In it, Bugliosi was asked this exact question in the context of more than 30 combined parole denials for Krenwinkel, Atkins, and Van Houten. He replied that there were eight murders (don't forget Tate's unborn child), and the prison time served worked out to roughly 3 1/2 years for each murder, and that that didn't seem nearly enough to Mr. Bugliosi.

We're now up to 5 years per murder. Is that enough? Even if we reduce Van Houten to just the LaBianca murders, both of which she has accepted responsibility for, then it works out to 20 years per murder. Is that enough?

Sorry for my brief interruption to this ridiculous thread. I just don't see the point in fighting for the release of a convicted murderer. who freely admitted to her crimes, when their are countless innocent people languishing in jail cells all over the world. My compassion and energy I save for those people. Murderers, repentant or not, are unworthy of my time and lenity.

Robert

[The Good Michael]

Let me jump in here (and get slaughtered). There is a parole system, but for many people, it is just a concept and they will never be free. Why is that? Well, many reasons have been mentioned. The frustration lies with the idea that some people will never be paroled though they come up for it. Why do we have a system that allows for parole for people that won't be paroled? It's asinine. It's better to execute them or change the law so that there is no parole for certain crimes. Folks can be model citizens (though few are) and be constantly denied because there is no real code to be followed with regards to what constitutes good enough behavior to be allowed an opportunity to re-enter society. It is seemingly arbitrary , and depends upon too many human factors. Do I want cold-blooded, remorseless murderers to be walking the streets? Aside from Bush and Cheney, no I don't. How does one show remorse? Let a panel of numbskulls decide? I think it's nuts. Make penalties fairly stiff and then let people out if they have parole opportunities and have shown some furtherance of self in prison, such as gaining education or learning job skills. Those who we will never let out, need to be given sentences with no parole (though I don't really care for that), instead of being brought forth, at the waste of tax-payer dollars, only to be slapped back into a cell.

Cheers,

Mike

[Magpie]

Frankly, Magpie, isn't 40 years enough ?

The prevailing consensus thus far appears to be "no".

[Magpie]

5. She fell in love (or became infatuated) with BB, met Gypsy and ended up in an environment that many say was "wonderful" until about June-July 1969. She was too young and immature to do what many did (got the hell out of there) when the situation changed.

Just for the record, this is utter crap.

Unlike many of the other Manson "girls", Leslie came from a stable and supportive home. She had a decent education and was what we'd call a "student leader". That she chose to later reject them and "drop out" does not mean that she did not benefit from having had them.

She also had a history with other fringe groups prior to Manson's family (which she seemed to have no problem "getting the heck out of there" when she deemed prudent), and had had minor run-ins with the law, which she managed to manipulate into walking away with no record.

By her own admission she was not what DVV would call a "Manson-zombie" and considered herself more connected to Bobby than Charlie (and to repeat once again it was Manson who was pursuing Bobby, not the other way round). Thanks to her connection with Bobby she was not isolated or cut off from non-Family contact, even while staying at The Ranch. She has repeatedly claimed that she had no particular physical attraction to Manson, going so far as to claim she was never intimate with him. She did, however, choose to subscribe to the whole "Helter Skelter" malarky despite witnessing large numbers of people "getting the hell out of there" as soon as Charlie started ranting about it.

So the characterization of her as some innocent, naive, babe-in-the-woods who was lured into a wilderness of mirrors and couldn't escape is a crock. She was better equipped, mentally and experientially, to realize what was going on and get the hell out of it than most of the misfits and losers that were at Spahn at the time.

[Magpie]

What does remembering piffling details have to do with repentance?

doris

Hi doris.

With respect, Leslie has claimed a few times that not a day goes by that she doen't think of Rosemary and the horrible nights. That it constantly preys on her mind and haunts her days. You'd think somewhere during that preying and haunting some of the details of the victim that she claims to think about every day would percolate through.

To illustrate:

Imagine if you will a parole hearing (not Leslie's) of a sincere, repentent murderer who we'll call Dave.

A: And do you regret your actions that night?

Dave: Lord yes! There's not a day goes my that I don't think of Brian and what I did to him. His face haunts me. I kneel in my cell and pray to almighty God that Brian knows how deeply sorry I am for taking his life.

A. Steve.

Dave: What?

A: Your victim's name was Steve.

Dave: Steve? Are you sure? It wasn't Brian? Or Brett? Something like that?

A: No. It was definitely Steve.

Dave: Crap! Oh well, see you next year...