Friday, October 18, 2013

Going Home: Parole Hearings

Since 1978 those convicted for the Manson murders have been granted well over 100 parole hearings.

Obviously, almost all of them have been unsuccessful, with the exception of three (one for Grogan and two for Davis). The three member panel have also almost always voted in agreement to oppose parole with at least only two exceptions (once each for Van Houten and Davis).

In California between 1901 and 1978 seven years was the minimum amount of time to be served before an inmate became eligible for parole. It appears most of those convicted became eligible for parole around October 1976, and at least Atkins, if not the others as well, had been appearing annually in front of the parole board since the early 1970s.

The first parole hearings proper appear to have begun in 1978. At that time California passed the Determinate Sentencing law.

All of those convicted were serving life sentences with parole, these are indeterminate sentences. Apart from Grogan who may have received a base sentence of 19 years, the rest had no specific minimum term to serve before being released automatically.

Van Houten, although only re-convicted in 1978 was also eligible for parole as her time served was taken into account (eight years and 120 days).

Under the Determinate Sentencing law, those serving indeterminate sentences were entitled to annual parole hearings.

Their suitability for release was decided solely by the parole board, however, since 1988 the Governor of California has the power to reverse the parole boards decisions (Proposition 89). This is currently why Davis remains in prison having had two consecutive successful hearings.

The period of annual parole hearings came to an end for most of the group in 1981 when the law was amended. Anyone serving a multiple murder conviction was excluded and could now receive a three year denial.

Watson challenged this law when he received a three year denial in 1983. He was initially successful but the decision in his favour was overturned in the early 1990s. The law was further amended to increase the denial period to five years.

In 2008 Marsy’s Law was introduced (Proposition 9). This further increased denial periods to a maximum of 15 years. The current denial periods are 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 15 years.

Both Davis and Van Houten legally challenged being named in the bill as examples of inmates who force taxpayers to “spend millions of dollars on hearings for dangerous criminals that have virtually no chance of release”. They lost.

Davis has almost continuously received one year denials and has had almost 30 hearings. Beausoleil until recent hearings was in the same situation usually receiving a one year denial between 1979 and 1997.

Van Houten has faired better than either Atkins or Krenwinkel in terms of one year denials. But all three of them have seen their denial terms steadily increase. Atkins from mandatory 1 year to 3 and 4 years, Krenwinkel from mandatory 1 year to 3, 5 and most recently 7 years. Van Houten has spent the past 35 years being regarded as most likely to be paroled , receiving a 2-1 vote in 1980, and in 1985 being told by the board that she was “much closer to going home than she realised”, her denial terms are also increasing, most recently from 3 years increased to 5 years.

In 1981 Grogan was given a parole date of 6 years or less. In 1984 his parole date was advanced from 1988 to 1986. In 1986 he was quietly paroled.

Atkins had an unsuccessful compassionate release hearing in 2008, an equally unsuccessful parole hearing the following year. Dying a little over twenty days later of brain cancer in September 2009.

Manson has had only 12 parole hearings, He has declined to attend half of them. He has had the least hearings and generally receives the longer denial periods.

Watson has waived three of his hearings, each time declaring himself unsuitable for a one year period.

Krenwinkel has waived one of her hearings, declaring herself unsuitable for a two year period. This period coincided with her long term attorney and friend retiring as well as Van Houten’s appeal regarding her legal disagreement with the parole board.

Van Houten around 2000 challenged a denial period she had received. She was initially successful and the parole board was instructed to give her a hearing, but then this judgement itself was reversed on appeal.

In addition she walked out of her 1999 hearing, complaining about Bill Nelson using her appearances as a profiteering exercise. Krenwinkel similarly refused to attend her 1982 hearing, the first year still and TV cameras were allowed to attend parole hearings.

In 2003 Atkins sued everyone from the person who wrote her psychiatric reports, the prison governor, the parole board, up to the Governor of California. Almost everything was thrown out of court. Interestingly the Parole Board cannot be sued, and various state authorities can only be sued if they agree to allow themselves to be sued.

Relatives of victims have been allowed to attend since 1982, and in 2008 the scope of this was broadened to include people designated by relatives of victims, hence why Barbara Hoyt now attends.

Media interest follows all of those convicted, but obviously Manson is always deemed newsworthy. Doris Tate and Steven Kay encouraged media interest mostly for those convicted of killing Sharon Tate.

Steven Kay an original assistant prosecutor in the 1970-71 trial stated in 1989 that he had attended over 42 hearings for those convicted. He was the first District Attorney to attend a parole hearing, this took place in 1978 for Krenwinkel. He continued to regularly take part speaking against the granting of parole until his retirement.

In a subsequent piece I intend to cover parole hearing procedures, and a more in-depth review of individual hearings.

PAROLE HEARINGS REFERENCE LIST

Under the Determinate Sentencing law all of those convicted were eligible for parole hearings annually between 1978-1981. If it is not listed I could not find the date but it probably took place.

Sometimes parole hearings are postponed for various reasons, but they may have been listed on the parole hearings schedule before postponement. Beausoleil has several postponed hearings mostly during the 1990s. Davis missed one in the late 1990s because of a backlog.

Page numbers of transcripts where known are listed in brackets, the number of pages may vary slightly from what I have listed as it’s a rough guide, except for Watson 2001 which I found listed as both 97pg or 174pg.

The days given for hearings may be out slightly here and there by one day, as information comes from various sources. The months and years are much more accurate and hopefully the majority are included.

If the transcript is available to read on the internet it is indicated. There are around 40 representing a cross section of all those convicted.

Denial periods where known are in square brackets.

1970s

1978 
JUL 17 KRENWINKEL (90pg) 
JUL 20 ATKINS (157p)
AUG 22 GROGAN (80pg)
OCT 19 DAVIS (75pg) (available on internet)
OCT 27 WATSON
NOV 16 MANSON

1979 
JUL 06 ATKINS (111p)
??? ?? BEAUSOLEIL (91pg)
JAN ?? VAN HOUTEN (126pg)
JUL 03 KRENWINKEL (121pg)
OCT 17 GROGAN (125pg)
OCT 22 WATSON 
NOV 28 MANSON (no show)

1980s

1980 
JAN 31  VAN HOUTEN (125pg)
MAR 27 DAVIS (50pg) (available on internet)
JUL 02 ATKINS (63 pgs)
JUL 30 KRENWINKEL
OCT 08 WATSON
OCT 21 GROGAN (80pg) (available on internet incomplete)
OCT 29 BEAUSOLEIL
NOV 04 MANSON

1981 
??? ?? DAVIS
??? ?? VAN HOUTEN(108pg)
JUL 10 (or SEP 15) KRENWINKEL (50pg)
SEP 16 ATKINS (115 pgs) (available on internet incomplete)
OCT 20 GROGAN (125pg) (available on internet)
OCT 22 WATSON (90pg) (available on internet) [1yr]
NOV 05 MANSON

1982 
MAR 09 ĂźDAVIS (87pg) [2yrs] 
MAR 16 or APR 22 VAN HOUTEN (102pg) [3yr]
AUG 08 KRENWINKEL [3yr] (no show)
SEP 16 BEAUSOLEIL 
DEC 01 MANSON (no show)
DEC 16 ATKINS (100 pgs) [3yr]

1983
JAN 13 WATSON [3yr overturned]
OCT 27 BEAUSIOLEIL

1984
???? ?? VAN HOUTEN
APR 24 DAVIS [1yr] 
MAY 01 WATSON (won court challenge to have denial moved forward two years)
OCT 16 GROGAN (parole advanced from 1988 to 1986)
DEC 13 BEAUSOLEIL [1yr] 

1985 
MAY 01 DAVIS
MAY 17 WATSON (107pg) [3yr]
APR 11  or MAY 15 VAN HOUTEN [1yr] 
SEP 04 KRENWINKEL (65pg)
DEC 04 BEAUSOLEIL (160pg) (available on internet, incomplete)
DEC 31 ATKINS (225 pgs) (available on internet) [3yr] 

1986
FEB 04 MANSON (available for on internet)
MAY 08 WATSON [1yr]
MAY 27 DAVIS
JUL 11 VAN HOUTEN (255pg) (available on internet incomplete) (delayed from May)
DEC 02 BEAUSOLEIL 

1987
APR 02 WATSON
MAY 13 DAVIS
JUL 30 VAN HOUTEN (273pg) [3yr]
DEC 09 BEAUSOLEIL [1yr]

1988 
MAY 11 DAVIS
NOV 07 KRENWINKEL (80pg) (available on internet incomplete) [1yr]
DEC 01 BEAUSOLEIL (postponed)
DEC 16 ATKINS (150 pgs) (available on internet) [1yr denial limited by recent court decision by Watson]

1989 
FEB 08 MANSON (no show)
MAY 25 DAVIS
NOV 22 KRENWINKEL (94pg) 
DEC ?? BEAUSOLEIL
DEC 20 ATKINS (125 pgs) [3yr] (available on internet)
DEC 21 VAN HOUTEN (130pg) (postponed from FEB) [2yr]


1990s

1990
MAY 02 BEAUSOLEIL  [2yr]
MAY 04 WATSON (90pg)
JUNE 12 DAVIS
NOV 05 KRENWINKEL

1991
??? ?? KRENWINKEL (filmed complete)
APR 23 DAVIS
DEC 30 VAN HOUTEN (filmed complete) [2yr]

1992
JUN 02 DAVIS
JUN 03 BEAUSOLEIL
APR 21 MANSON (filmed complete) (available on internet) [5yr]

1993
JAN 04 WATSON (waives right to parole hearing for 1yr)
JAN 20 ATKINS (filmed complete) (115p) [3yr]
JUN 22 DAVIS (150pg) (available on internet incomplete) [1yr]
DEC 29 VAN HOUTEN (filmed complete) (90pg) (available on internet incomplete) [2yr]
DEC 29 KRENWINKEL (filmed complete) (115pg) [3yr] (available on internet incomplete)

1994
APR 01 BEAUSOLEIL (postponed)
JUN 21 DAVIS (105pg) (filmed)

1995
MAR 16 BEAUSOLEIL
MAY 10 WATSON [5yr]
AUG 02 DAVIS

1996
AUG 29 DAVIS
APR 30 VAN HOUTEN (filmed complete) [2yr]
JUN 25 ATKINS (100 pgs) (available on internet) [4yr]

1997
MAR 19 KRENWINKEL (filmed complete) [5yr]
MAR 28 MANSON [5yr]
SEP 04 DAVIS (filmed)
OCT 24 BEAUSOLEIL (postponed from MAR 21) [2yr]

1998
MAY 28 VAN HOUTEN (filmed complete) [1yr]
SEP 24 DAVIS (filmed) [1yr]

1999
(DAVIS should have had one but it could not be scheduled due to back-log of hearings)
JUN 07 VAN HOUTEN (filmed complete) (walkout-postponed) (available on internet)
NOV 04 VAN HOUTEN (postponed from JUL 08)


2000s

2000
FEB 23 BEAUSOLEIL (31pg)
??? ?? WATSON  (waives right to parole hearing for 1yr)
JUN 13 VAN HOUTEN (filmed complete)
JUL 19 DAVIS (75pg) [1yr]
DEC 28 ATKINS [4yr]

2001
JAN 29 DAVIS [1yr]
OCT 10 WATSON (97pg or 174pg) [4yr]

2002
??? ?? KRENWINKEL (waives right to parole hearing for 2yr)
APR 24 MANSON (available on internet) (no show) [5yrs]
JUN 28 VAN HOUTEN (filmed complete) (CNN rush transcript available on internet) [2yr]

2003
??? ?? BEAUSOLEIL (102pg)
JAN 29  DAVIS

2004 
APR 09 DAVIS [1yr] 
JUL 07 KRENWINKEL (available on internet) [3yr]
AUG 25 VAN HOUTEN (105pg) (available on internet) [2yr]

2005
JUN 01 ATKINS (175pg) (available on internet) (postponed from MAR) [4yr]
SEP 23 or 29 DAVIS [1yr]
OCT 04 WATSON  (waives right to parole hearing for 1yr)
DEC 07 BEAUSOLEIL(140pg) (available on internet) postponed from JUN 24 [3yr]

2006
AUG 31 DAVIS (150pg) (available on internet) (no show) [1yr] 
SEP 07 VAN HOUTEN (filmed complete) (90pg) (available on internet) [1yr]
NOV 27 WATSON (available on internet) (no show) [5yr] 

2007
MAY 23  MANSON (no show) (available on internet) [5yrl]
JUL ?? KRENWINKEL (postponed for six months)
AUG 30 VAN HOUTEN (filmed complete) (184pg) (available on internet) [2yr]
SEP 15 DAVIS [1yr]

2008
JAN ?? KRENWINKEL (probably postponed)
JUL 15 ATKINS ompassionate release hearing
DEC 22 BEAUSOLEIL (available on internet) [5yr]

2009
SEP 02 ATKINS (available on internet) final dies on 29 SEP 18th

2010
JAN 28 DAVIS (available on internet) Approved, over-ruled by Governor of California
JUL 06 VAN HOUTEN (available on internet) (postponed from AUG 09) [3yr]
DEC 13 BEAUSOLEIL (available on internet) [5yr] [next parole DEC 2015]

2011
JAN 20 KRENWINKEL (available on internet) [7yr] [next parole JAN 2018]
NOV 16 WATSON (available for on internet) [5yr] [next parole NOV 2016]

2012
APR 11 MANSON (no show) [15yr] [next parole APR 2027]
OCT 04 DAVIS (available on internet) Approved, over-ruled by Governor of California  [ Next parole Oct 2014]

2013
JUN 05 VAN HOUTEN (available on internet) [next parole JUN 2018]  [5yr]

23 comments:

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thank You Chris.

As always, your thread is very well researched and written.
You always present interesting information.

You ROCK!

PS:
Great job, on your first self upload!!
It looks great!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I must say:

Chris' narratives are always written, from a completely unbiased standpoint.

"Just the facts M'am..."

I really enjoy his writing style.
It's refreshing.

Every once in a while, it's nice to read information with no slant to it... (i.e., without all kinds of personal bias attached).

The Cielodrive website is another source, who presents his information sans personal opinion.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Chris. Great research!

It's pretty obvious that none of them are going to get out. If that happened I would be very surprised.

But the families of the victims have to keep going thru the motions.

Their sentences should have been converted to life without parole. That would have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble.

katie8753 said...

I don't think that Tex, Pat, Bruce, Bobby or Manson should ever be released. I think that what they all did was monstrous.

But Leslie? Is she gonna kill people again at her age? I doubt it.

But it's like Lynyrd has said many times, if she had killed a gas station attendant in a hold up, she probably would have been out years ago.

But it's her connection to Manson and that blood-thirsty tribe she was affiliated with that keeps her in. Same with Susan Atkins. So she will probably never get out.

When I say that they should have gotten life without parole, I say it for the victims' families AND the killers.

Instead of boning up on how to get out, they could have just concentrated on how to survive in prison and make the most of their lives. Works both ways.

Just my 2 cents.... LOL.

Kimchi said...

A lot of work went into this compilation...good research!

Thank you Chris!

MrPoirot said...

I'd let them all out but Charlie. That would make room for criminals that are violent "now".

MrPoirot said...

I take that back. Tex went a bit overboard. Keep him and Charlie in.

sunset77 said...

Wikipedia says Grogan was released in 1985. A YouTube vid says he was released on "November 11th", it doesn't say what year.

Vid HERE.

Wikipedia says "(He) remains the only Manson family member who has been convicted of murder and released from prison."

St. Circumstance said...

They aint getting out any of them.

They will all be dead soon and any possible secrets will die with them if there really are any.

But those who played the part of puppet will stay where they are and fair or or not and what happened to other people or not just wont matter.

Thats one truth about TLB we can all rest assured of.


As for the rest of it???


"Like the man said, rode hard and put away wet
Throw away the bad news, and put it to rest
If learning is living, and the truth is a state of mind
You'll find it's better at the end of the line

Can you deny, there's nothing greater
Nothing more than the traveling hands of time?
Sainte Genevieve can hold back the water
But Saints don't bother with a tear stained eye...

Sun Volt



Peace my Brothers and Sisters!

TomG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...

I think I feel more sorry for Pat Krenwinkel than any of the rest.

She got sucked in by a con man who said she was beautiful and he loved her. And it was all just a bunch of lies.

She would have done anything for him. And now she's rotting in prison, having to remember chasing Abigail down and stabbing her, and remember killing the LaBiancas.

That's gotta really suck. I think she's the most regretful of the bunch.

Oh well, at least she has her dogs.

MrPoirot said...

When Leslie Van Houten first got to prison she was told they would let her out when she turned 70.

CarolMR said...

FYI, Sharon Tate's movie, "Eye of the Devil," will be shown tomorrow (Monday) on TCM at 4:15 mountain time. I've never seen this movie and I don't think it's ever been on TCM before. Looking forward to it. I believe the beautiful picture of Sharon on the cover of Greg King's book is from this movie.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Carol. I'll try and remember to watch it. I've seen scenes from it but I've never seen the movie.

CarolMR said...

Hi, Katie!

katie8753 said...

Hi Carol! I watched that movie and I have to say, Sharon did a good job in that movie.

Check this out. You may have already seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf1NX9AQOEI

MrPoirot said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpTudIsVhl0

There are some people and pics in this video I haven't seen before. Who is the girl with hair on her head sitting with the newly headshaven girls? There is a pic of writing on a wall at Spahns.
I can not hear any sound.

CarolMR said...

Katie, I recorded the movie and plan on watching it tonight. Can't wait!

CarolMR said...

Katie, I just watched EYE OF THE DEVIL. Not scary, but interesting. Sharon did a good job, I agree. And she never looked lovelier. But her voice? I think it was dubbed. It didn't sound anything like Sharon. I guess this was her first major role because the credits said "and introducing SHARON TATE." Produced by Marty Ransohoff, of course. I read several times that Sharon had a fling with David Hemmings while making this movie.

katie8753 said...

Carol I noticed that it sounded like the microphone was right next to her mouth or something. Her voice did sound odd.

katie8753 said...

I read that she had a fling with David Hemmings too. That guy is weird looking. LOL.

You can see them dancing together on the link I posted.

CarolMR said...

Yes - thanks, Katie, for the link. Sharon and David looked very cute dancing together.

fiona1933 said...

It's just so unjust, keeping people in jail because the case is sensational. Justice should be blind. and Grogan's release shows the public don't care.