Sunday, April 24, 2016

Leslie's Parole. Lynyrd Weighs-in.


I’ve watched the KABC video (on the thread below) 3 times. I also watched it (a 4th time) on Brian’s radio show this evening.

The entire KABC broadcast, can be summed-up with the following exchange:

Jillian (the interviewer) said:
“What Leslie did was take a life, and when she did that, she forfeited her own freedom. Period. The end. That‘s it.”

Attorney Rich Pfeiffer responded: 
“That’s not the law in this country. She was sentenced to life, with the possibility of parole. You don’t want to follow the law. And if the law isn’t followed, and the government becomes lawless… what kind of country are we?”

That’s the cruxt of this situation.

Here’s my thoughts:

No murderer will ever truly “deserve” parole, based upon the gravity of  their crime(s). 

You can never pay back a life. That’s common sense.

As Vincent Bugliosi once explained… parole for murderers is ALWAYS based upon some degree of pardon.

From that standpoint, Leslie (and no murderer, for that matter) will ever truly “earn” or “deserve” parole. 

That’s understood.

The real question becomes:
Does Leslie “deserve” parole based upon her sentence?

The first thing we need to clarify, is WHAT EXACTLY does the phrase “with the possibility of parole” mean?

I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t tell you the answer to that key question, based upon law.

As a layperson however , it seems to me, that “the possibility of parole” means this:
If the prisoner is “good enough” for “long enough”, they will be released (i.e., “pardoned”) before their death.

But regardless of my opinion, here’s the point:
There HAS to be SOMETHING that differentiates “Life WITH the possibility of parole”, from “Life WITHOUT the possibility of parole”, other than empty rhetoric.

Think about this:
If we intend to keep Leslie incarcerated FOREVER (based upon the gravity of her crimes alone), REGARDLESS of her good behavior, and REGARDLESS of her achievements… then, haven’t we (for all intents and purposes) changed her sentence to “Life WITHOUT the possibility of parole”?? 

I mean, if we honestly believe that Leslie should NEVER be released, under ANY circumstances (like Jillian), then where is her “opportunity for parole”? 

I understand, that by law, we can keep Leslie incarcerated forever. I fully understand that. BUT, is that REALLY in keeping with the INTENT of her sentence?

If you believe like many folks, that Leslie should NEVER be released under ANY circumstances, then quite frankly, I don’t believe you’re upholding the true intent of her sentence.

I’m not a Leslie supporter... FAR from it. I'd love to see her die in prison. But, sometimes in life, you have to live with your mistakes. The idiots in California, granted Leslie “the opportunity of parole”… and now, we’re stuck with upholding it.

This is my conscience:

Does Leslie deserve release based upon her crimes? Hell No!

Does Leslie deserve release based upon her sentence (and the “pardon” it implies)? Probably, yes.

It pains me to say that… but, it’s true. 

The fact is, there’s absolutely nothing more that Leslie can possibly do (to earn her release), other than spend more time in jail.

Are we REALLY offering Leslie “the possibility of parole”? Really? 
You’ll have to answer that question with your own conscience.

Peace!

37 comments:

Mrstormsurge said...

To me parole is a gift. A person can't complain when they ain't been gifted a gift.

Rob King said...

There is little I enjoy more than when Lynyrd channels his inner-Archie and explains a confusing situation to all us meatheads. Great stuff L/S.
Leslie's parole is a small microcosm of the ancient issues of society and redemption and justice.
My personal feelings? Let the woman walk the beach. Pat too. Because they genuinely seem like they have transformed themselves into remorseful and decent people - a herculean task given where they were coming from.
But never ever Tex or Bruce or Bobby or of course the Face of Evil himself....because I don't believe they have transformed themselves in a genuine manner and I really truly would not want to bump into any of them on the beach.
Let Leslie and Pat stand in the wake of the waves with their pants rolled up. It is right and just.

grimtraveller said...

Mrstormsurge said...

To me parole is a gift. A person can't complain when they ain't been gifted a gift

Parole isn't really a gift, but it is a pardon of sorts. A pardon that is attached to some sentences if there is, well, good behaviour, change, remorse, an attempt to turn around, especially over a very long time like 40+ years. People like Leslie Van Houten have to live a life in which they can barely set a foot wrong ~ I doubt we could live under such a stringent regime.
Of course, it's her own fault but that's rather beside the point. We are no longer talking about Leslie from 1963 to 1974 when she was on a particular trajectory that helped put her where she is now. We are talking about the Leslie that had to recognize the horror of what she did, go through the horror of realizing that there was no way of reversing it, understand and take on board the outrage and anger of the society she'd cast as an enemy for so long.
Love her or hate her, to confront all that, to admit before the world that the one thing you will always be known for, you were totally wrong about, well, there's not many that could honestly do that.
When the Family waged war against American society, elements within American society fought back. And I'm not talking about those with a vested interest in shutting down the counterculture {because that didn't work}. Once the death penalty had been set aside in '72, America to some extent chose to try and turn Leslie around. The combination of her parents, friends, the jail crusaders {and yes, the weight of the law} etc, somehow managed something that really did not seem likely in 1971: they brought her back from a place that only Charlie and co had been able to reach her.
That's no small thing. It was a decisive victory against the family. And it happened not just with Leslie but with most of the killers and some of those that were on that cutting edge of Charlie thought.
That doesn't mean she "deserves" parole. As Diligaf pointed out, remorse is merely the first step. It may not even end well for the remorseful. But to her credit, she persisted. Of course she's made mistakes along the way. She's Leslie of Monrovia not Jesus of Nazareth !
History has seen too many people change from one abysmal state to a better way for me to conclude that no one can change. I've also seen it many a time.
You know, Anders Brevik, who in 2011 murdered 77 people was given a 21 year sentence. I think that is insane, although it is a sentence that allows the Norwegian authorities to continue to extend it dependent on whether or not he's perceived to still be a danger. While it is not a numbers game, that is someone whom I believe should remain behind bars for the rest of his life. If he were to "do a Leslie" I still do not think he should get out. But he will. And at present he is not only unrepentant, he refuses to even recognize the court's jurisdiction and as such won't even appeal. I kind of feel the same way about Charles Watson, even though he seems to have come even further than Leslie has, as the chief Tate/LaBianca killer. When Diligaf said that there were some things that you just couldn't come back from, I disagreed though I understood what he meant. But in disagreeing, that didn't = parole. You can return from the brink, be forgiven and useful in jail and still have to remain there.
The panel has found Leslie suitable for parole. That's another way of saying that she fulfills the criteria necessary for a pardon if those with the power should choose to grant one.
The word "deserve" shouldn't even be part of the sentence or discussion but it has to be because a surprising number of people {both those for and against} seem to equate "suitable for parole" with "deserve to be paroled."
It is not.

grimtraveller said...

Towards the end of "Helter Skelter" Vincent Bugliosi offers some interesting comments on the female killers, firstly estimating the minimum time they'd serve in jail {they've gone way beyond that} and offering up his own opinions on how they'd turn out.
He was completely wrong about all three of them. In fact, he couldn't have been more wrong. Pat didn't slip into psychosis as Joel Hochman thought, Susan didn't go mad and Leslie didn't get harder and tougher. Bugliosi said that he had very little hope for her rehabilitation.
The prison system is interesting in America. It seems to be a real horror show for many but for a long time there have been shards of light that shine through the cracks and if a prisoner so chooses and can persevere {easier said than done}, it seems that one can make some progress despite the odds being heavily stacked the other way.
In a curious way, some of the hardliners seem resentful of the notion that for some, the prison system can actually work. Granted, tons of cons take the piss and anyone thinking it's a wonderful tiptoe through the tulips and that all prisoners are grateful and become transformed mega citizens needs to wake up and surf reality.
But sometimes, those shards of light come shining through. Perhaps more so with women than men, but they do.
I always had a lot of time for Bugliosi and what he often says in relation to this case but for me, his near end comments show that entrenched positions {perhaps borne through daily observation} can be awfully hard to let go of and can also, despite one's great experience....be wrong.

Dilligaf said...

There is a big difference between a pardon and parole. A pardon is the use of executive power to forgive an imate of their convicted crime, including the removal of any remaining penalties or punishment. Parole is a conditional release of a convicted inmate before their sentence has been completed. There is nothing similar between the two.

Leslie Van Houten should be known as Leslie of California Institue of Women, or simply Leslie the Murderer.

The only reason that Leslie has been recommended for parole is because in 2008" the California Supreme Court changed the requirements for which an inmate can be held. It does not mean that she has been rehabilitated, or is no longer considered a risk, but rather that the heinous nature of her crime should not be considered with a risk factor. Her possible release is of a political and philosophical change, not by a personal change or growth.

katie8753 said...

Society doesn't owe Leslie anything.

She got the death penalty at her first trial and dodged a bullet there because her attorney was killed. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Then in subsequent trials, I guess she figured out that singing, laughing and making bold-faced threats just didn't work at murder trials.

If Leslie and the others hadn't gotten caught, who knows how many other people would be pushing up daisies because of Leslie & the group.

If you're gonna apply that blanket logic to Leslie, you have to apply it to Tex as well. What would be the difference if you're just going on "how nice someone has acted for years".

leary7 said...

Sorry Katie dear, but can't dance with ya on this one.
The difference is the issue of rehabilitation and redemption. Consideration of parole and release should have little to do with the act or who/what the person was at the time of the act.
Can a society really afford to conclude that people don't/cannot change and become a different/better person. Honestly, I would have ZERO desire to live in such a society.
Pat and Leslie should be judged primarily on who/what they are today. And yes, so should Tex and Bobby and others. The difference is that I personally believe that Pat and Leslie have genuinely transformed themselves into caring, kind and good people. I just don't feel the same way about the guys.
In the end - it's a judgement call that a two man board makes. Mistakes have been made - hello Willie Horton - but I still believe the parole system as it was intended is a just and compassionate one.
I simply want to live in a compassionate society. Those of us who truly know the effects of hundreds of LSD trips and the diminished capacity it results in CANNOT HELP but to have empathy- and yes, compassion - for Leslie and others.

katie8753 said...

Leary I love you like a dear brother, but I gotta take umbrage on this one. There are many people who took "100's" of LSD trips, such as yourself evidently, that never killed anybody.

Should Rosemary cluck her tongue and say it's okay if Pat and Leslie tied a lamp cord around her neck and put a pillow case on her head in an attempt to kill her, and finally calling in Captain Howdy do finish her off, just because they had fallen victim to the myth that LSD makes you fly?

Sorry, I'm not buying it dear friend o'mine!!!!!!!

katie8753 said...

Oh and BTW, Leslie loves to lament that she and Pat couldn't quite finish the assigned task, because Rosemary just had too much gumption and wasn't ready to call it quits, and SHE is the one who called Captain Howdy to finish her off, while she "stared into the empty room", but then she whines that Tex said "do something", so she added her signature to the job.

One minute she's rough and tumble, the next she's an abused victim herself, hissed at by Bee-ill-zu-bug, and suddenly she's the victim. I guess she forgot that Rosemary is the one who got all the stab wounds, not her.

She really takes the cake.

katie8753 said...

Where is the Star Chamber when you need it?

leary7 said...

I love your umbrage, Katie, it is what makes you so delicious.
And you're obviously right, us acid freaks from the 70's did not kill. But we did experience altered or diminished capacity. I do know what that feels like. The question remains should a 19-year old kid acting on an altered capacity be judged and condemned for said actions a half century later. Or do we allow for rehabilitation and redemption. Our justice system says we do. I simply believe Pat and Leslie have met the standards and criteria. No offense, but I don't see the judicial fairness of bringing Rosemary into the discussion at this point. Of course Rosemary being dead and Leslie walking free is a vile and absurd concept from a spiritual perspective. But we, and by we I mean the founding fathers and such, decided that its criminals should be judged on a judicial basis, not a spiritual one. God can do the latter. We are not God. As a society we have to have an operating system and the fact is that both Leslie and Pat have met the standards of that operating system. There simply is no question about that. If our society has an accepted system of justice it should be applied to all, no matter what their notoriety.

Have a chocolate milkshake, it makes the umbrage easier to swallow.

katie8753 said...

Oh Leary, you are the sweetness that sometimes falls from Heaven, and just lands on the dew. You are the Cherubim and the Seraphim, that guard the Garden of Eden, lest evil once again enter.

I've gotta tell you man, I love you with my own dear heart, but once again, I have to take pause.

Reason: I think if Rosemary had been my mother. If MY mother had laid her head to rest, and her home was invaded by these monstrous hooligans, looking for an LSD fix to another life, looking to find the bottomless pit by killing piggies, looking for father time's answer to eternal life by killing MY MOTHER, I could never, would never, CANNOT EVER forgive. Will not relent.

And I hate to say it, but it could have been ANYONE'S mother. Let's think about that as we chew on our communion cookies.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello Dilligaf,


Jillian (the interviewer) said:
“What Leslie did was take a life, and when she did that, she forfeited her own freedom. Period. The end. That‘s it.”

Based on that statement, would you not agree, that Jillian's position leaves no room whatsoever, for the possibility of parole?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I realize there's a difference between a prisoner being "paroled", and a prisoner being "pardoned" (from a legal standpoint).
That's why (in my post), I placed the word "pardon" in parenthesis.

For the sake of accuracy, let's substitute the word "forgiveness" for "pardon" in my post.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Quite frankly, everyone's anger is misplaced... including Jillian's.

Everyone should be angry with the citizens of California, for allowing these clowns to be sentenced to "Life WITH the possibility of parole".

That's where the liability lies for this situation, and THAT'S where this anger should be directed.

Attorney Pfeiffer is simply doing a job, based on the law.

The parole board is simply screening Leslie for parole, based on the law.

Folks like me, are examining their conscience's (and "considering" Leslie for parole), because we believe that's the intent of her sentence.

This situation was not put in place by Leslie's parole attorneys, the parole board, OR folks like myself.
This situation was fashioned by the citizens of California.

The citizens of California set this system in spin... and the system is flawed.

katie8753 said...

My son came home last night with cuts to the bottom of his foot. Deep cuts. He stepped on broken glass, trying to clean up the pool area at his friend's house.

I poured Hydrogen Peroxide on it and we bandaged it. Today he got up and the bleeding had taken over. I pulled off the bandages that were stuck to his wounds and saw raw wounds. There were 3 wounds. 2 were superficial, and one was deep.

I was reminded of stab wounds. the reason was that I could see under the skin, red wounds that were seeping blood. Those wounds hurt him so bad today.

I was reminded of stab wounds. I stopped for a minute and stared. I have no idea what it's like to get stabbed. Some stab wounds are shallow. Some are deep. The wounds in the TLB victims were DEEP.

It must have hurt to get stabbed like that. I've had paper cuts that hurt like a somabitch. I can't imagine what deep stab wounds feel like.

That must have hurt a lot. A whole lot.

katie8753 said...

If anyone cares, i've been treating him and he seems to be okay. He's not bleeding out anymore, but I will take him to the ER tomorrow if the bleeding doesn't stop.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Wow Katie. I'm very sorry to hear that.

I'll keep him in my thoughts and prayers.

I hope he feels better soon.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

At a MINIMUM, can we ALL just concede, that the system is flawed??

Chew on THIS for proof:

Charles Manson was convicted of NINE counts of first degree murder.

Let's assume he was roughly 35 years old, when he was convicted.

If Manson served just TEN YEARS for EACH murder charge... he would be 125 years old.

Based on that math ALONE, can anyone tell me why (on God's green earth), it's necessary to hold parole hearings for this man????

I mean... even assuming Manson had PERFECT behavior in prison, did anyone REALLY intend to release him with LESS than ten years served per murder???

That point ALONE, proves the California system is ludicrous.

The result:
The California voters stuck us with a ridiculous situation, and NOW, no one wants to live-up to it.

Maybe the California citizens ASSUMED that NONE of the Manson clan would be capable of perfect behavior behind bars.
Well... guess what?

BUT... even THAT hypothesis doesn't explain why Manson was granted parole hearings... because even WITH perfect behavior, it's mathematically impossible for him to ever achieve parole.

The system is a fucking farse... and now, no one wants to consider these clowns for parole (in any earnest fashion).

And NO... I don't think simply holding "mock parole hearings" every so often, constitutes legitimate consideration.

On some levels, I actually applaud the parole board for doing their jobs (as prescribed by law), amidst fierce public opposition.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Lynyrd, I checked on my boy, and he's fine for now. No more bleeding out. I'll check again in the morning.

This parole system is fucked up. If someone commits an horrific crime, then keep them in prison. Don't give them possibility of parole.

It's that simple.

Odie says goodnight. He's licking my sons wounds. Dogs are intuitive. Dogs are special. Dogs are awesome.

Night y'all.

katie8753 said...

I'll end with this, and let Odie lick my face tonight, because he's such a sweetie heart.

Charles Manson never got stabbed.
Tex Watson never got stabbed.
Pat Krenwinkle never got stabbed.
Susan Atkins never got stabbed.
Leslie Van Houten never got stabbed.

They have no idea what it feels like to get stabbed.

Walk a mile in someone's moccasins.

It's time to own up.

Night y'all!

leary7 said...

See, that is the fucked part of justice, Katie.
For true justice to be applied it must be done is a dispassionate manner. The purveyors of justice cannot allow their emotions to dictate their actions.
But who amongst us can be truly dispassionate.
Of course if we think of Rosemary as our mother or Sharon as our sister or Leno as our favorite uncle we want all the fuckers drawn and quartered. But that was the Wild West. That was the Middle Ages. Supposedly we have "evolved" since then.

Our perspectives differ, my dear Katie, because I sense you truly hate the TLB killers. And I am not saying you are wrong to do so, it is your right and their actions in '69 are deserving of the utmost contempt.
I simply see things differently, Katie. I believe we live in a world of opposing energies and of randomness. There is a real force of evil that exists in palpable form - Thomas Merton called it "The Unspeakable".
There is no question that said evil coalesced at Spahn just as it did in Berlin in the 40's and at My Lai and Columbine and a hundred other examples. To posture Leslie or Pat as a victim is a disgusting endevour. But I do not hate them. I don't even hate Charlie. But if you believe, as I do, that Evil is a real force, the opposite of Good/Love, then you have to accept that Evil will devour some people, maybe even many people as it did in Germany (read Willing Executioners).
There is an old saying that Phil Ochs sang so beautifully...There but for the Grace of God go I.
I would never consider Leslie or Pat a victim. But I do consider them unfortunate. They made horrible choices and eventually, maybe even inevitably, they got caught in a tsunami of evil.
Do we, as a society, need to lock up forever or even execute anyone touched by Evil. Or do we construct a system based on compassion and a belief in forgiveness and redemption. That choice was made long ago. We just have to live by it.
Not a walk in the park, for sure.

leary7 said...

They say Evil comes in many forms, which is just another way of saying that the force of Evil can swallow anyone. Christ, I consider J. Edgar Hoover every bit as evil as Manson. Joseph Kennedy, the father, was a truly evil person in my book.
These are, of course, the great questions. Can a person be born evil, or at least with a strong prediliction for evil. People like Bundy and Himmler and others.
And can Evil be treated if not cured. Christ is famous for apparently saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Does that mean we are all tinged with evil, that it possibly even exists within us all and only needs the right circumstances to come out.
One thing I do believe - that hatred only makes us personally more susceptible to evil.
I hate, Katie. I honestly do. I hate every priest I see. And I believe that said hatred could easily make me kill. I dream of it every night - which made watching Ray Donovan for the first time this weekend really fucking eerie.
But we choose - fight the hate or give in to it.
I prefer a good book and an empty beach. That is my choice.
Pat and Leslie fought the hate and the evil for decades. And I truly believe they have won. And that they deserve a day at the beach.
No, it is insane to think that Rosemary or Abigail or Jay or the others would agree with me. It would be unnatural for them to do so. But a victim's anger cannot be the basis of law - even though it is so easy to think it should be. But imagine that world.
It's a simple choice really...one believes in retribution or redemption.
I play for the latter.

Mrstormsurge said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mrstormsurge said...

Dillgaf wrote:

"The only reason that Leslie has been recommended for parole is because in 2008" the California Supreme Court changed the requirements for which an inmate can be held. It does not mean that she has been rehabilitated, or is no longer considered a risk, but rather that the heinous nature of her crime should not be considered with a risk factor. Her possible release is of a political and philosophical change, not by a personal change or growth."


I don't know how much, if at all, overcrowding in Cali prisons plays a factor in parole or in LVH's parole but I recall that Cali prisons have been ordered by higher courts and maybe even public initiatives to get the #s down. Perhaps this is one of the political changes that may make recommending parole more likely?

katie8753 said...

Well I wrote out a long comment and it got fucked up.

Well the long and short of it is, Leary said "they made bad decisions". That's the funniest thing I've ever heard.

Well let those cunts out, I don't care anymore. Let them live off the State of CA like they've been doing most of their worthless fucking lives. They've never had real jobs or contributed to society. The only thing they can do is live off people. They can't work and they don't have any skills. They've not paid into Social Security because those lazy ass motherfuckers never really had jobs. And I'm talking about BEFORE they decided to mince people to death.

Maybe somebody will run them over with a car while they're crossing the street with their bottles they're trying to return for a bottle deposit.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

grimtraveller said...

Dilligaf said...

There is a big difference between a pardon and parole. There is nothing similar between the two

Legally, yes. I think that Lynyrd and Bugliosi were thinking more in terms of the spirit behind both.
Do prisoners ever receive parole if their spell in jail has been littered with infractions and behaviour considered '"bad" ?


katie8753 said...

Let them live off the State of CA like they've been doing most of their worthless fucking lives

Their lives can't be that worthless. You're part of a blog that continually talks about them !


The only thing they can do is live off people

Which, given that you advocate that they should remain in jail until they die, you can't be against.

They can't work and they don't have any skills. They've not paid into Social Security because those lazy ass motherfuckers never really had job

That's actually not true. Pat, Tex, Bruce, Susan, Clem, Bobby, Mary, ~ they had all worked. Even Charlie had had jobs ! And they all worked around Spahn Ranch to pay for their upkeep.
It's also not strictly true that they just lived off the state prior to their jailing. The very fact that they subsisted on daily garbage runs partially indicates this. The idea was to drop right out of society which they partially did.
But in jail some of them have picked up various skills. But it's a moot point. What will be against any of them on the jobs front is their age. Besides which, how many honest and regular citizens in their mid to late 60s or early 70s thinks about getting a job ?

if Rosemary had been my mother. If MY mother had laid her head to rest, and her home was invaded by these monstrous hooligans, looking for an LSD fix to another life, looking to find the bottomless pit by killing piggies, looking for father time's answer to eternal life by killing MY MOTHER, I could never, would never, CANNOT EVER forgive. Will not relent

But it wasn't your mother.
And one of the persons whose mother it was has forgiven.
And your reaction to her forgiving the main Tate/LaBianca butcher ?
"There was something shady going on."

it could have been ANYONE'S mother

I don't think that that is the case. If that was the case, then Manson wouldn't have passed on the house he says he saw the pictures of children in.

Society doesn't owe Leslie anything

To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall her making such an assertion since she woke up back in the mid 70s.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

At a MINIMUM, can we ALL just concede, that the system is flawed??

Yes. The system in probably every country/society on this planet will contain flaws because we who draft, create and support them are flawed.....

Dilligaf said...

LS,

It is possible that the interviewer took that position, but it is also possible that she took that position just to play devil's advocate. On any radio show, it is always about ratings, and what better way to get ratings than to take an absolute position?

MS, as Oliver Wanger used to say in our Civil & Criminal Procedures classes, "you've struck the nail on the head with a glancing blow". California was ordered to reduce its prison population by a Federal court due to complaints of sub-standard health care. While this could have been addressed, and resolved in many different manners, the governor agrees to reduce the population as it met the requirements imposed by the court, but also fell in line with the political philosophies of the state legislature, which has been friendly to the concept of softening the impact, and use, of prison. Prop. 47 has had a great impact on society as it changes the dynamics of what crimes are punished, and which crimes are re-defined. Add to that, the increasing medical costs as our prison population ages, and you hear more people advocating for release those that should remain incarcerated. Once again, politics and the law become intertwined, and not necessarily for the better.

katie8753 said...

Well, let's see, I started working when I was 17 years old, and now I'm 62. That means I've worked full time jobs for 45 years. I've been paying taxes and Social Security all those years.

I think I've got ALL those fuckers beat on that one. Does anyone disagree???

katie8753 said...

Grim, do you disagree?

beauders said...

Over ay Michael's Backporch, he just added a clip stating that Jane Doe #59 has been indentified. I couldn't hear the first name properly but it sounded like Rae or Rhea. Her last name is Jurvetson. She was identified by family after they saw a picture of her. Manson has already been questioned. Even if nothing comes of it at least her family knows she is gone and they can say goodbye.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders!

beauders said...

Okay her first name is Reet.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Beauders,

I stumbled across the story on my Facebook "Trending list" just now, and had come over here to upload the story, when I found your post.

Thanks...

leary7 said...

Obviously Katie, by 'bad decisions' I did not mean what happened on 8/9 and the next night. I meant events prior to TLB. Sorry for not being clearer.
Katie, I just listened to your interview on Brian's show. You're such a lovely woman. But hate does not look good on you or anyone for that matter. I understand your passion, but hate distorts so easily.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Leary. You're sweet!

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Grim, do you disagree?

That you've worked longer than people that have been in jail for 45 years and rising ? There are kids all over the planet doing things like paper rounds and selling fruit and nuts at roadsides that have worked longer than many 66/67 year olds that have been in jail for 45 years.
Even God couldn't disagree that you've worked longer and paid more in taxes and stamps. Quite what is being pointed to beyond the mathematical obvious however, is another matter.

Society doesn't owe Leslie anything

Perhaps "owe" is a word that has connotations that will just inflame emotions because it implies a debt that should be paid. But your comment does raise a kind of interesting question about the nature of all of our responsibility towards one another and what that means where an offender violates that. It's not a question to do with law in the first instance, more a philosophical/metaphysical one.
To put it in a basic way, do members of a society "owe" one another anything at all ? Do I "owe" it to my neighbours to park my vehicle in such a way that I'm not taking up two spaces thereby preventing someone from parking their vehicle ? Do I "owe" it to my neighbours not to be playing Led Zeppelin or Funkadelic albums at almost full volume at 3 in the morning ? When doing a delivery to a hotel at 5.30 in the morning, do I "owe" it to the hotel guests who are asleep not to be blaring my van radio loud, even though I don't know any of them ? Do I "owe" it to society in general to adopt a caring and considerate attitude, whether it's to bus drivers, shop workers, teachers, children in care, builders, people I don't agree with.....prisoners ?
Perhaps the argument could be constructed that society does "owe" Leslie the basic minimum {let me stress I don't like the word "owe"}.
That would not include parole, however.
It's worth thinking about, at the very least.