Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Leslie Van Houten's Next Parole Hearing Is April 14, 2016

This just in from Venus.  Thanks Venus!!
 


Below is information where letters can be sent regarding Leslie Van Houten's upcoming parole hearing on April 14, 2016. Fax and Mail information are listed below.

All letters must be:
1. Signed
2. Include inmate name and CDC#-
Leslie Van Houten CDC#-W13378
3. CONTAIN NO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION (including letterhead)

FAX:
916.324.9459
Attention: Marcella

MAIL:
California Institute for Women
ATTN: LIFER UNIT
16756 Chino-Corcoran Road

Corona, Ca. 92880  

63 comments:

katie8753 said...

Every one of these killers has expressed a "wake up moment" after they were convicted and their death sentence was commuted, that they realized they had done something "really bad". And most of them claim to have been "born again" (a lot of prisoners get born again, not that I don't believe it, but I would sooner buy the Golden Gate Bridge than think that's true), have found God, yada, yada, yada.

And if they are actually "born again" good for them. BUT....my thinking is, if any of these killers actually feel remorse (something they absolutely DID NOT FEEL after the killings) and feel that actively killing people THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW might somehow be wrong, then why keep going to the parole hearings?

If these people are that ashamed that they listened to a mad man and did his bidding, including brutally ripping people apart, why not do the family members a big favor and stop trying to get out on parole? These family members have to travel a long way, sit for hours waiting, then breathe the same air as the killers who wantonly and willingly took their beloved family members lives for no reason at all, and listen to them whine about their lives and try to blame their vicious acts on a madman, all the while knowing that they could have just said no.

Leslie Van Houten has proven over and over again that she's a liar. She married a guy that tried to break her out of prison, then lied about that. She snickers at her parole hearings as though she's remembering something funny.

She tried to break down the moral fabric of society with her deathly actions.

Let her rot in prison.

katie8753 said...

Lest we not forget:

After stabbing Rosemary 16 times in the lower back and buttocks, Leslie said "the more I stabbed the more fun it was".

"Am I sorry? Sorry is only a five letter word."


And in 2013 she said this at a parole hearing:

"I know I did something that is unforgivable, but I can create a world where I make amends," Van Houten said. "I'm trying to be someone who lives a life for healing rather than destruction."

Leslie if you want to create a world where you make amends, start with the world wherein you stop trying to get out! If you want to make amends, start with the family members who are grieving, who have to go to your parole hearings and stop you from getting out.

Start by making a statement that you know you did the unforgivable, ask for forgiveness from God and man, and just stop trying to get out.

Venus said...

I couldn't have said it better myself! I guess I can see why they keep trying to get parole, but after Susan didn't get out and after Bruce has been granted parole, but still not been released, you'd think they'd get the idea....

katie8753 said...

Thanks Venus!

A lot of people (I think mostly men) like to look at Leslie as being "less guilty" than her cohorts in crime. I'm not sure why that is. She didn't participate in the more macabre stylings, i.e., carving WAR in Leno's stomach or leaving a fork there.

But she also didn't leave the family afterward. So it must have been okay to her. She smelled the blood, she saw the carnage, but it didn't bother her enough to leave.

If she had left the family the next day and never returned because she was appalled by what had taken place, I would say yeah, let her out. In fact, if I had been on her jury, I would have voted for prison time WITH parole. And after serving 7 or so years, she would have been out for years now.

But the reality is this. ALL of these killers thought it was funny. Funny to kill, funny during the trial to act up, funny to threaten the jury.

And when the trial was over, the door slammed shut, the cameras turned off and the reporters went to find another freakshow, suddenly, it wasn't funny anymore.

That's not a reason to get out.

I don't think she was influenced by Manson at all. In fact, she's admitted that she didn't like him. I think she was trying to "fit in" with the older folks. She had been trying to "fit in" since high school, and "fitting in" with Tex & Pat was attractive to her.

That's nothing new. Younger kids have been trying to "fit in" with older kids for 1000's of years.

Leslie was trying to impress Tex & Pat by being brave enough to "do it". She needs to stop blaming Tex for what she did. It was her own decision. Nobody twisted her arm.

Leslie needs to "own" her guilt. Take charge of it. Accept it.

chatsworth charlie said...

Katie uses the word "Snickers" in a thread about Leslie......
GENIUS!!!!

DigaDave said...

Gee Katie, you look remarkably like Sexy Sadie! You don't strike me as someone having life experiences and the inner knowledge those experiences build to judge someone. First of all you weren't living in those times to know how crazy everything was. The assassinations of Pres. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Not to mention the buzz from the Vietnam war. The nation was in shock, it didn't seem like anything was off the table. When I got in Vietnam, the murders were just hitting the news. I thought, wow, we have Charlie here and you have Charlie at home! Have you ever done LSD? It can change your perception on life and death. It has the ability to make you believe in a spirit world and see that we are all spirits in human form. I'm sure that Charlie knew this and pumped his twisted ideas into their minds, telling them all that these people won't really die, simply evolve and get better when they are reincarnated! One thing I like about Leslie is that she isn't selling Jesus. She finally realized and admitted she made mistakes. LSD is not like a drunk that you sleep off and the head ache is gone. No, it can leave you confused for months and for some, even longer. Leslie could not stay in the room when Rosemary was being killed. She went into the hall. Tex told her that Charlie said for everyone to get their hands dirty. She did this more out of wanting to be accepted in the group. Are you aware of those dynamics Katie? Very strong that one is, makes a lot of people do initiations still, that involve killing or shooting someone. So months later when the trials were getting under way, the girls were still playing the game of being "Charlie's Girls". But, eventually reality did set in and the whole picture changed. The effects of LSD wore off and maturity itself started to set in and they realized how naïve and stupid and used they had all been. That there was no group, only Charlie and he was all that mattered. If Leslie had legal representation early on that was effective and had not been convicted by the media as was Lee Harvey Oswald, she probably would have got off with manslaughter. Instead, the Hollywood darlings having their way, had to have life. Leslie is more a victim of the establishment. If you don't believe that, look at the "Baby Dolls" murder. That guy cut people up and their body parts washed up on the shores and he is OUT. Or, look at Patty Hearst, if she were a Manson girl, I promise she would have been released long ago. So, life is not fair when you are young and get involved with the wrong group. But, that was the summer of Love, and no one thought they could do any wrong. Unfortunately for the people who met Manson, that was not true. Even some of the older bikers knew he was crazy and not someone to get involved with. The younger ones did not have those life skills at the time. They found out the hard way. So, do you have the ability, knowledge, and wisdom to be judge and jury, I don't think so. That is a failure of youth.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Every one of these killers has expressed a "wake up moment" after they were convicted and their death sentence was commuted, that they realized they had done something "really bad"

If you take the life of any person that has reached even the age of 30 and get them to examine their life up until then, there's a good chance that they will be able to pinpoint a number of wake up moments. Life is not static, it's dynamic. Views and perceptions change, sometimes within a very short space of time.
In the jail system, there were a number of crusaders in the guise of wardens, teachers, psychiatrists, chaplains, guards, doctors etc who believed in the rehabilitation of an errant human being. Yes, they were well aware that there were some people that chose not to change, maybe even the majority and yes, they were well aware of the deviousness of the average con. Rehabilitating Charlie was less of a concern because he was institutionalized and made it pretty clear that change according to society's agenda was not on his radar but the members of the murder squads were young and their experience of jail was not sufficient to have impacted them the way it had him. So there was hope for them and various authorities sought to 'clean their psyches.'
And they succeeded to a large extent in the difficult task of bringing them to that point where they, for all their criminality, were able to assess what they had done and most importantly, to do something that they had consciously rejected in the Family ~ see their wrongdoing through the lens of the wider society without self imposed justification.
By the start of the 80s {that's 36 years ago} none of them were attempting to justify or write off murder. They may all have provided mitigating circumstances {and let's face it, there were such} but none of them was saying "this was right," which is a huge leap from their 1970~71 stance.
I do not minimize wake up moments, however one arrives at them.

katie8753 said...

Hi DigaDave. I've explained my avatar of Sadie before but will do so again. I admire her for taking down the Manson family single handedly. Without her big mouth, they might have never been caught. Kudos to big mouth.

Yes I remember the 60's very well. I was indeed old enough to do so. No I've never done LSD. I was never that stupid.

No Leslie isn't selling Jesus. I've gotta say that is in her favor. But neither is Pat, and I don't think she should get out either. It's funny how LSD wore off after they were given the death penalty and the cameras stopped clicking.

Leslie could not stay in the room when Rosemary was being killed. She went into the hall.

It's interesting that you bring that up. My question is this: if Leslie was so upset and traumatized by what happened to Rosemary, why did she calm down and take the time to wipe down for fingerprints and ransack Rosemary's closet for some cool dresses? She would have probably had to stand over Rosemary's body to open that closet door and scoot hangers over, looking for the perfect outfit.

And why, if she was that upset, did she stay at Spahn's Ranch? If she was that upset by what happened and that fearful of her companions, why stay there another minute? She was most probably involved in getting rid of Shorty Shea's body and personal belongings.

She claims that when she got to the LaBianca's house that she didn't expect that kind of murder. But why? She watched the reports on TV about the Cielo Drive killings. She expects us to think that she didn't understand carnage?

I love it when people cite other cases about somebody killing a million people and now they're out. You can't just say Leslie should get out because other people did. It just doesn't work that way.

If Leslie had legal representation early on that was effective and had not been convicted by the media as was Lee Harvey Oswald, she probably would have got off with manslaughter.

If you want to talk about Leslie being convicted by the media, since you were of age, did you see the nightly reports on the news of Leslie singing and laughing while walking to court? I did. If the media convicted her, that was her fault. Rule #1: if you're on trial for murder, don't sing and laugh on the way to the courtroom.

katie8753 said...

Hi Chats! Hi Grim!

"Wake up moments". Ahh, we all have them. But most of us have them thinking "I shouldn't have refinanced my house for 30 more years" or "Maybe I shouldn't have installed that 10' deep swimming pool now that there is a water shortage".

Most of us don't have wake up moments and say "maybe I shouldn't have stabbed that lady I didn't even know 16 times. Maybe that wasn't such a good idea."

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

And most of them claim to have been "born again" have found God, yada, yada, yada

Yes, Susan, Tex, Bruce {along with Gypsy and Dennis Rice} all claim to have found Christ. As did Bob Dylan, Jim McGuinn & Chris Hillman of the Byrds, Eric Clapton, T Bone Burnett, Johnny Rivers, Joe English from Wings, Kerry Livgren and Dave Hope from Kansas, Bryn Haworth from Fleur de lys, Phil Keaggy from Glass Harp, Dave Mustaine, Alice Cooper, Maria Muldaur, Ronald Reagan, Mark Farner from Grand Funk, Joni Mitchell, Frank Marino from Mahogany Rush, Rick Cua of the Outlaws, Donna Summer, Bono, the Edge and Larry Mullen of U2, Mike Peters from the Alarm, Rick Wakeman from Yes, Richie Furay, Little Richard, Maire Brennan from Clannad, Ken Hensley of Uriah Heep and tons more besides......
Some stayed with Christ, some didn't remain the distance, all struggled, all found that life with Jesus did not immunize them from life's realities, temptations and choices.
When you add "yada yada yada" what you are in effect saying is that you are utterly disregarding anything someone may have to say about their existence, even though to that person it represents an immense turning point and change. Being a follower of Christ myself and having been so for 31 years, coming out of being atheist, I can tell you that it is no small thing to have a life changing encounter with God, much less to live every day in him. And though one may get loads of things wrong or sometimes even do the wrong thing willfully, there is no advantage to be gained by saying "I've been born again." On the contrary, for every one person that may think it's a good thing, there'll be thousands that think you're a sap. You risk losing friends, falling out with family, running counter to most if not all strands of society and if you are in jail, it certainly does not get you brownie points and an easy parole slot.
Starting over when you already have acquired time in life is no easy thing and if one can see the reality of God in such a place as prison and continue on in the life, that is a positive thing, particularly given that you are surrounded the whole time by criminal negativity.

yadah, yadah, yadah

Here's an irony ~ Yadah {from which the biblical translators get the name and word 'Judah'} sounds like a word that means 'praise' and as such became part of the language of ancient Israel. It's the word from which 'Jew' is derived.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"Wake up moments". Ahh, we all have them. But most of us have them thinking "I shouldn't have refinanced my house for 30 more years" or "Maybe I shouldn't have installed that 10' deep swimming pool now that there is a water shortage".

Most of us don't have wake up moments and say "maybe I shouldn't have stabbed that lady I didn't even know 16 times


And thankfully so. But that rather misses the point. You tend to have an "I'll damn them if they do and I'll damn them if they don't" viewpoint. So you'll criticize Charlie for not realizing his wrong and you'll criticize the others for realizing theirs.
Which would you rather have ?
I saw a disturbing documentary on the Enola Gay and the bombing of Hiroshima a few years back and one of the guys on the plane that dropped the bomb said that {I think they had found his diary} as the plane banked away and he saw the mushroom and explosion, he was suddenly struck by the thought "what have we done ....?" He was au fait with it when it was a mission to be done but once he witnessed the destructive power of that thing he had a wake up moment. I wouldn't mind betting that if he could change what happened, he would have.
Our wake up moments cover both the trite {refinancing the house, building a pool} and a whole lot of far more serious things, depending on the person in question.
Maturity depends on wake up moments, whatever they may be. The Family killers refused to grow up while free. There came that point where they needed to grow up and jail was the place where the growing up took place.

katie8753 said...

Grim, I'm so glad you became a believer instead of an atheist.

First of all, I don't believe in atheists. The Bible says "everyone has been given a measure of faith".

I have many God moments. And they don't involve killing folks. I truly believe in God and his covenants.

As far as the Yada Yada thing goes, that might be Jewish. Although I know Larry David didn't make it up.

As far as Enola Gay goes, I'm sure there were mixed feelings. But war is war, the Japs bombed civilians at Pearl Harbor. I don't know why people are so harsh at the Americans doing the same in retaliation.

As far as prisoners finding religion, it's always questionable in my mind. It's the quickest way out in a parole hearing. They do it all the time. Whether or not other folks found religion outside of prison matters not to me.

It's funny that neither the Mendendez Brothers or Scott Peterson found religion. It doesn't do them any good. They're not getting out regardless. Same for Jodi Arias.

I regard prison as a place to keep dangerous folks. A place to make sure the general population isn't threatened by dangerous folks. And I regard the Manson Family as dangerous. I think they were dangerous back then, and whether they're able to be dangerous now, makes no matter to me.

People who do very dangerous things, whether they are on drugs or controlled by a dangerous person, who do horrific things, scare society into a lockdown, and laugh about it, should never be out.

That's just my thinking.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

a lot of prisoners get born again, not that I don't believe it, but I would sooner buy the Golden Gate Bridge than think that's true

You don't disbelieve it but would sooner buy that bridge.......than believe it.
In other words you don't believe it.
There's absolutely nothing a prisoner can ever do to demonstrate to you that God is changing their life around. But only because you won't let them.
Prisoners getting born again in some ways are no different from anyone else getting born again.
I suspect the truth is that you don't want to believe it because it seems to me that you have a hard time believing that a] people can change if they've killed and b] God can genuinely interact and communicate with human beings to the degree that they can be changed by the almighty.

And if they are actually "born again" good for them

But what does that even mean ? Good for them ? You don't really believe that nor take on board the full implications of what being born again means.
Speaking from experience and observation, when a person is born again, their life as far as God is concerned is starting over but it does not absolve them of whatever societal wrong they have done or mean they are excused from any prices they may have to pay. Susan was in jail 35 years as Christian. Tex and Bruce have been in for 42 and 41 years as Christians. People don't become perfect and wonderful overnight. It's a lifetime journey and God brings about those changes little by little. And no one knows when the journey will end or in what circumstances.
The key element in the human response of coming to God is the acceptance that you are in need of God's forgiveness and why. Tex for example, did all that on the mental level but as God dealt with him over the years, it then got to a deep level where he had to come to terms with what he'd done in a way that trumped his early realizations.

I admire her for taking down the Manson family single handedly. Without her big mouth, they might have never been caught. Kudos to big mouth

I don't buy this. If it was going to apply to anyone, it would be Linda but it doesn't even apply to her.
When Vince Bugliosi heard the tape Richard Caballero had made with Susan in Dec '69, he observed in HS "although the monumental job of proving their guilt remained...we at least knew for the first time exactly who had been involved in the Tate & LaBianca murders."
If you follow events from when Linda Kasabian fled from the Family, through the LaBianca detectives police report of Oct 15 up to Atkins at the Grand Jury and out to her recanting in March 1970, there are actually so many pieces of the jigsaw. Kitty Lutesinger was arguably as influential. Al Springer's interview and Danny DeCarlo's interview were arguably just as influential. Brooks Poston's interview nine days before the Barker arrests set the scene arguably for the decisive strike. The burning of the Michigan loader, Samuel Barrett's issuing a warrant for Charlie to be recalled for parole violation on Oct 1st, Tex's print being found at Cielo.....there are so many pieces to the jigsaw and not only that, one has to consider what it took to get indictments, the ensuing investigation pre trial and then the trial itself. It took a number of trickles which became a flood that ultimately brought down the Family....including the Family itself.

katie8753 said...

But Grim, you have to know that incidental confessions didn't amount to anything. Only a murderer's admission to having been there attracted the DA's eyes.

Linda Kasabian didn't say anything until AFTER Susan Atkins blabbed.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

As far as Enola Gay goes, I'm sure there were mixed feelings. But war is war, the Japs bombed civilians at Pearl Harbor. I don't know why people are so harsh at the Americans doing the same in retaliation

Firstly, there is a universe of difference between Pearl Harbour and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan's strike occurred in December 1941. The nuclear bombs were dropped in August of 1945 ~ hardly retaliation. America lost under 3000 people. Japan lost at least 129,000 and more as the effects took hold.
Both countries were culpable for their killing actions and neither was better or worse than the other but that's another story for another day. I was simply pointing out that in just about every sphere of life, people do things that seem right or good to them at the time but may/will later experience a wake up call that is the start of their process of change {for better or worse}.

I don't believe in atheists

Well, there are plenty of people that are atheist. And sometimes, with good reason.

The Bible says "everyone has been given a measure of faith"

Actually, it was Paul that wrote that in a letter to the Christians in Rome. He was challenging them in the way they thought and pointed out to them that because God had given each person a measure of faith, they should be thinking according to the measure of faith they were given. It necessarily followed that some had greater faith than others but the point was to utilize what one had.
It wasn't a general statement about the human race.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

you have to know that incidental confessions didn't amount to anything. Only a murderer's admission to having been there attracted the DA's eyes

Well that's not what Bugliosi said. He pointed out that it was Al Springer's interview that actually proved an important turning point.
Reading "Helter Skelter" again I'm struck by the amount of information that is included that makes up the chronology of the jigsaw. I'm not saying Susan's part wasn't important. It was crucial. But it was only one part of a larger piece and I can't see that it was her that single handedly brought the Family down. Even before Susan blabbed to her cellmates, Linda had told 5 people about the killings and Leslie had told a cop that there were things that caused her to think that members of her group were involved in the Tate killings. Police had asked Charlie point blank if he knew about the murders before they knew about Susan's confessions so they must have had reason to be onto him.
There were major strands pointing towards the Family before Susan blabbed and before Bugliosi was even on the case.

katie8753 said...

Oh Grim you're splitting hairs.

First of all Jesus is the one who said everyone man has a measure of faith. the mustard seed.

Secondly the bombing of Japan occurred when Japan wouldn't surrender even when they were mortally wounded and were given the chance to surrender several times. And each time they refused.

Lastly, Susan was the one who made this case and you and I both know it. There was only one grand jury in December of 1969, and that's when Susan blabbed.

katie8753 said...

Japan refused to surrender even AFTER Nazi Germany DID surrender. They brought that on themselves.

katie8753 said...

Oh and BTW, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in "peace time", in other words, we were not at war with anyone at the time. Japan had pledged to the US that they would NOT do that, then turned around and did it anyway. We bombed Nagasaki in war time.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Oh Grim you're splitting hairs

No. Understanding each aspect of what a person says is key to understanding what they mean overall. Which is why often, I'll break down what fellow contributors say into little chunks and comment.

First of all Jesus is the one who said everyone man has a measure of faith. the mustard seed

Jesus spoke of the mustard seed in two contexts ~ one as comparison of what God's kingdom is like {that is, something that looks small and insignificant but grows into something large} and the other as a comparison of one's faith only needing to be small for God to respond. Each are different, carry different meanings and applications and need "the hairs to be split !" He does not say "everyone has faith." Bear in mind that when the biblical writers speak of faith, they are speaking about faith in God.

Lastly, Susan was the one who made this case and you and I both know it. There was only one grand jury in December of 1969, and that's when Susan blabbed

The grand jury was not the case nor the trial. The grand jury was convened to see if indictments could be carried out. Bugliosi felt it was far too soon. Even after it, he said "we'd got the indictments. And that was about all we had." He makes the point that Manson seemed cocky and convinced that he was going to beat the rap and that by the end of 1969 there was a good chance he'd be right. And again I point out that he recognized that even with Atkins, there was a "monumental job" of proving guilt.
Saying it again, my disagreement with you is not about Susan's importance to the case, it's with the view that she single handedly brought down the Manson Family. She didn't. It's like saying "Our President/Prime minister took us to war" as though it was them and them alone and not with the agreement, input and support of many, many others.

Oh and BTW, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in "peace time", in other words, we were not at war with anyone at the time. Japan had pledged to the US that they would NOT do that, then turned around and did it anyway. We bombed Nagasaki in war time

I already said that both nations are culpable for the killings they were involved in. Saying it was wrong to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan is not the same as arguing that Japan were innocent victims.

Japan refused to surrender even AFTER Nazi Germany DID surrender. They brought that on themselves

To say that if someone threatens to obliterate you if you don't surrender and you don't so they obliterate you is bringing it on yourself is a stretch of gargantuan proportions.
So it was Japan's own fault that a nuclear bomb was dropped on them ?
Sounds like Sandra Good logic to me.

Linda Kasabian didn't say anything until AFTER Susan Atkins blabbed

To the authorities.
Before the end of August '69 she'd told a number of other people ~ and Charlie knew it because one of them phoned him up and asked him if it was true.
It is true that without Susan back in '69 the DA felt they had no case.
In the trial the prosecution could not use any of what Susan Atkins said to the grand jury about herself or the others if she played ball and having recanted there was no stuff she said that could be used to prosecute her co~ defendants. It was in effect done without her input. She plays an important part in the initial process but anyone can argue that those guilty verdicts did not rely on anything from Susan Atkins.

Mrstormsurge said...

Grim,

Would it have made you feel better if the American GIs had burned the Japanese alive with flame throwers as we did in the islands leading up to the Japanese mainland or vaporized them with two atomic bombs?

sunset77 said...

I seen a comment about the "Enola Gay", that was the name of the pilots mother. That plane is hanging in the Udvar Hazy Museum near Dulles airport, I stood right beside it.

Off topic comment, Steve Miller was apparently inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame. There were apparently some problems. Miller apparently said "When they told me I was inducted they said, 'You have two tickets — one for your wife and one for yourself. Want another one? It's $10,000 — sorry, that's the way it goes,'" he says. "What about my band? What about their wives? They make this so unpleasant."

Kind of reminds me of the time the Sex Pistols were supposed to be inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame, The group did not attend, and Pistols frontman Johnny Rotten posted a note on the group’s website saying “Next to the Sex Pistols, rock and roll and that hall of fame is a piss stain,”

I think the Queen tried to ban Anarchy in the UK.

DigaDave said...

Grim & Katie, the bounds have been stretched here, we are now discussing WW11. I'm hearing assumptions of the Japanese did this and the Nazis did that and they both got what they deserved. I was in Vietnam and realized that something was wrong though it took years to find out. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated just to start the war. Pres. Kennedy was killed for that reason and many more. The wars against Germany were also not for the reasons you grew up believing. It is hard to believe that you can be brain washed into believing something from birth, but it is happening. Read the article written by Benjamin Freedman, google his name. It is long, some 30 pages but it will change your point of view. This is from 1961. This will give you some reference point of the false flag incidents in this country and around the world today. It is unfortunate that some people are so loyal to a government (ours) that does not serve their interest. The rest of the world knows this. Google Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Not to get so far off of Leslie, I have written my letter to the parole board, that is all I can do. Also, if you are interested there are great conferences on JFK in Dallas and Lee Oswald in New Orleans this year that you can google for info. Please sign my petition for a statue of Pres. Kennedy https://www.change.org/p/mayor-michael-s-rawlings-of-dallas-needed-a-statue-of-pres-kennedy-in-dealey-plaza-dallas-tx Now back to Leslie. Did you know that Lookout Mountain in Laurel Canyon was a CIA bldg.? That the CIA bought up most of the land surrounding the building; except George Spahn's ranch. Does that tell you something? Manson could be one of their MK Ultra projects. Keep in mind the Manson family gets recognition for killing the 60"s. That was all about killing the peace movement and keeping the war going. John Lennon was almost deported, but ended up being killed. All about the WAR! Same with MLK and Robert. Read "JFK and the Unspeakable", this will tell you a lot.

Dilligaf said...

DigaDave,

First let me say, Welcome Home!

JFK was killed in '63, long before the Gulf of Tonkin. You know, all he wanted to do was to go for a ride to clear his head...

katie8753 said...

(Sad muted trumpet plays) Wah...Wah...Wah....

katie8753 said...

Speaking of books, I once read a book that said that OJ Simpson was born white, but the government turned him black so they could blame him for murder.

I also read a book that said that Manson was a robot, like 3CPO, only with a scat vocabulary, a hippy disguise, limited singing & song writing ability & a penchant for murder. The government built him so Nixon could pronounce him guilty and the world would be rid of beatnik/hippy wanna-a-bes.

katie8753 said...

You know Leslie should have used the "fog" defense.

"You know, I remember walking into the room, but after that, it's "just a fog".

Wait that doesn't work anymore. The Menendez Bros tried it, the Blue Eyed Butcher tried it, Jodi Arias tried it. It just doesn't work. The jury sees past it.

Well maybe Leslie could use the "I didn't understand" approach. Oh yeah, she already used that.

Hmmmmmm. What new approach could she use for this parole hearing?

Oh I know! She could use the "family members are scaring me" approach. She could claim she's going into nervous spasms seeing the family members.

Maybe that will work this time. Good luck Leslie. Why don't you wear that High School Princess uniform this time. Maybe that will sway the parole board.

And remember this: It's not a lie...if YOU believe it....

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

if any of these killers actually feel remorse (something they absolutely DID NOT FEEL after the killings) and feel that actively killing people THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW might somehow be wrong, then why keep going to the parole hearings?

Because they want parole.


If these people are that ashamed that they listened to a mad man and did his bidding, including brutally ripping people apart, why not do the family members a big favor and stop trying to get out on parole?

For me this is such flawed logic and I'm actually interested that people still come out with it. It makes no sense to me on any level.
Firstly, the crimes happened 47 years ago. Most of the perps were in their early 20s {Leslie was herself some days off being 20} and so like anyone looking back on their life from the age of 70, there'll be regrets when looking at their teens, 20s, 30s....
Many people will be understandably up in arms at Karlene Faith's sentiment that, having been sentenced to death and accepted it {as far as I'm aware, none of the women fought it or appealed against it}, being sentenced to life when the death sentences were commuted was in some ways worse for them.
But I understand it. For one thing, the jail authorities were almost militant in their quest of bringing the killers back to their senses. They provided teachers that seriously challenged Charles Manson's mode of thought and actual ideas. I thought it interesting for example, that bona fide Black people pointed out to the women that they did not require any help from the Manson Family, thank you very much, and that it was rather insulting to Black people in the USA to suppose that they needed their helping hand to get anywhere, especially as it was only a prelude to being made slaves again. So anyway, bit by bit, the women made it to where they would have been had they not started going down the wrong road and it must be pointed out that Susan and Leslie were already well down the deviant road before they met Charlie. Being acid trippers their sense of reality was already well shifting. Manson filled the void created by their exploits. But they got away from that place after some years then they bit by bit came to the full realization of where they'd been and what they'd done and grasped different coping mechanisms, be it Jesus, be it eating disorders, be it marriages that were disasters, be it studying.
Once the prison authorities took the step of trying to "win them back to some semblance of normality" as it were and this dovetailed with the possibility one day of parole, then going for parole was as inevitable as any of them wanting intimate and lasting relationships. It was as inevitable as them healing their fractured relationships with those family members that they could do so with. It was only a short step from there to doing courses in jail that would be of some use on the outside. And why not ? That is surely the better route to go than the route Charlie took. Because whether people like it or not, they represent the two poles that one is faced with in jail. Don't be remorseful and don't bother trying to better yourself because you're not interested in earning a living outside therefore don't aim at it.....or do it. There's little in between.
Not trying for parole is not doing the families of the deceased any favours. And whatever people choose to say about Tex & Suzan LaBerge, fact remains that murderer and family of murdered one can reach a point of some resolution.
The will is infinitely more powerful than all of our pontificating.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

These family members have to travel a long way, sit for hours waiting

That is their choice. And not all of them do come, hence Debbie Tate and Babs Hoyt turning up ?

then breathe the same air as the killers who wantonly and willingly took their beloved family members lives for no reason at all

They breathe the same air as the killers regardless. They all probably watch the same TV shows.......

and listen to them whine about their lives

Again, it's their choice. The law of the land provides parole hearings for prisoners. As part of them, the prisoners are asked questions so that suitability can be determined. They don't have to answer questions but as has been made clear in some hearings that Charlie, Tex and Bobby have had, especially where they didn't turn up or when they didn't answer questions, it is in their interests to answer the questions. And if they are asked about their pre~conviction lives and how they think they came to be on the road they found themselves on, then they will answer. You would. I would. It demonstrates actually, that they are taking responsibility by actually putting all the events of their lives into context. Pretty much the same way we all do.

and try to blame their vicious acts on a madman

You know, in all the things I have read over a 38 year period about this case, I have never once seen or read any of them actually blame Charlie for their crimes. I don't count Tex and Bobby's trials where they were clearly lying and have since admitted this. Recognizing and articulating Charlie's part in the crimes is not the same as saying he made them do it. Coming to the realization that you've wasted your life and freedom and that prior to meeting Charlie and taking on board some of his precepts, that you weren't looking to kill anybody is not the same as or does not equate with saying Charlie made them do it. Having plenty of angry words towards Charles Manson and being able to articulate how you were partly duped by him is not the same as saying he made you do it. Being pissed that he won't take responsibility for his part in the crimes is not the same as saying he made them do it.

all the while knowing that they could have just said no

Really, this is the reddest herring to throw into the argument. That they could have just said no is irrelevant. The reality is that they did not "just say no." So end of that one. Even them wishing that they had said no, as I'm certain they all do {or in the case of Susan, have done} is irrelevant. Actually, when murderers come out and say "I wish I'd never done this" or "if I could bring them back, I would" as a way of softening any blows they think might be hitting the families, I tend to think "don't !" Because you did do it. So let's deal with where you are at now.
Remorse and regret are important, lest anyone think I'm saying that these things don't matter. They do. But throwing the "you didn't have to do it" argument in completely misses the point. I thought Vince Bugliosi did a sterling job in convicting the killers but when he said that I thought he did himself no favours. None of the killers say they had to do it but rather, it was part of the overriding ethos of the Family.
Big difference.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said..

Leslie Van Houten has proven over and over again that she's a liar

Can you give us some actual examples of her lying consistently over the last 20 years ? I'm not saying she hasn't, but some examples would be interesting. Has the parole board ever picked her up on this ?

She married a guy that tried to break her out of prison, then lied about that

Did she know he was trying to break her out ? Did she go along with an escape attempt ? Was she caught ? What lies did she tell about it ? I don't think Leslie is a paragon of womanly virtue but before I cast her into outer darkness, I'd like to know why I'm doing it.

She snickers at her parole hearings as though she's remembering something funny

And the problem with that is ?
I've sat in hearings where my job, reputation and career were on the line and people that were against me were coming out with lies so bold and twisted that I had to laugh at times. I would tell people after that "half the lies they told about me weren't even true !"
Once, when someone threatened me with death, once I was out of the way, I laughed. The same person had threatened my sister more or less the same way and for years we laughed about it, especially the wording of the threat.
During the Tate/LaBianca trial, there were a number of serious moments where something was said and brought laughter.
It's a not unusual human reaction in a wide spectrum of occasions from political speeches to funerals.

She tried to break down the moral fabric of society with her deathly actions

Leaving aside the "deathly actions" for a moment, are you going to reject the music, films and books of most of the movers and shakers from the art world and many from the political world from, say, 1945 through tom the present day who have attempted to do the same ?
It's interesting that you equate breaking down the moral fabric of society with the deathly actions with which she tried to achieve this. That being the case, a hugely significant number of western society that were young in the 60s, 70s and 80s are similarly condemned in your view.

Let her rot in prison

It actually makes not one jot of difference to you if she remains in prison or is paroled.
It's quite a sobering thought though, to think that she has spent more than ⅔ of her life in prison.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Lest we not forget

In a way, it is a good thing not to forget. It can be a good barometer of how far an offender has travelled if they have tried to make good with their life. And that for me is key ¬> if a person has demonstrated a desire to make amends to the society at large through what they've done while in prison, one has to listen. By housing a "let them rot in hell" mindset, what one does, in the main, is reinforce to the current crop of criminals that society is composed of supposedly right thinking people who, in their hearts, are just as ruthless and uncaring as the criminal and therefore continue to be fair game. I'm not so naive as to think that every con responds to mercy or forgiveness, but neither am I so naive to suppose that none do.

After stabbing Rosemary 16 times in the lower back and buttocks, Leslie said "the more I stabbed the more fun it was"

In her last parole hearing, Leslie explains that statement and gives it context. It's a very interesting explanation and I'm glad that I've read it because having done so, I can't read it the same way that I have all these years.

"Am I sorry? Sorry is only a five letter word."

I used to have an Ethiopian friend that, if I ever apologized to her would say "where I come from, sorry is just a word with a big 0 in the middle."
I never had the stones to say it wasn't in the middle !
It was a callous thing that Leslie said in '71. She said a few pretty vicious and callous things back then. But this is now. Is she feeling that now ? One of the major weighty points in assessing a potential parolee is what are they now. What they were back then is no secret. It's what they are now that counts. No one is looking for perfection in a potential parolee but they do need to attain the kind of standard that I'm grateful we don't have to live under.

and just stop trying to get out

That's just not real life. Unless you are Squeaky or someone so institutionalized that you're scared of making it on the outside or someone that does not dig the responsibility then huge numbers of murderers are going to be coming out one day and many of them will want to and the law provides for that possibility so if the con has to change, to some extent so does the society that they are coming back in to.

Mrstormsurge said...

Grim,

Would it have made you feel better if the American GIs had burned the Japanese alive with flame throwers as we did in the islands leading up to the Japanese mainland or vaporized them with two atomic bombs?


Neither. It's not an either/or. Soldiers in combat know the rules of the game and engage at that level. An atomic bomb dropped on two cities makes no distinction between soldiers engaging in war with an objective and civilians who have no say in what their nation's government does.
By the way, when you say "burned the Japanese alive" are you referring to soldiers ?

Mrstormsurge said...

Grim,

The notion of civilian-soldier is imho a bit misleading as reality is not so neatly dualistic in all instances but the truth is more nuanced and complex: civilians supporting a still-combatting surrender-refusing warring country's ability to continue fighting are not entirely unrelated to their country's war machine even if they may not exactly be soldiers either.

When allies bombed Dresden and inflicted enormous casualties it was not simply bombing oblivious civilians but persons very much still engaged in manufacturing materials to keep the Nazi war machine going. When Germany refused to surrender then targets like Dresden were absolutely legitimate to cripple the Nazi's war making ability and end the war more quickly.

Similarly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki housed Japanese soldiers and served as important contributors to manufacturing for the Japanese war machine. This imo made them legitimate targets for a country unwilling to surrender.

As to the flamethrowers of Okinawa shot into caves they too made no more distinction than the bombs dropped and bullets fired at enemies. On Okinawa the flamethrowers killed soldiers, persons conscripted by the japanese or even some loved ones of the japanese soldiers.

I'm of the mindset that the cruelest thing that can be done in war is to not win decisively and quickly but to cling to ROE that supposedly embrace a morality that allows conflict to continue ad infinitum so that more people die than would have needed and for the conflict to never be truly resolved with future war more likely.

If there's blame to be assigned for the A Bombs then I believe it should be cast on the country that refused to surrender even when defeat was certain. They should have cared more for their own people. They obviously did not.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

As far as prisoners finding religion, it's always questionable in my mind. It's the quickest way out in a parole hearing. They do it all the time

Is that a fact ? That if you claim you've seen the light, you get a quick parole hearing ? Blimey. You'd think more prisoners would play the game !
But even if that were the case, fact is, you don't believe a prisoner can be genuine about religion anyway. It's always questionable in your mind.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the declaration. You look at the life of the prisoner who claims God has touched them, not simply listen to what they say. Thoughts are free and talk is cheap.
Mind you, Bruce, Tex and Susan would tend to throw a mighty spanner in your theory.


It's funny that neither the Mendendez Brothers or Scott Peterson found religion. It doesn't do them any good. They're not getting out regardless. Same for Jodi Arias

It's not unusual for prisoners not to acknowledge God in jail any more than it's not unusual for them to not acknowledge God out of jail. A human being s a human being, after all.
But if they do connect with the almighty and carry on on the path {as Bruce & Tex have for over 40 years}, you're wholly wrong when you say it does them no good. Maybe not from your vantage point, but God in jail is better ultimately than no God out of jail.
But then, I would say that.

sunset77 said...

I think the Queen tried to ban Anarchy in the UK

I don't know where you got that info but it's as accurate as 2 and 2 making 22 while walking backwards down the stairs. In 1976 the Queen couldn't ban anything and she can't now.
She probably had it on her cassette tapes !
Royalty ceased to have any real political influence 100s of years ago in the UK.

DigaDave said...

the bounds have been stretched here, we are now discussing WW2

Lots of good discussions veer one way then the other. Life is interconnected on a number of levels.

The wars against Germany were also not for the reasons you grew up believing

Well, WW2 has a pretty convoluted set of pathways. Like many things it's not exactly, ah, straightforward.

Keep in mind the Manson family gets recognition for killing the 60"s

That in itself is a little mythological considering a] the family weren't indicted for the Tate/LaBianca murders until into December '69 by which time the 60s were almost over anyway and b] many if not most of the moves that began in or gained great momentum in the 60s did not die, they carried on through the 70s and 80s and the generations that came of age in the 80s and 90s showed that much of that spirit was well and truly kicking and alive.
I think of the Family as among the dark side of the 60s, not the death of it.

grimtraveller said...

Mrstormsurge said...

The notion of civilian-soldier is imho a bit misleading as reality is not so neatly dualistic in all instances but the truth is more nuanced and complex

I agree that reality is a lot more nuanced and complex. I would say that in pretty much all of life. Arguing however, that the dropping of a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is legitimized when you also state that defeat was certain seems like a justification to me that isn't really warranted. If defeat was certain, why drop the bomb ? It would be a different matter if you were arguing that defeat could not happen without the dropping of the bomb.

civilians supporting a still-combatting surrender-refusing warring country's ability to continue fighting are not entirely unrelated to their country's war machine even if they may not exactly be soldiers either

Granted. They are not unrelated at all. I agree with that. But it's a huge leap from there to "therefore they deserve to be obliterated." By that logic 9/11 and virtually all the Al Queda/IS/Boko Haram {and others} atrocities have a certain legitimacy.
As I've stated twice already, Japan was not an innocent bystander unwittingly dragged into war. They were pro~active and deadly. Just ask the Chinese, who had suffered at their hands for longer than anyone cared to remember. But the nuclear bomb was excessive for an enemy for whom you state defeat was already certain. Dresden, for which there will probably always be dispute over the real whys and wherefores, can't really be compared with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrific as they were.
Interesting views though.

If there's blame to be assigned for the A Bombs then I believe it should be cast on the country that refused to surrender even when defeat was certain. They should have cared more for their own people. They obviously did not

That doesn't mean their people deserved to die and certainly not in that way. In the grand nuance of things, the Japanese leadership couldn't say that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the way things turned out but that doesn't legitimize the USA's actions. Life's funny that way. WW2 was a just war even though some of the participants on the side of right {and I include my own country the UK in that} acted at times with a villainy that we often condemn in others now.
But that's us, the human race. We're flawed.

DigaDave said...

Manson could be one of their MK Ultra projects

I don't think he needed to be !
In "The Garbage People" the lady that turned him onto acid relates how that all went down. The book is actually quite useful for tracing Manon's life in the Haight and pre~Spahn.

Mrstormsurge said...

Grim, I would say that buried within any war are horrific acts - perhaps the acts are buried deep or perhaps not even very deep. I have read histories of wars between American Indian tribes that resulted in torture, rape, slavery and mass killings.

It's been going on since the beginning.

katie8753 said...

Grim there's no way that liaison between Tex & Suzanne was about "forgiveness". That was some deal they cooked up. If she's so forgiving, why not forgive Pat & Leslie? Why just "forgive" Tex?

And when I said the families have to breathe the same air as the killers, I meant sit in the same small room with them for hours.

No the families don't have to keep going to the parole hearings. They could have just patted the last piece of dirt down on their loved ones grave, slap a headstone on and just forgot about the whole thing. But I would think that's easier said than done. I know I personally would do what I could to keep the killers of my family in prison.

And actually the family members don't have the luxury of just "forgetting about it". Even to this day, they're still making movies about this gruesome crime.

Venus said...

I can understand why they keep trying for parole since it's part of their sentence. They ARE eligible. I think that, even IF any of them are granted parole, they'll end up like Bruce. I think they know they're fighting a losing battle, but I can't fault them for trying.

However, my sympathies are for the victims' families.

katie8753 said...

Grim I think Leslie is lying every time she says when she went along with the group to the LaBianca's that she didn't understand what was going to happen. I think she knew exactly what was going to happen.

I think she's lying when she says she got clothes out of Rosemary's closet because she gave her jeans to Tex. That's just stupid.

I think she's lying when she says that she didn't know her husband was going to try and get her out.

I think she's lying when she says she had a hard time stabbing Rosemary.

katie8753 said...

Hi Venus!

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...
A lot of people (I think mostly men) like to look at Leslie as being "less guilty" than her cohorts in crime. I'm not sure why that is

I think that this is partially because she wasn't involved at Cielo and didn't go out both nights. Depending on whether or not you believe Charlie about Lotsapoppa, then Susan was involved in some way in every one of the killings. With Leslie, having two murders on your sheet as opposed to seven or nine just looks less. Also, I think that because a number of Rosemary's wounds were after death and Leslie told Diane Lake that she had stabbed someone that was already dead and that was the statement that provided independent corroboration of her involvement, some people conflate the two and it seems to = not as guilty ~ until you actually stop and think about it. Saying that you stabbed someone when they were dead doesn't mean you didn't stab them when they were alive and no one picked her up on this. A curious detail in her original trial though, when she took the stand to confess, though she was ready to be sentenced to death and all, she was never conclusive about Rosemary being alive, admitting at best that she could have been. But she obviously didn't think she was. Now, given all that had happened in the trial and penalty phase and given she lied her blaggers off by saying she was present during the Hinman affair, you'd think she'd have admitted that Rosemary was alive.
But it's immaterial whether Rosemary was alive or dead. Leslie isn't less guilty. She remains the only one of the TLB murderers that actively wanted to go out and kill. The Cielo slayers didn't know what was on the agenda that night {except Tex and he has never said he actually wanted to go} and none of them wanted to go the next night. That they did go shouldn't be confused with whether they wanted to. But Leslie did want to, she actively sought to. That she froze is immaterial. Whether Rosemary was already dead doesn't matter because under the law any which way you look at it, she knew beforehand what was going to happen, she wielded a knife, she participated in it, she cleaned up after it, she kept it hidden from LE, even while she was squarely landing Family members in it. If anything, her guilt is of a different and arguably worse calibre than the others.

(I think mostly men) like to look at Leslie

I've noticed that most of Leslie's fiercest detractors are women. Few have a pop at Mary or Pat the way they do Leslie.

grimtraveller said...

Mrstormsurge said...

I would say that buried within any war are horrific acts - perhaps the acts are buried deep or perhaps not even very deep. I have read histories of wars between American Indian tribes that resulted in torture, rape, slavery and mass killings.

It's been going on since the beginning


Totally agree. It's not particular to any group of people. We're all pretty awful, somewhere within our beings.

Venus said...

Hi Katie!

Grim, good post (the one about the fact that Leslie chose to go to the laBianca house)

katie8753 said...

Well, the bottom line is this: a jury spent almost a year of their lives determining the fate of these LOSERS, and they found that the penalty should be death. That does NOT include parole.

Then, through a fluke, those losers were given the chance for parole. That's not just a shame, it's a travesty.

You sit thru a trial and get/give a verdict that gives you peace, then a bunch of liberals come along and change everything.

Fucking commies....

Well, Doris saddled up and took charge when these LOSERS got an undeserved second chance, and God Love her!

At least someone was doing something right!

katie8753 said...

Can you imagine these people getting out? What the fuck are they gonna do now??? HA HA HA.

Live off people? Nobody on this planet is gonna hire them. They're convicted murder felons. Nobody hires felons.

What are they gonna do now, still live off the government in a nursing home? It won't be long until somebody puts a pillow on one of their faces.

Good riddance!

william marshall said...

The fact that Leslie choose to go out on the second night knowing full well it was a mission of murder but how much time is enough time at the time of Susan Atkins death she had served more time then any woman in U.S. history I guess I'm on the fence about her getting her freedom apparently when she was realesed in the 70's awaiting a new trial she believed she'd be granted her freedom my guess would be the only way any of them leave prison is in a coffin look at Bruce Davis Grogan was the only one who will ever see the outside world

william marshall said...

The fact that Leslie choose to go out on the second night knowing full well it was a mission of murder but how much time is enough time at the time of Susan Atkins death she had served more time then any woman in U.S. history I guess I'm on the fence about her getting her freedom apparently when she was realesed in the 70's awaiting a new trial she believed she'd be granted her freedom my guess would be the only way any of them leave prison is in a coffin look at Bruce Davis Grogan was the only one who will ever see the outside world

katie8753 said...

Hi William!

katie8753 said...

Nobody would hire them anyway. What do they know how to do? Steal things? Keep kids?

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

But she also didn't leave the family afterward. So it must have been okay to her. She smelled the blood, she saw the carnage, but it didn't bother her enough to leave

Isn't that rather stating the obvious ?

On a separate note, Tex fulfills your criteria. He smelled the blood and saw the carnage. He was the carnage. But it bothered him and he left. Does he get a pass from you ?
Of course not.

If she had left the family the next day and never returned because she was appalled by what had taken place, I would say yeah, let her out. In fact, if I had been on her jury, I would have voted for prison time WITH parole. And after serving 7 or so years, she would have been out for years now

You completely contradict your previous points here. Leslie Van Houten is not in jail because of the way she acted during the trial, despite what many people think. She's in jail because she was found guilty of two murders and conspiracy to commit murder. According to William Zamora, one of the jurors at the trial, the jury was impartial and sought to do their duty according to the evidence produced. So many people say that Nixon influenced the outcome by declaring Manson guilty but it seems like those same people never stop to consider that many of the jury may have been diametrically opposed to Nixon and had nothing but contempt for anything he said.
So.....Leslie was judged according to what she had done on the night of August 9/10th, not what she might have done or felt afterwards. She herself recognizes this, talking about how she blew her life away in one crazy night or words to that effect. For you to say that if she had left that you'd have argued for jail time with parole which then would mean she'd be out in 7 years kind of indicates that you're playing a game of convenience, not principle. After all, Tex left. OK, not the next day, but he left and ceased all contact with the Family. Tex didn't laugh during his trial. Tex didn't do interviews, shave his head, play the revolutionary martyr etc. He expressed remorse. But you wouldn't argue for him to be out.
And for the record, Leslie is appalled by what took place. That it wasn't the next day, that it was some years later should make no difference. She's appalled. She's spent the greater share of her life being appalled.
During jury deliberations on the sentencing, a number of them, even those like Zamora who believed she deserved death, were looking for any possible reason not to pronounce a death sentence. They welcomed every delay in the hope that someone would say something sufficiently persuasive to sway them all into voting for a life sentence. One juror in particular had problems voting death for Leslie. Zamora claims that he logically went through why it had to be a death sentence. The evidence was such that personal feelings had to be put aside. That evidence did not include their disruptive behaviour during the trial.

Venus said...

So true, Katie. Their original sentences were completely different.

katie8753 said...

Well, tomorrow is Leslie's hearing. Maybe she can spend the evening practicing crying...with real tears...when they get to the part where she says she feels bad about what she did.

katie8753 said...

Riddle me this:

If Leslie had been included in the first murder spree, instead of "looking after babies", would she have been so glad to be included in the second murder spree?

SurelyYouJest11 said...

Let's be realistic. The chances of her getting out are really low. That's just the way it is.

I would posit, however, that the reason that she stays in isn't because she's a threat to society, it's because of the notoriety of the crime itself. Far worse killers than her have been released into society and will continue to be.

william marshall said...

Hello Katie my apologies for the double comment smartphone not so much I meant to say the fact that Van Hotoun choose to go out on the second night knowing full well it was a mission of murder may very well have sealed her fate but I also feel very strongly the notoriety of the case sealed the fate for her & definitely Bobby & Bruce if Bobbie's first trial wouldn't have ended in a hung jury I believe he would have been released a long time ago

william marshall said...

Hello Katie my apologies for the double comment smartphone not so much I meant to say the fact that Van Hotoun choose to go out on the second night knowing full well it was a mission of murder may very well have sealed her fate but I also feel very strongly the notoriety of the case sealed the fate for her & definitely Bobby & Bruce if Bobbie's first trial wouldn't have ended in a hung jury I believe he would have been released a long time ago

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

But the reality is this. ALL of these killers thought it was funny. Funny to kill, funny during the trial to act up, funny to threaten the jury

I'm not so sure that's true.
And they all, but the women in particular, showed real stupidity acting up during the trial because in many ways, the prosecution's domination theory was laid out for all to see. They were convicted on the evidence, much of it circumstantial, but the circumstantial element of Charlie's domination was converted into fact before their very eyes......by the Family and Charlie.
That's irony !

And when the trial was over, the door slammed shut, the cameras turned off and the reporters went to find another freakshow, suddenly, it wasn't funny anymore

That's not a reason to get out


It wasn't even funny during it. There were things going on behind the scenes such as Charlie maneuvering the women into acting up or Pat and Leslie not talking to Susan even though they seemed to present a united front or Charlie instructing Clem to violently assault Gypsy if she didn't lie on the stand.

I don't think she was influenced by Manson at all. In fact, she's admitted that she didn't like him

Sexually. She said she couldn't really get into him sexually but to say she wasn't influenced by him is to ignore all the evidence that was around at the time, including stuff she said while trying to defend him. I don't think their relationship was one of cause and effect, that is, Charlie decrees and Leslie absorbs. Like most relationships, especially those with a control element, it's more nuanced and complex than that. But it was certainly a major part of it. Leslie had already been heading in a certain lawless direction before meeting Manson and while she admitted {and this was back in '69 before it was even known that she was one of the LaBianca killers} that there were parts of his schtick that she didn't agree with {she told this to Mike McGann} their views of society fitted well together. She'd been into acid long before he was !
But he was 14 years older than her and had a wealth of experience and blather that she couldn't hope to equal. Almost anybody in such a situation would be influenced by the elder to some degree, even if they didn't realize it.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Leslie was trying to impress Tex & Pat by being brave enough to "do it"

She seems to have found what Pat thought to be vitally important, to the extent that by 2010 or thereabouts, she recognized in her own self that she had had co dependency issues where Pat was concerned. I suspect that what Pat felt and thought was as important to her as what Charlie thought.
It's ironic that Pat was so highly looked up to, given her own feelings about herself. Leslie certainly wanted to be like Pat. She considered her strong.

She needs to stop blaming Tex for what she did. It was her own decision. Nobody twisted her arm

When has she ever blamed Tex ? Relaying what happened and demonstrating the part that people played in an event is not the same as putting the blame on them. When she was confessing her guilt to Marvin Part and owning her part in the murders she admitted that she was freaked out about having to kill. She said she thought Rosemary was dead {this is Dec'69 remember. She wasn't trying to get absolution} and she admitted that she felt bad if she ever stopped and thought about it. She said she even cried when she thought about Frank Struthers ~ so she didn't allow herself to think. She told Part that she expected "the Man" to come and get her for what she'd done.
So yes, it was her own decision and no one twisted the 19 year old's arm but in terms of logistics, Tex had to tell her to "get to it."
That's not blaming Tex. Tex himself has taken responsibility for getting Leslie to wield the knife.

Leslie needs to "own" her guilt. Take charge of it. Accept it

As far back as that incredible taped interview with Marvin Part, she was doing that. She was clear that she felt it was the right thing because she felt she was part of the chosen ones that were to put the world right. She also was clear that she knew that in the eyes of society, she'd done wrong.
Since she started to come to her senses in the mid 70s Leslie Van Houten has been taking charge, accepting and owning her guilt. Actually, they all have, bar Charles.

grimtraveller said...

DigaDave said...

You don't strike me as someone having life experiences and the inner knowledge those experiences build to judge someone

I think empathy is one of the most precious qualities a human being can have. In England, and I started noticing this about 13 years ago, there's been this increasing use of the word "do gooder" to describe anyone that appears to empathize with those on the wrong side of the law. And it's a term of contempt, not a friendly or complimentary one.
Having a hard line view on crime and criminals has it's place but when things are slanted only in that direction, I think it does us all a disservice. If thousands of years of human history have taught us anything, it's that a hard line view and subsequent action is as effective as continually being soft on crime. Neither work in and of themselves in every situation. Sometimes, someone who has committed a soft crime actually could benefit from an iron fist, while on other occasions a hard line criminal benefits from mercy.
But everyone benefits from empathy.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy.
In actuality, empathizing with someone may help you to see that the correction they need is of the firmer variety.
Empathy is not the same as being soft.


Have you ever done LSD? It can change your perception on life and death. It has the ability to make you believe in a spirit world and see that we are all spirits in human form

Back in October when I did the 2nd part of the "Helter Skelter" piece, I concentrated on psychedelic drugs and acid in particular. I remember Katie saying "I never realized that acid was that powerful. It's interesting that Susan & Tex basically say the same thing, that all the basic groundwork that was laid out for them growing up disappeared after taking acid. It's easy to see how someone like Charlie could get into their brains and change their whole way of thinking with this drug" and I would encourage anyone thinking about the killers to have a look at that piece because it has a lot of quotes about acid's effects from those that actually took it. It was a powerful enough drug to shift many members of an entire generation in a number of countries from one plane of thinking to another, many of whom can no longer think according to the mores that informed their pre ~ acid being.

grimtraveller said...

DigaDave said...

One thing I like about Leslie is that she isn't selling Jesus.

On the other hand, had she had a real encounter with Jesus, it would most likely have come into some of her dialogue at one point or another because believe me, if Christ is in your action, it's very hard to shut up about it.

LSD is not like a drink that you sleep off and the head ache is gone. No, it can leave you confused for months and for some, even longer

There are people that experimented with acid in the 60s, 70s and 80s that have never fully recovered from it to this day.

Charlie said for everyone to get their hands dirty. She did this more out of wanting to be accepted in the group. Are you aware of those dynamics Katie? Very strong that one is, makes a lot of people do initiations still, that involve killing or shooting someone

Group dynamics and peer pressure are so much stronger in many cases than some people realize. Like I was saying before, it's not as simple as mere cause and effect. The intermeshing of different personalities and circumstances can bring about a myriad of different responses and I think it's naive to just ignore this and say "well, you didn't have to go down that path." That's why empathy is so important. It involves actually putting yourself in some else's shoes with the express aim of seeing what it's like to walk in their shoes.

If Leslie had legal representation early on that was effective and had not been convicted by the media as was Lee Harvey Oswald, she probably would have got off with manslaughter

That's highly debatable. Firstly, she did have that in Marvin Part. He wanted to get her tried on an insanity defence but she was adamant that she was not insane.....and I don't think she was. Leslie at the end of the day was offered immunity, even if she had been one of the killers. There's a great, if frustrating at times, interview just up on Cielodrive.com from November '69 between Mike McGann and Leslie. As much as Susan threw away her immunity, Leslie tossed away her chance at it. And although her death sentence was overturned, when she was retried she didn't get a death sentence.
I think it would make an interesting debate, namely, should the person that actually does the killing get the same sentence as a co~conspirator that either doesn't or stabs when all the death blows have been struck but as far as Leslie goes, manslaughter was never on the cards. She wanted in, she even compared herself with Cathy Gillies whom she says also wanted to go and kill but whose loyalty to the Family was questionable because she kept coming and going for days at a time.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

No I've never done LSD. I was never that stupid

It's not a matter of stupidity. It was curiosity that initially acted as a prod for many to try acid. I was certainly curious.

It's funny how LSD wore off after they were given the death penalty and the cameras stopped clicking

Susan said it took 5 years for all the drug activity to leave her mind and Steve Grogan said it took some years for all the 'residue' as he put it, to clear from his mind. Sometimes, LSD can keep sneaking back as flashbacks {in my experience, the only people that deny flashbacks are those that have never had them or those that want to push the "there's nothing wrong with acid" line}. Besides which, it was harder to get acid in jail ~ although they did !

My question is this: if Leslie was so upset and traumatized by what happened to Rosemary, why did she calm down and take the time to wipe down for fingerprints and ransack Rosemary's closet for some cool dresses

Because even under extreme stress, the instinct for survival and preservation does not necessarily disappear. When some soldiers see their colleagues blown up or shot in the head or dying, they inwardly recoil but they don't go to pieces, even though they are traumatized.
They may do that later. Some children, if they see their parents being killed may still run on instinct and get the heck out of the danger spot. Leslie's actions were human. They aren't in conflict with freaking out. She didn't want to be caught.

And why, if she was that upset, did she stay at Spahn's Ranch?

For better or for worse, they were her people. She believed in what they were doing in the overall Helter Skelter scheme of things. She told Marvin Part that she and Pat weren't into killing but because for HS to come down, killings had to happen, they would be willing to kill. It's also important to remember that for the Family, being willing to kill was equated with being willing to be killed.
Many people miss that one.

I love it when people cite other cases about somebody killing a million people and now they're out. You can't just say Leslie should get out because other people did

Good point.
However, equality under the law is important because if the law is perceived by we, the people, to be unfair then it is simply going to reinforce for those that are wobbling towards breaking it that they are striking at something that is unfair and that becomes it's own justification.
If someone committed a heinous crime and was granted parole after 25 years, it is weakening that moral fabric of society that you spoke of earlier, if some like Leslie is still inside after 47 years even though she's jumped through hoops time and time again to demonstrate to the board that she is ready to come back into society, just because of her association with Charlie Manson, an association that ended before Watergate.

If the media convicted her, that was her fault

Given that the jury was locked away for 9 months and that many of them had no great interest in the case before then anyway, the media could no way have convicted her.
What really convicted her was Diane Lake's corroboration......and Leslie's own murderous deeds.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

there's no way that liaison between Tex & Suzanne was about "forgiveness". That was some deal they cooked up

Earlier, you said you have some God moments. There's a difference between having God moments and living a God infused life with all the struggles and flaws that come with being a human being. That infusion necessitates a taking on board of things that one knows God has revealed to the human race ~ if one believes that. Among the difficult things God requires ~ to treat every other human being the way we personally want to be treated. And to forgive people whatever they've done, regardless, if we want to be forgiven by God, bearing in mind that sins that God hasn't forgiven get in the way of any relationship a human being will have with God. And to love one's enemies and to ask God for good things to be applied to those that treat you like toilet paper {worse than the shit itself}.
That's hard.
But with God's help it's not impossible. it's doubtful Suzan LaBerge could have done it without that infusion from Christ and had Tex not been a Christian himself, then the two of them would not have had the common ground to stand on which may have made any meeting really difficult.
But the idea of victims of crime confronting the perps is not a Tex/Suzan issue. It happens in a number of countries with varying degrees of success. Of course, it doesn't always work out well, but even where God is not involved, it can.

If she's so forgiving, why not forgive Pat & Leslie? Why just "forgive" Tex?

As I pointed out to you some months ago, how do you know she has not forgiven Pat or Leslie ? As a Christian myself, I would find it truly baffling if she had forgiven the worst of the killers, the one whose hands were stained with the blood of every one of the TLB victims, but not Pat & Leslie.
Also, while I might be puzzled at some of God's actions, I don't call Him out on why He does things the way He does them. Maybe He prodded Suzan to openly forgive the worst of the Family killers. People have a problem with Tex saying the Lord has forgiven him but if a human being says they have forgiven him, other than to pour scorn on it, you can't actually say it ain't so.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

And when I said the families have to breathe the same air as the killers, I meant sit in the same small room with them for hours

I know what you meant. But the fact remains, it's their choice. If you choose to go to a hearing that one of the killers will be at, you can hardly complain about the fact that you have to be in the same room as them. The killer seeking parole has to be there. The family member does not.

But I would think that's easier said than done. I know I personally would do what I could to keep the killers of my family in prison

Perhaps. But the reality is that many people have lost a family member for a variety of reasons and they regard it as too early for them to have died but they do let it go as best they can and get on with life.
If Leslie was 7, 10, 15 years into her sentence and it was my parents that had died, I'd probably have gone along to those hearings to say "no way, people !" but I think when someone goes beyond the 20, 25 year mark and they've shown remorse and they've apologized and you can see that they are trying to do good and have turned their life around {and let's face it, the families often say in the hearings that it's good what the killers have done in jail} then it's not necessarily going to be as easy to hold onto the punishment and vengeance angle for every person. Some people may discover that they're doing it out of expected duty rather than real heartfelt desire.

And actually the family members don't have the luxury of just "forgetting about it". Even to this day, they're still making movies about this gruesome crime

That's true but the responsibility there lies with the film makers and no one else.

Venus said...

I can understand why they keep trying for parole since it's part of their sentence. They ARE eligible. I think that, even IF any of them are granted parole, they'll end up like Bruce. I think they know they're fighting a losing battle, but I can't fault them for trying

I don't think that they believe it's a losing battle but if it's part of the terms of their sentence, how can they be faulted for trying ? While it's true that some people may prefer to be in jail, that certainly doesn't apply to Bobby, Leslie, Pat, Tex and Bruce and if Star's words can be believed, Charlie too.
The key for me is simply this ¬> have the prisoners attempted to turn their lives around, shown remorse and make amends ? If so, we proceed from there. It's not a given that having satisfied those criteria that parole should be granted. But Leslie had been turned down 19 times. She didn't return to her cell and smash it up and go rogue. She kept on the straight and narrow.
Many of us don't even do that on the outside !

However, my sympathies are for the victims' families

Same here. But to tell you the truth, I have sympathy for many people in this case on all sides of the spectrum, including Charles Manson and even Tex.
I hate to see lives wasted, even if we waste them by our own doing.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

I think Leslie is lying every time she says when she went along with the group to the LaBianca's that she didn't understand what was going to happen

Given that she told Marvin Part about her involvement and willingness to go along, I find it hard to believe that she subsequently has said that. It's demonstrably false.

I think she's lying when she says she got clothes out of Rosemary's closet because she gave her jeans to Tex.... I think she's lying when she says that she didn't know her husband was going to try and get her out...I think she's lying when she says she had a hard time stabbing Rosemary

But I wasn't really asking you for times you think she's lying, I was asking for times when she'd been shown to be lying. You said it had been proved over & over again that Leslie's a liar. If we're talking about her 1969 interview with Mike McGann or her penalty phase debacle, fair enough. But there are mitigating circumstances for those incidents. But you were talking more up to date and I'm interested in what some of those incidents are, that have been demonstrably shown.

Well, the bottom line is this: a jury spent almost a year of their lives determining the fate of these LOSERS......You sit thru a trial and get/give a verdict that gives you peace, then a bunch of liberals come along and change everything.

Fucking commies....


Do you actually know anything about communism ? Do you actually know anything about the justice in countries that were communist ? Had the verdicts handed to the TLB killers been given in many communist countries, there would be no public discussions about parole. Because the offenders would be fertilizer.

Can you imagine these people getting out? What the fuck are they gonna do now??? HA HA HA.

Live off people? Nobody on this planet is gonna hire them. They're convicted murder felons. Nobody hires felons


Leslie's coming up for 67. Even if she only was to live to the age Charlie is now, that's still 14 years of life. When life is precious to you, you just don't see things the way the vengeful do.
Some people, for all the wrongs they've engaged in, have learned to value each day as it comes. I think Leslie has a pretty good idea of what she'll do with some of her time if she gets out.