Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Listen Here:
      Courtesy of Brian Davis at StarCity Radio
Lady Justice and the Blindfold:
Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be, meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness. (i.e., blind justice and impartiality)


katie8753 said...

Brian thanks so much for sharing this with us! Good job Lynyrd! :)

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thank You Brian, for your generosity.

My sincere hope, is that Beckman's information will inspire genuine contemplation within the blog community.

Beckman is brilliant.
He's a real class act.

Leigh said...

Interesting listen. Thanks for sharing.

Leigh said...

Hold the phone - Debra lied her way into the hearing? Shenanigans.

I have exactly ZERO positive feelings for Bruce Davis, but come on...there needs to be some basic integrity and fairness to this process, with all proper procedures followed.

Leigh said...

If what he says is accurate, this is potentially harmful to the cause of victims' rights and the gains that have been made in that area. How can you call yourself a victims' rights advocate and then use subterfuge to undermine a legal process? This is a high profile case - how many other cases have this type of thing happening, I wonder? I shudder to think.

(I'm sure anti-Debra types like the Col won't be shocked by this in the slightest, but I've always seen myself as neither pro nor anti-Debra as a person because I don't know her or what's in her heart, though some things she's done have definitely given me pause. This is pretty egregious because it goes far beyond the realm of simple poor taste or questionable judgment.)


Also, I had a comment (about Beckman's statements re: Debra) above this one - but after my first one - and it's gone. Was it deleted or is Blogger just being wonky? If it was deleted purposefully I'm not making an issue of it because it's not my blog and however you guys choose to run it is entirely up to you. Just curious.

Leigh said...

Nevermind. The comment is there now. Sorry!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Leigh.

Your comment was in the "spam folder".

Long story short... Google tries to detect "robot posts" to avoid spam... but, the thing's gone haywire.
It's a technical difficulty I'm working on.

Thanks for notifying me.
I retrieved your comment... it's above.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leigh said:
"f what he says is accurate, this is potentially harmful to the cause of victims' rights and the gains that have been made in that area. How can you call yourself a victims' rights advocate and then use subterfuge to undermine a legal process? This is a high profile case - how many other cases have this type of thing happening, I wonder? I shudder to think"

Johnny... (a friend of the blog) sent me an email last night, regarding this topic.

Johnny wrote:

My favorite quote from Pres John F Kennedy comes to mind and puts this into sharp focus:

“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”
― John F. Kennedy

MrPoirot said...

Leslie Van Houton is probably the one most afraid of Debra Tate and her mother's victim's rights foundation. I saw one youtube where Leslie was told Drbra would attend one of her parole hearings and her eyes got real big. This is a chick whose eyes are naturally big in the first place.
There is a merciless hound whose only purpose is to chase after the captive souls of the unfortunate fools who chose to destroy life decades ago. The 60's live on; frozen in time it seems.

katie8753 said...

Marcy Martha May Marlene is on HBO now. It's a great movie about cult behavior based on the Manson Family. Starship and I discussed it previously. Catch it if you have a chance.

Thanks Leigh. I wonder how Debra lied her way into the hearings. It can't be that easy to get into parole hearings.

Debra purports that a family member asked her to represent him/her. I'll have to delve into that one at a later time.

Mr. P. you're right. The killers really didn't like Doris showing up at parole hearings. Charlie referred to her as "that old bitch". LOL.

katie8753 said...

Let's see, if Debra Tate was at the parole hearing, under false circumstances or otherwise, it didn't seem to affect the Board of Prison Terms' decision. They gave Bruce the green light.

It was the Governor's final word that kept him in. So Debra's appearance at the hearing would appear to be of no real substance either positively or negatively.

Anonymous said...

There are some interesting moments regarding Debra Tate and Barbara Hoyt at Davis' 2012 Parole Hearing. Almost immediately, Davis is cautioned not to look at them:

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right, and I would caution you when you are looking around the room, do not look to the right to where the people are sitting against the back wall, okay?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: You can look in the rest of the room, but don't look in that direction at all.

Attorney Beckman asks about written authority for Tate and Hoyt to speak on behalf of the victims:

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I have a request. There are no registered victims in this case. No victims have ever shown up before in 41 years and some 28, 29 hearings. You have two people here who claim to be authorized by the families to represent them. I'd like to request that we be provided with copies of any written authorization that they have at this time.

Commissioner Ferguson tells Attorney Beckman that he had anticipated he would object to Tate/Hoyt and had spoken to the Board of Parole Legal to insure that Tate/Hoyt had been vetted and cleared to speak for the victims.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Then I want to have marked as an exhibit the following. This is a letter written by a woman named Renne R., R-E-N-N-E, R., dated June 18th, 2012, to the Board. Quote, "We do not want Deborah Tate representing us or speaking for us at Bruce Davis' parole hearing. We have never spoken with Deborah Tate personally and have never given her authorization to speak on behalf of the Hinman family. We feel we can give Gary the best voice at his hearing since we are the ones that have lost Gary and not Deborah Tate. Please honor our request as we feel Gary would want our voice to speak for him." I'd ask that that be marked Exhibit --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right. I will call it Exhibit A. And if that was a request, it's denied. If it was an objection, then it's overruled.

Davis is questioned at length by the Commissioners. DA Sequeira gives a lengthy closing argument for the state. When Attorney Beckman gives his closing he comes out on fire and refers to Tate/Hoyt as "a dog and pony show":

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Thank you, Commissioner. The District Attorney for Los Angeles County should really be very careful when you call someone a liar because I'm going to promise you that by the time I'm finished with my closing, I'm going to show you that Mr. Sequeira has been lying to this Board for years about many, many different things. And that's because he'll do anything and say anything to keep Mr. Davis and other members of the Manson family in prison including this dog and pony show that he's trotted out of ersatz victims coming in to speak for the first time on a Bruce Davis hearing in 41 years.
Tate and Hoyt are then allowed to speak for the victims. Hoyt speaks for the family of Shea and reads letters from Shorty's ex-wife and daughter. Tate speaks for the family of Hinman and reads a letter from Gary's cousin. They both go on long diatribes about their own knowledge/view of the case. During Tate's statement she can't resist responding to the Dog & Pony Show comment:

"I would like to address also the fact that I don't believe that it's a good decision on Mr. Davis' part to let his counsel scowl in the face of the law which has the Department of Justice has allowed and researched the family members that appointed me their spokesperson and made fun of and light and referred to me as a trick pony. I am not a trick pony nor am I paid for any endeavor I have ever done in any victims whether it be my own family members or other people that I represent."

Debra Tate denies being the pony...so she must be the dog?

Leigh said...

Thanks for sharing, Jeffrey Jeff.

Dodgy dodgy dodgy...people have been popping up on these blogs and elsewhere claiming to be relatives of Gary's for years. Do we know that the person Debra claimed to be speaking on behalf of was even a genuine relative?

Again, I am not joining the anti-Debra crusade. I am however completely opposed to any part of the hearing process, including the right to deliver victim impact statements, being abused or misused, not just because of the the potential implications that has for the inmate, but also for the implications it has for the integrity of victims' rights.

In this instance, the hearing granted parole despite whatever was going on with Tate/Hoyt, but it's not difficult to imagine circumstances where abuse of this process could lead to an unfair outcome.

MrPoirot said...

Leigh it appears the point at which Davis' parole was booted was at the desk of the governor. At that step in the process the governor apparently felt there would be a backlash if he allowed the release to occur. The decision was made at the LA DA's office. No doubt the DA received pressure from somewhere.

katie8753 said...

Okay this doesn't make sense:

No victims have ever shown up before in 41 years and some 28, 29 hearings.

"We do not want Deborah Tate representing us or speaking for us at Bruce Davis' parole hearing...We feel we can give Gary the best voice at his hearing since we are the ones that have lost Gary and not Deborah Tate. Please honor our request as we feel Gary would want our voice to speak for him.

If no one has ever shown up in 41 years, whose voice has been speaking up??

Brian Davis said...

Leigh wrote, "Again, I am not joining the anti-Debra crusade. I am however completely opposed to any part of the hearing process, including the right to deliver victim impact statements, being abused or misused, not just because of the the potential implications that has for the inmate, but also for the implications it has for the integrity of victims' rights.

That is well said ! for whatever it's worth, I could not agree more.

katie8753 said...

Hi Brian!! :)

Anonymous said...

Sounds like this "R. Renne" person who requested that Debra not speak on behalf of Hinman had some previous correspondence with Davis.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: Why did you send her an apology letter, this Renne R.?

INMATE DAVIS: I got a letter from someone in Florida and she said that she knew the Hinman family and that they were still hurting, still suffering from what I'd done. And I had tried taking -- had been given some, I thought was a place to write the Hinman family. Somebody wrote to me years ago and said they knew them. So I write them. So I got another letter from somebody that says we know the Hinmans. So I said well, let me tell you how I feel so that in case you ever come in contact with them, you can let them know. And I'm glad to say something like this. And so I wrote her a letter.

The letter of apology is submitted at the Hearing. It is never intimated how or if Renee is related to Hinman other than "she said that she knew the Hinman family". IMO, It seems unlikely that she would travel from Florida to California to speak on behalf of the Hinmans.

The person that Tate was speaking for was Gary Hinman's first cousin:

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Say who the letter's from from first.

MS. TATE: I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Kay Martley, who is the cousin of Gary Hinman, first cousin, I mean, most immediate family member left alive.

My guess is that Gary's first cousin trumped R. Renne (whoever she is) in the Boards decision about who had authority to speak on Hinmans behalf.

Also thanks to cielodrive where I have been getting quotes from the 2012 hearing. Go there and read it, it is quite interesting.

MrPoirot said...

jeffrey jeff said...

The letter of apology is submitted at the Hearing. It is never intimated how or if Renee is related to Hinman other than "she said that she knew the Hinman family". IMO, It seems unlikely that she would travel from Florida to California to speak on behalf of the Hinmans(end quote)

Poirot replies:

The Doris Tate victims rights foundation pays the cost of air fare. ANYBODY who lives ANYWHERE whom appears at any of the TLB related murders can easily acquire air fare and lodging costs. I myself had once been offered a ticket to appear at a parole hearing but turned it down on the basis that I felt I was not sufficiently involved as to interject a statement. This is not to say that I supported anyones release. I feel that the parole board knows how .to do their job

Keep in mind that the Doris Tate foundation includes EVERYONE who has ever appeared at any TLB related hearing. It is a large, well funded and well organized group that is very singleminded about stopping any releases from occurring.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Poirot...I did not know that. Is Debra Tate affiliated with the Doris Tate Foundation? I've heard the rumours of Debra being estranged from her parents before their deaths. I do not know if that is truth or slander. Any chance that you will expound on the circumstances of being asked to attend one of the parole hearings?

katie8753 said...

I wonder why anyone would object to other people offering to appear at a parole hearing to help ensure that the killer(s) of your poor stabbed, sliced & tortured relative don't get out of prison.

katie8753 said...

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: All right, and I would caution you when you are looking around the room, do not look to the right to where the people are sitting against the back wall, okay?

I wonder why Davis was told not to look at them. Would it be like looking at Medusa? He would turn to stone? HA HA.

katie8753 said...

Why would ANYONE object to someone attending a parole hearing to keep a killer in prison on behalf of a relative of the victim?

Am I missing something here?

If I had a relative killed in California, and the killer(s) was/were convicted and imprisoned in California and the trek to California was arduous for me every 4 years to attend said hearing (i.e., I can't take the time off, etc.) and someone IN CALIFORNIA VOLUNTEERED to attend on my behalf, to waste a whole day traveling there, sitting around, waiting, sitting through the entire ordeal of 4 or 5 hours of re-hashing the murders and the accomplishments of the killer(s) in order to read the letters I had written to the Board on my relative's behalf to keep the killer in prison, why would I object to that?

That doesn't make any sense.

MrPoirot said...

Immediate family member/victims can appoint a representitive in writing. Perhaps Debra and Barbara were phone appointees. This was a contention with atty beckham. Regulations on parole attendees selected by victims have been recently tightened to maintain the legitimacy of the parole process.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Mr. P., but that doesn't answer my question.

My question was, "What would anyone take OFFENSE at someone representing a victim's relative?"

Does anyone know???

katie8753 said...

More specifically, why would a "victim's relative" (not talking about Beckman) take OFFENSE at someone representing them?

MrPoirot said...

They can't object as long as the representitive is appointed in writing. Just anybody can't show up at a hearing breathing fire demanding parole be denied or granted. This was atty Beckman's issue with Debra and Babs. there are guidelines.

louis365 said...

Gone shootin'

katie8753 said...

Mr. P., I love ya. But you still haven't answered my question.

Who would object to a representative being present at a parole hearing?

And why would anyone do that?

Anonymous said...

I hear what you're saying Katie. There is something hinkey going on with this Renne person. It sounds like she wrote Davis a letter, telling him how the Hinman family was still hurting. Davis replied with an apology letter. The apology letter is used in Davis' favor at the parole hearing. She also writes a letter to the parole board and Atty Beckman asking to bar Tate from speaking at the hearing. Another action that would have benefited Davis. If she really thought that "We feel we can give Gary the best voice at his hearing since we are the ones that have lost Gary and not Deborah Tate"...why didn't she show up and speak at the hearing? Surely the board would allow a relative to speak before a proxy.

katie8753 said...

Right on Jeff!!! This is what I'm talking about!

I think a lot of Debra Tate. She lost her whole family because of these murderers.....

Long story short....

katie8753 said...

Just give Debra a break.

I don't know what it's like to lose a big sister to a heinous crime.

Come on guys, let's just give her a break....

katie8753 said...

Okay please tell me why Debra Tate can't represent the families.

WHY? And I want a detailed explanation.

katie8753 said...

How come Doris can do it, and not Debra????

Please explain in detail.

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

Okay let me re-phrase my question.

If someone had asked Doris Tate to attend, for instance, Bruce Davis' parole hearing in their stead, do you think:

(a) she would flatly refuse, saying it was none of her business?


(b) attend gladly to help keep any Manson related killer off the streets?

And if she attended Bruce's parole hearing, do you think:

(a) she would be praised and championed for her causes?


(b) ridiculed and called names?

SurelyYouJest11 said...

Katie said: More specifically, why would a "victim's relative" (not talking about Beckman) take OFFENSE at someone representing them?

Perhaps they don't want to be represented at all. They have that right as well. I personally wouldn't want someone else to represent me.

Different people deal with tragedy in different ways and they should all be respected even if we find their actions strange or unusual.

adam said...

Katie I hear what you are saying but to have Debra Tate sit in on a Bruce Davis parole hearing is unfair to him because he is then not being judged for his actions to Gary and Shorty. The presence of someone named 'Tate' sitting in the room is instantly linking Bruce's crimes to the TLB murders which he did not particpate in.

katie8753 said...

Surely & Adam, good points.

Adam, I'm assuming everyone in the room knows that Bruce wasn't involved in the Tate murder, but as you say, maybe it's an implication that might hurt him.

katie8753 said...

Oh well, just remember to take the Peterman Reality Tour.

And remember, just eat the tops, not the stumps.


Night ya'll!!! :)

ResGestae said...

Davis can get out of jail when he tells us all who murdered John Phillip Haught aka Zero aka Christopher Jesus.

And kudos to Governor Moonbeam, some small measure of redemption after the likes of Rose Bird.

MrPoirot said...

ReGestae who or what is Rose Bird?

All those present when Zero died remained at the scene and willingly were questioned by police. Zero was in bed with a female when he shot himself. No one present said anything contesting that. It is unlikely that Zero was murdered by anyone. Who hangs around after a murder occurs?

there is a very revealing statement by Madeline Cottage who told police. She said Zero pointed the gun at his head and pulled the trigger "just like in the movies".

Was Zero copying a scene from a movie that he and Madeline had watched together? Anyone who points a gun at their own head and pulls the trigger is playing Russian roulette regardless of whether the gun is loaded or not. I have read of many deaths where people accidentally killed themselves by pulling the trigger on a gun they thought was empty or were told was empty. It is a fairly common form of deadly horseplay usually attributed to mack bravado trying to impress or entertain their peers.

Leslie Van Houton is the only person who implicates B Davis as Zero's killer and she was in jail when Zero died.

ResGestae said...

Mr. Poirot:

Google is your friend. Just put in "Rose Bird". In the meantime, this should suffice:

Bird was the first and remains the only Chief Justice to be removed from that office by a majority of the state's voters....Twelve years later, [Justice Stanley] Mosk explained why he was able to stay and Bird was not:

Rose Bird was pilloried because she generally voted to find some defect in death penalty convictions and to reverse them. I probably don't like the death penalty any more than she does. As a matter of fact, I think the death penalty is wrong, that a person has no right to kill, and the state has no right to kill. But the difference is that I took an oath to support the law as it is and not as I might prefer it to be, and therefore, I've written my share of opinions upholding capital judgments.

Next, humans don't play Russian roulette with the chamber full.

They also claimed to not know who he was.

Did you all cover this?


By the way, I'm with Hoyt on this one (i.e., the Helter Skelter thing).

MrPoirot said...

Next, humans don't play Russian roulette with the chamber full. (End quote)

You gotta be kidding! People pull the trigger on guns all the time that they thought was unloaded. It happened this week in my town here. Madelin Cottage said she told him the gun was empty so what does Zero do? He picks it up and shoots himself. Oops.

I did not know who Rose Bird was but I am familiar with what she did. California is littered with psychopathic activist judges who subvert the law in the name of some unknown illogical ideology.

katie8753 said...

Zero didn't take his own life. He was murdered...by Jerry Seinfeld. LOL.

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

Okay our request line is open, and we have a request.

This one goes out to Charlie, Tex, Bruce, Bobby, Leslie & Pat, from Debra Tate.

It's "Elvis The Pelvis" singing Are you Lonesome Tonight?

katie8753 said...

Wow...tough crowd.

Is this an audience or an oil painting? HA HA Can't buy a laugh.

Oh well.....Another winter storm is hitting the NE tonight. I hope all our friends in peril are safe and warm tonight!

G'night Jugdish! :)

katie8753 said...

I wonder if Jodi Hairius is wondering how to respond to WalMart's response that she didn't return that gas can.

Hmmmm...maybe the fog is back. HA HA.

No jury will ever convict me, because I'm innocent. And you can mark my words.

Wow, if only the Manson killers had gone on 48 Hours and said that. LOL.

Unknown said...

This Storm is a popcorn fart in Rhode Island.
MAYBE a half Inch of Snow.
Thank God cos I'm done with snow,Bring on the Spring!

katie8753 said...

Thanks Matt. I hope everyone else fared well. I just worry about power outages and the like....

Well I can't worry all night.


Anonymous said...

It certainly seems that someone else has taken over driving the short bus on other sites. Petty arguments and ridiculous claims and comparisons and untrue statements of fact and players have become the norm. It is information that gets the reader nowhere in the search for answers. I appreciate this site for insightful information and discussions. Thanks for staying true Lynard, long time reader, rare poster here.
BTW, Archie is history, Archer is the king of the 21st century

ResGestae said...


So you know, there's a reason for my Mosk quote on Rose Bird. Or more generally, my reference to Rose Bird. I haven't even begun to listen to Beckman, as there simply isn't any need. If he thinks that it's politics, he's right and wrong.

It's not about Gov. Moonbeam being re-elected. Instead, our country, any country, only works if people have faith in govt. Take yourself and your own reaction. Losing faith are you? As many of the others here recognize, the greater number of humans will take the opposite tack here and so, rightly or wrongly, they will lose a little faith with a parole here.

Beckman should know this, since the code that likely governs his ethics, and the other code that governs my ethics, likely say the same thing. We are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

I defended a lawyer once in a disciplinary proceeding. He had had some trouble, both in his personal life and business life, and was in a position that such that he largely neglected some of his own persona affairs. So, two times, he forgot all about the traffic citation that required not payment of a fine but an appearance in court. Ended up being arrested later on a bench warrant, two times (when pulled over for something else). My argument was not only his circumstance, to hopefully generate some sympathy, etc., the argument was also, the "system" can use his treatment to show that lawyers are not treated any differently than anybody else. The cops arresting him knew who he was, so knew that he was not one with a criminal bent,as it were, but instead of telling him, look, we'll let you go but you need to take care of the outstanding bench warrant first thing tomorrow, they arrested him. So the "sytem" can say that lawyers are not special, and get treated like one everyone else. That was met, by both the lawyer who represents the disciplinary authority and the one hearing panel member, with: But do you know how bad it looks when lawyers are arrested?

So it was all a matter of perception and, apparently, the perception attending lawyers being arrested, even for relatively trivial matters, and with, well, not an excuse, but certainly some strong mitigating factors,trumps "the 'system' treated him like everybody else' (i.e., your illustration of our our gal there, blindfolded, with the scales even), so that lawyer ended up with a public reprimand.

And, here, back to what I said, Gov. Moonbeam is no stranger to the unpopular. Witness Rose Bird. He knew but he appointed here anyway. And so, to make a long story yet longer, I think there's two things at work, both the whole loss of faith in the system if anyone other than Clem gets out, and I also posted that other link re what my might be on those tapes. I am relatively certain that the author asked Tex's lawyer specifically about Manson, so we cannot treat the reply, Tex implicated in Manson in yet more murders, as ruling out Davis' involvement.

I'm not saying there were more murders and that Davis was involved, but the context and nature of the question didn't invite one, Tex's lawyer, to comment on Davis. That may be part of what the DA might have reminded Gov. Moonbeam. And so how much faith would we have, if our govt knows that someone apparently implicated Chucky in yet more murders, and our govt also knows that in respect to some of the murders we know about, Davis was involved, so perhaps he was...and so if the tapes do implicate Davis in some other murders(s), the public says, the govt had a murderer in custody, released him, when they knew it was a possibility that he might have been involved in yet more murders..and how much faith does that engender in the system? Especially in this era, when the cry is heard, owing to budget cuts, you're already releasing some danger people onto our streets, and we have none of the security detail that you do.

ResGestae said...

Three more things, first, sorry for the typos, etc., in my immediately prior.

Second, as related, I have my own reason for not letting him out.

Third, Mr. Poirot, to follow up with you, why are you talking this band of inveterate liars at their word? Again, I don't believe for a moment that Zero killed himself, either accidentally or intentionally, and I'm also not saying that it was Bruce wot done it, but he knows who did (whether him or somebody else).

Lastly, re our gal Leslie, true, she was in jail, but it's not like she didn't have contact with others in their group on the outside, so perhaps she was told something by another member of the group while there in jail. I can only repeat what ole Leslie once said, since hers is the same response as mine: "Zero was playing Russian roulette all by himself?" And note what Davis apparently admitted, that he handled the gun after Zero was shot, thereby giving the explanation even before the forensics came back from the lab.

This was apparently how it went down with Leslie, well, what we know of:

Leslie: "Was Bruce playing it too?"
McGann advised her that he wasn't.
Leslie: "Zero was playing Russian roulette all by himself?"
Mike McGann: "Kind of odd isn't it?"
Leslie: "Yeah, it's odd."

The police report is over on the Truth On Tate-LaBianca site. Note page two of the same. Provides, in pertinent part:

Baldwin stated that she had been sleeping on the rt. side of the bed, when deceased got onto the bed and woke her up. Deceased asked Baldwin when she was going to fix dinner. Deceased then turned on his rt. side, and hugged Baldwin. As he was hugging her he stated, "Oh, here's a gun". Deceased then had the gun (in case) which he had obt. from the night stand rt. side of bed. Deceased removed the gun from the case and [ ] in his rt. hand. Deceased said, "There's only one bullet in it' He then spun the cylinder, place the gun to his rt. temple and pulled the trigger.

So, we have, Honey, or Babe, when are you going to fix dinner? He then turns and hugs her, 'cause she's both his babe and his honey. Then it's, Oh, here's a gun...

What part of that is the non-sequitur, as it were?

It sounds entirely lame because that's what it is, entirely lame. Note the quotes from some on the sidebar on the main page re the mental aptitude and thought processes of this group. So this pathetically lame story is the best they could come up with. I image that the investigation, well, the death rule a suicide, since (1) that closes the case, so chalk one up in the closure column for this year's statistical report, and (2) without any prints on the gun, well, their stories are absurd, at least "Baldwin's" is, but knowing they are all lying and proving who committed the murder are not the same things, and to obtain a conviction, the latter need be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

For a bonus freebie, back to lady justice there, this is one of the instances wherein an inquisitorial system, like the French have, is preferable to an accusatorial system, like we have.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Prokes said:
"This Storm is a popcorn fart in Rhode Island.
MAYBE a half Inch of Snow.
Thank God cos I'm done with snow,Bring on the Spring!"

Hi Matt.
I wish, I could say the same thing.
I got hit pretty hard (again).
I got roughly 12-14" total.
The storm pretty much shut things down (locally) for another day.
(That's another day of my life, I won't be getting back).

Today was very warm and sunny.
Maybe today, is/was some type of turning-point.

I'm hoping!

katie8753 said...

Thanks Kiffer. Thanks ResG.

This case is not a "whodunnit". We know who did it. We know that Bobby, Mary & Susan were involved in Gary's death. We know that Tex, Pat, Susan & Linda killed/were involved at Cielo Drive. We know that Tex, Pat & Leslie killed at Waverly Drive.

I agree with Jeff's statement a while back. If you take a life, you should spend your life in prison.

I think our justice system is WAY off balance. The defendants are catered to and can't be mistreated in any way, even though they are murderers.

What was that quote?

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

People have made the comment that these killers are "political prisoners" because of WHO they killed and WHO they were associated with (Manson).

But I look on it a different way. Their crimes were extremely heinous and insidious. Going into someone's home and killing complete strangers in a vicious way is unconscionable.

People who commit heinous murder for no reason should never get out. I don't care how many degrees they've earned, how many times they're born again, how many friends they've made, how many infractions they've missed, how many people write letters on their behalf, how many times they've been married, how many kids they've had or how many times they cry.

When you viciously kill another human being, other than in self defense, you should accept your punishment and stop bothering society.

katie8753 said...

The Justice System is fucked up. It let Casey Anthony go. Casey Anthony killed her daughter. That poor little girl is dead and nobody is accountable.

Not yet.

The jury in that case was so brain-dead, lifeless and bored that they let her go to wreak havoc on other lives. Which she is doing. She's still living off other people and stealing from people just like she was prior to Caylee's murder. It's only a matter of time until she kills again.

Which brings me to Bruce Davis. We know he killed a man that he had nothing against. Shorty Shea.

He had nothing against him, yet he killed him.

HELLLOOOO.... Does that speak VOLUMES to anyone?

Jodi Nefarious stabbed Travis Alexander 29 times, shot him in the head and tried to cut his head off. She then dragged him into the shower and tried to wash down the bathroom to cover her tracks. She then took the gun when she left. It's obvious why she took the gun. It was registered to her grandparents and she knew it would go back to her if she left it.

She claims self defense. To me, self defense would be one gunshot and then bolt outta there. But that's not what she did. After the gunshot, she stabbed him 29 times and tried to cut his head off.

Does anyone see what I'm talking about?

These defendants are given so much leeway it's monstrous. Why can't they just be held accountable for their crimes?

Like I said, it's not a "whodunnit". We know they did it.

Do the crime and serve the time....

katie8753 said...

A lawyer is a mouthpiece. A person who speaks for a defendant. It doesn't mean said lawyer thinks the defendant is innocent, it just means said lawyer is speaking.

Have you noticed that Jose Baez doesn't defend Casey Anthony anymore? Does that give credence to what I'm saying?

He knows she's guilty. He just made his claim to fame on a little girl's life.


katie8753 said...

One more thing.

ResG. Mr. Dill already said that they're not going to pursue any claims that Tex made on those tapes due to budget constraints. So what's your point?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

This is AWESOME!




katie8753 said...

Here is poor Travis Alexander in the orange shirt having fun before he was stabbed, shot and mutilated by his "girlfriend--non girlfriend".

Men...take care....


Look at it quick. It keeps disappearing.

Jodi Nefarious and her "legal dream team". HA HA.

katie8753 said...

You can see Captain Bligh passing through with blond hair.

katie8753 said...

Bottom line is the legal system sucks. It's always about the defendants and their rights.

Where are the victims' right?

The victims don't have rights...only the defendants.

The victims don't have the right to live...only the defendants do.

That sucks ball sweat....

katie8753 said...

Shorty Shea had the right to live. Until Charles Manson decreed otherwise.

Bruce Davis was one that made sure that Shorty was dead.

Why does Bruce get a chance to live, when Shorty didn't? I don't get that.

katie8753 said...

Travis was only 32 years old. He was looking for a wife.

He was stabbed 29 times, shot in the head and had his neck almost severed down to the spinal cord.

He was then dragged back to the shower area and had water sprayed on his body to wash away blood.

These injuries are as bad or worse than the Manson Family injuries on victims.

Lawyers can talk all they want. The truth will always stand.

katie8753 said...

Bruce Davis is guilty as charged. Why do people try to change that?


Unknown said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...This is AWESOME!


The kids got good taste.I love Cheap trick.
I've seen them live in 78,85,93,2004
I've got to see them again before this decades over and continue the cycle.

Unknown said...

This kids not a powerhouse but hes not bad for never having playing the song before.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello "ResGestae".

I don't generally address fake accounts and trolls (such as yourself), but I'll make an exception.


ResGestae opened with:
"I haven't even begun to listen to Beckman, as there simply isn't any need".

This is where, I stopped taking you seriously.
Do you review books, without even reading them??


ResGestae said:
"If he (Beckman) thinks that it's politics, he's right and wrong".

You'll never know what Beckman thinks, because you didn't listen to the audio.
Evidently, you're a mindreader.

You must be one hell of a lawyer.


ResGestae said:
"Davis can get out of jail when he tells us all who murdered John Phillip Haught aka Zero aka Christopher Jesus".

Let me get this straight:
Davis must remain in jail, until he discusses a crime that he was never convicted of??? LOL

That statement is even more ignorant, than your last.

Do you always make your own laws?


ResGestae said:
"I defended a lawyer once in a disciplinary proceeding..."


Who the f#ck cares?

If you really are a lawyer, you're evidently the worst attorney in the country.


ResGestae said:
"Did you all cover this?"

Yes, we covered that.
Maybe your head was up your ass, at the time.


ResGestae said to Poirot:
"Google is your friend. Just put in "Rose Bird".

Please refrain from insulting my bloggers.


The "Tex Tapes"...

There's no statute of limitations on murder Gestae.
IF the "Tex Tapes" reveal that Davis was involved in more murders... he would be brought to justice.


ResGestae said:
"Mr. Poirot, to follow up with you, why are you taking this band of inveterate liars at their word?"


YOU (are the one) who is placing major stock in these "Tex Tapes".

And Tex, mind you... is the biggest invertebrate liar, on the planet.

You're a hypocrite.


ResGestae said:
"For a bonus freebie, back to lady justice there..."

Here's a bonus freebie for ya, Gestae:

You're not welcome on my blog.
Any future posts from you, will be deleted on-sight.

I know you're a fake account, sent from another webmaster for the sole intention of causing turmoil here.

Get Lost.

How's that for a "freebie"?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...


Please don't feed the trolls.

Ignore any future posts from "ResGestae", until I have a chance to delete them.

Thanks in advance, for your cooperation.

katie8753 said...

St. Circumstance is going to be on Brian's Star City Radio TLB program tonight. Should be good! :)

johnnyseattle said...

i fully agree Katie!
wouldn't miss the saint for all the tea in china.
nice to see him back and in the arena.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Poirot, I deleted your comment.

I don't want to throw gasoline, on any old fires.

katie8753 said...

Thanks St. Circumstance for a GREAT show tonight on Brian's TLB radio program.


KISS!!!!! :)

I used to go ride horses at a stable in Armadillo years ago and the old man that managed the stables (like Shorty) used to say:

"People always tell me to be careful, but I always say if I can't can't be careful, I'll just go home". HA HA.

I miss those days....

G'night Jugdish! :)

katie8753 said...


This guy just wanted to live life and have a wife and have children. He met a murderer who prevented that.


I just want everyone to know that a murderer deserves death.

I'm sorry to keep bringing this up, but I feel that if someone takes a life, they should GIVE a life. Their OWN LIFE.

Spend the rest of their life in prison.

Why should a murderer get out of prison and the victim rot?

Doesn't make sense to me.

MrPoirot said...

From the looks of things now each of the imprisoned Manson Family members will one by one begin to die in prison. Leslie may serve more than 60 years before she dies. Charlie probably will serve over 75 years total. Gruesome to think about, aye?

katie8753 said...

Yeah being in prison for most of your adult life has GOT to suck! It's like being stuck in high school forever.

I wonder if they lie in bed at night and have regrets.

Pat: I should have just stayed at that insurance job and babysat my drug-ridden sister's kid.

Leslie: I should have joined a convent.

Susan: I should have just stuck with the naked Satan dancing.

Tex: I should have stuck with Braniff.

Bruce: I should have stayed in Lousiana.

Bobby: I should have formed my own hippy cult.

Clem: I got out. HA HA.

Charlie: "Maybe I should have killed four, five hundred people. Then I would have felt better. Then I would have felt like I really offered society something."

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I have to admit...

I chuckled when I got to the Clem and Charlie part(s). LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

OK... here's mine:

Pat: I should have bolstered my self-esteem through electrolysis, and left it at that... LOL

Leslie: What happened to the homecoming princess?

Susan: I should have stayed in Mendocino, with the other witches... LOL!

Tex: I should have gotten in-touch with my homo side earlier...

Bruce: I should have stayed with the scientologists in Europe.

Bobby: I chose the wrong bandmates. LOL

Clem: Who's stupid now bitches? LOL!

Charlie: I was made for prison... and prison was made for me. No regrets! Semper Fi! LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Everybody play along...

What the heck... let's have a few laughs.

This is right up Leary's alley! LOL

I'll bet Stormsurge and Prokes could come-up with some real corkers, as well! LOL

katie8753 said...

Mary: It's a good thing I "snitched" on Bruce and Bobby and didn't wait on Manson to "save me".

Now I can walk around in my Himalayan Walking Shoes.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

"So much for that legal assistant job, I had waiting for me in 1990..." LOL

George Spahn:
"I've got no complaints..." LOL!

Irving Kanarek:
In retrospect, maybe I should have done something..." LOL!

Dennis Wilson:
"I've never seen herpes like THAT before..."

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Roman Polanski:
"I'm in deep mourning... I need airline stewardesses..."

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

"I still can't believe the jury bought that shit...!" Ahahahaha

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Matthew Roberts:
"I don't care WHAT the DNA says... Manson f#cked my mom at an orgy, and that's final!" LOL

Bill Garretson:
"You ain't seen nothin', till you've had a three-eyed baby starin' at ya"! LOL

Kathleen Maddox:
"I knew I shoulda sold that punk for a pitcher of beer". LOL

Colonel Scott:
"What did I birth???" LOL
"What kinda seed, am I shooting here"? LOL

Winnie Chapman:
"That's IT! Monday mornin', I'm askin' for a raise!" LOL

katie8753 said...

Tex: I tried the diminished capacity and that didn't work. I tried marrying that loser and that didn't work. I tried getting Suzanne LeBerge to get me out and that didn't work. What's left?

Bruce: You divorced me and made me look stupid. Just wait 'til I get out.

Clem: I'm sitting on the banks of the Seine having cocktails. Wish you all were here. HA HA.

Anonymous said...

"naked Satan dancing"...Heh heh. Good one Katie.

Pat: I wish I could spell...Healter Skelter...what was I thinking?

Leslie: Damien Echols gets Johnny Depp and I get John Waters? WTF?

Susan: I should have taken the plea deal....what was I thinking?

Tex: I should have joined the army and went to 'Nam. The dope is cheap and the killins free.

Bruce: I should have come clean 40 years ago, I might be out by now....what was I thinking?

Bobby: Kenneth Anger's couch is looking pretty good right now...what was I thinking?

Clem: I regret it when I'm jammin' with my band and some asshole in the back yells out "PLAY HELTER SKELTER!".

Charlie: Maybe I should have listened to the Bee Gees instead of the Beatles. Those Gibb brothers would never have enticed me start a race war.

katie8753 said...

JEFF!!!! I'm laughing my ass off!!! Good stuff!!! HA HA HA HA!

How's this:

Roman & Clem run into each other in "a small town in France". All the 13 year olds better look out. There might be a "hot tub" somewhere. LOL.

katie8753 said...

The Bee Gees! HA HA HA. I'm still laughing over that one!!

Or maybe Charlie should have been listening to the Association. LOL.

Along Comes Mary. HA HA.

katie8753 said...

OK I'm gonna sign off now. This time change gets me every time. Carry on as you will. I LOVE it! :)


louis365 said...

Will you leave me in the dark?

beauders said...

i just listened to the beckman interview and have come to the conclusion that davis was denied parole by brown because he and the district attorney's office want information on the gaul/sharp murders. davis was most likely involved in these murders so he can't speak about them. in the early 70's davis was approached by the lapd told that he wouldn't be charged, but would get immunity if he would talk about gaul/sharp. his response was that he wouldn't talk because he wanted to protect the Family. that's why brown said he needed to explain putting the manson family first.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Beauders.

None of these folks have any possibility of being paroled.

No matter what these inmates say (or, don't say)... no matter what they accomplish... no matter how dangerous they still are (or, aren't)... no matter how much time they serve... they're not going anywhere.
They have no possibility of being paroled... zero.

As JeffreyJeff said:
"They're gonna pay, and pay, and pay".

There may be a piece of paper from 1972, which states that these folks have the possibility of being paroled... but, in reality, they don't.

In that light... the "reason" for denial becomes moot.
If it wasn't one thing, it would be another.

No doubt, the next governor will draft his own set of "reasons".

They have no intention of paroling these people.

These criminals have the possibility of being paroled in a pine box.

They need to add the words "in a pine box" to their official sentence.
At that point, I'll be satisfied.

At that point, we'll be telling the truth.

MrPoirot said...

The school teacher in New Hampshire(pam Smart) who got her students to murder her husband recieved life w/o parole. She may end up serving longer than Leslie will.
Pam Smart still denies any wrong doing. I would have sympathy on Leslie before I would have sympathy on Pam Smart because Smart was the sole cause of her demise. Leslie was brainwashed. Neither will ever get out though.

leary7 said...

Holy crap, stop the presses.
Beauders post puts a whole new twist on the Bruce Davis issue as far as I am concerned. That is the first time I have ever heard that Bruce was offered immunity for Gaul/Sharp but refused because he wouldn't go against the Family.
That is MAJOR, is it not. As I read it, Bruce didn't claim innocense but only a refusal to say anything that might involve the Family.
If Bruce still is stonewalling on Gaul/Sharp why wouldn't the Parole Board have addressed that issue? If Bruce did indeed refuse to cooperate into the Gaul/Sharp investigation in the early 70's and has continued that refusal all these years then that would be reason enough for me to deny parole and so I would have to shift my position on Brown's decision.
That indeed was news to me. Thanks Beauders.

MrPoirot said...

Gaul/Sharp were murdered Nov 1, 69 in LA. Bruce Davis went to England late in November 69. He returned sometime early December 69.

MrPoirot said...

Oops, Gaul/Sharp murdered Nov 21, 69. Davis then leaves for England.

bruce is somehow mentioned in every unsolved murder investigation from So Cal to England. He was said to be the guy most family nembers feared the most.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Leary,

Out of respect for Beauder’s extensive knowledge of TLB, I went back and re-read Governor Brown's “Parole Release Review” over at Cielodrive.com

I’m not going to reproduce the entire document for you… I’ll leave that to your own reading.

Suffice it to say…
The document outlines quite specifically, what Brown means, when he states that Davis “championed the family’s interests”.

One small excerpt:
“The record indicates that Davis fully embraced and championed the Family’s distorted values and goals, and was willing to protect the Family’s interests at all costs. He murdered Mr. Shea to silence him, helped kill Mr. Hinman to fund the Family’s activities, and threatened to kill Danny DeCarlo for testifying against another family member” (i.e., Beausoleil).

Brown “fleshes out” this concept of “championing the Family’s interests” at good length, and in specific detail.
Brown leaves little room for ambiguity. (Again… I won’t reproduce the entire document for you here).

The document also gets quite detailed, regarding how Davis (specifically) “hasn’t shed enough light on his involvement” in the Hinman/Shea crimes.
Again, there’s little room for ambiguity or confusion.

There’s absolutely no mention of Gaul/Sharp, The Tex Tapes or Zero‘s death, in this document.
In fact, Brown (in my estimation) doesn’t even “allude” to such topics.

Also VERY worthy of note:

Brown states DIRECTLY, that he would (in fact), deny Bruce Davis (parole), based solely on the gravity of Davis’ original crimes ALONE!

Towards the beginning of the document, Brown quotes “governing law”:
“In rare circumstances, the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole even when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness”. (Id at pp. 1211,1214)

Brown then, outlines Hinman and Shea’s gruesome murders in considerable detail.

After outlining Hinman and Shea’s murders in considerable detail, Brown writes in conclusion:
“As our Supreme Court has acknowledged, in rare instances, a murder is so heinous that it provides evidence of current dangerousness by itself. This is such a case”.

To Re-cap:

#1) Brown gets very specific, regarding his reference to “championing the Family’s interests”.
#2) He also gets very specific regarding Davis’ inability to “shed enough light on his involvement”.
#3) Brown ALSO states POINT-BLANK… that he’d deny Davis based SOLELY on the heinous nature of Hinman and Shea’s murder(s) ALONE.

“Number three” clearly “trumps” numbers one and two… and in my estimation, renders Gaul/Sharp unworthy of discussion.

Folks always read tons of shit into everything.
While I usually admire your thirst for drama… there’s no great mystery to uncover here.

If bloggers want to entertain Gaul/Sharp... the pending “Tex Tapes”... and Zero‘s death, as viable explanations for Bruce‘s denial… that’s their prerogative.
As for me… I think they’re completely wasting their time.
Brown’s “Parole Release Review” leaves little to the imagination.

Allow me to re-emphasize:
Governor Brown states directly, that he'd deny Bruce Davis parole, based solely on the gravity of the original crimes alone.
Why are we digging a hole to China, with Gaul/Sharp, the "Tex Tapes" and Zero?

Read the document, for yourself…

Folks are needlessly, re-inventing the wheel.

Peace, LS

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Sincere thanks to CieloDrive.Com for providing everyone with Governor Brown's "Parole Release Review".

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Although I didn't agree with Governor Brown's decision, I WILL give him credit (and respect) for two things:

#1) Brown's review (for the most part) remained centered on Bruce's crimes, specifically.
Brown quickly described the Tate-LaBianca murders... and he briefly outlined the concept of "Helter Skelter"... but, he never got too far afield.
Brown's review has good focus.

#2) Brown fully admits, that he wasn't releasing Davis under any circumstances.
I have to give him credit, for being upfront.

katie8753 said...

If Bruce really wants out he should have Atty Beckman delve into why Clem got out.

There's something fishy about that story.

Clem was given the death penalty by his jury, and Bruce was given life in prison by his.

Yet Clem gets out....

I for one am glad that Bret outted Clem. Serves him right.

Reminds me of a joke:

Fatty and Skinny went to bed...Fatty rolled over..Skinny was dead.

beauders said...

brown doesn't have to say why he really denied davis. he spent the afternoon at the d.a.'s office, i have a set of the gaul/sharp crime scene and autopsy photo's i'm sure the d.a. does as well. politicians are a lot like used car dealers (my father was a used car dealer so i know from personal experience)they cover and conive. the only time davis was confronted by the police about gaul/sharp was after his conviction for hinman/shea and he did tell them he wouldn't take immunity for gaul/sharp because he was not willing to snitch on the family. this is as far as i know the only time he told the authorities this.

beauders said...

where would brown have got the idea that davis was putting manson family interests above anything else if not from hearing and reading about this meeting davis had with lapd?

MrPoirot said...

Leary I don't get the impression that Gov Brown wrote the detailed review of Davis' parole reversal. It sounds more like it was heavily influenced by current and former attys in the DA's office(Bug/Kay). I don't have a problem with that but that is the distinct feeling I get from the extensive details given. Govs Brown and Swarzenegger both apparently were moved by the input they got from the DA's office.

As far as bruce not coming clean? I read or watched a recent interview with Davis where he stated he had to climb down the steep embankment 10-12 yards to find Shorty sitting with his arms on his knees and his head down in a weakened state on the hillside. At that point Davis admits he slashed Shorty's shoulder.

It was a brutal ending for a cowboy. Shorty escapes from the car; he then escapes from the parking turnout and then flees down a ravine where upon Davis came after him. There he was finished off by Davis.

I have no doubt the DA's office suspects Davis was involved in more than just the Shea and Hinman murders. Even if that belief is wrong it clearly resides till this day in the LA Dist Atty's office via Bug and Kaye. It doesn't help Davis that he was probably in England when Joel Pugh dies and that he was former friends with Doreen Gaul. It's not easy to deny there was no involvement by Davis in these deaths. After all, Davis is only just now spilling details on the two murders he was convicted of 40 yrs ago.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Beauders... Beauders... Beauders...

I'm not saying that your information in regards to Gaul/Sharp is inaccurate.

My point is that, EVEN IF Davis "divulged" information in regards to Gaul/Sharp in the 1970's (or, now), he still wouldn't have been released.

We can analyze this to death... and it's the same result.

Governor Brown decided he wasn't releasing Davis... he then sat down with the DA to draft reasons in writing, to justify his decision.

If it wasn't one reason, it would be another.
(Which you just said, yourself).

Governor's and lawyers will never exhaust reasons to keep these folks in prison, if that's their intention.

Your proposition, although mildly interesting, is moot.

MrPoirot said...

Lynyrd I think both swarzenegger and Brown would have freed Davis were it not for the DA's office. The parole board can not consider things like Gaul/Sharpe, joel Pugh but the DA can and does. The Da obviuously feels Davis' acts of violence extended well beyond Shea and Hinman. These reasons are not made up rather they have damning evidence behind them and no ther suspects.

leary7 said...

Wow. No this is what I call a heavyweight discussion.
Lynyrd, I thought your post responding to mine was one of the best things you have ever written, very well thought out and grounded in logic and reason.

HOWEVER, I must dive off the cliff and say that Beauders proposition was much much more than just "mildly interesting". At least to me.
It is interesting to me NOT as it relates to Brown's decision (you say moot) BUT as it relates to Clem's release, Bruce's proclaimed faith, Leslie's chances and so on.
One thing that is abundently clear is that both now and in the future the DA's office has much more influence on the Gov's decision than the parole board.
Brown and his advisors are smart. They obviously saw that standing on the grounds of "heinous nature of crime" would be a ton more defensible than speculating on other involvements. The former would have brought out every civil liberty junkie in the west. From a PR standpoint you can't go wrong waving the "heinous nature" banner.

Brown's decision and explanation was simply the prudent path.
But that doesn't necessarily mean it was the whole story.
Beauder's point relates to something I posted when the decision first came down. If Bruce were to take Brown's decision to heart, just EXACTLY what could he do to comply with its criticisms. In other words, how could he switch horses at this point and be "more forthcoming" about his Family involvement and support. Could he tell Brown the names and details of all the Family women he slept with?
Sorry, being flip there. But really, what could he put on the plate if he really wants to walk on the beach again before he dies. Grogan has been strolling the beaches now for 25 years. Is there anything Bruce could do or say that would get him behind the wheel of a car again?
And if there is and he is refusing to do so...why? And how does that relate to his faith? Bruce's proclaimed faith is his biggest asset. But if the DA and Brown believe Bruce is still not forthcoming about his knowledge of Family antics, then that faith has to be questioned. You can't be a legit follower of Christ and still keep dark secrets in your sock drawer.

But you are absolutely right and dead on that Gaul/Sharp had nothing to do with Brown's decision. At least on the face of it. However, given the DA's office apparent influence it seems a tad strident to dismiss Beauder's point as irrelevant.
Regardless, as you say, Peace.

katie8753 said...

Hi Leary. Lynyrd told me to tell you that he's in a meeting today and he will be getting back with you around 6pm Eastern Time.

That is all. Over and out. LOL.

leary7 said...

Lynyrd Skynyrd is in a meeting...
kinda reminds me of that "saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac" line.
No worries or hurries, neither Bruce or I are going anywhere.

katie8753 said...


leary7 said...

My only point in this discussion would be that while Gaul/Sharp clearly did not play any role in Brown's decision, whose to say how much it plays in the DA offices's attitude towards Bruce. And it seems abundantly clear that the DA's attitude has a lot more sway with the Gov than the Parole Board. Wether that is right or wrong, fair or unfair, we can argue about.
But in the end, it comes down to this - Bruce is 70 and in poor health. Let's say he has five years left on this earth and wants to spend at least a couple of them as a free man. Forget discussing what his chances are, nobody can say for sure, but what should his strategy be. It seems he needs a PR guy or a campaign strategist much more that a lawyer.
Brown will still be Gov when Bruce comes up again in 2014 but no way he changes his position unless something dramatic happens in the form of Bruce "coming clean". Matt was saying on a different thread that Bruce can't come clean because in all probablity he would be indicting himself. But WTF, at this stage he's got to roll the dice. Playing it conservative is not the way to go. No Cal Gov in his right mind is going to parole someone related to Manson. It's just to much of an unnecessary risk given that the ol "heinous nature" tag will always be there.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

OK… where were we?
Oh yeah…

Beauders came on my blog, and made the following declaration:

“I have come to the conclusion that davis was denied parole by brown because he and the district attorney's office want information on the gaul/sharp murders…”

That’s a pretty strong assertion.

Leary entered my blog, and responded as if Beauders had discovered plutonium.

Let’s back-up a few paces here folks…

When this decision fell into Governor Brown’s hands… I honestly thought, that Davis had a 50/50 chance of being approved.

Turns out… I was completely wrong.
After reading Brown’s review, it’s obvious to me, that Davis wasn’t even close.
This wasn’t even a “near miss” for Davis.

Brown cited several reasons for Bruce’s denial… and yes, he clarified what he meant by “championing the family’s interests”.

If Beauders wants to throw Gaul/Sharp on the fire, with all the other reasons Brown cited… that’s cool with me.

Yes… Leary…

It IS possible that Gaul/Sharp may have been one contributing factor (in the back of Brown’s mind), when he (and the DA) formulated their decision (to deny Bruce)… but it was one of many factors.

If Beauders thinks that Gaul/Sharp was THE deciding factor (as she stated)… I have to respectfully disagree.

Again, Beauders stated point-blank:
“I have come to the conclusion that davis was denied parole by brown because he and the district attorney's office want information on the gaul/sharp murders”.

Let’s apply simple logic to her premise:

The Governor has the right to approve, modify, or reverse the board’s decision.

If Gaul/Sharp was THE deciding factor (between Davis and the door)… and moreover… the Gaul/Sharp information was THAT important to the DA (as Beauders suggests)… it begs the following question:

Why wouldn’t Brown “modify” the board’s decision (as is, his prerogative), and stipulate the Gaul/Sharp information contingent for Bruce’s release?

I mean…
Brown (and the DA) could have cut a deal with Davis for the Gaul/Sharp information (if it was that important), couldn’t they?

They could have said to Davis:
“Look douche bag (LOL)… the only thing standing between you and that door, is the Gaul/Sharp information… and we want it NOW. You “sing” to our satisfaction… and you’re free”.

It’s a win/win.
The DA would get his valuable Gaul/Sharp information (which evidently, is comparable to plutonium these days)… and Bruce would earn his freedom.

And trust me… if Davis knew he was walking free… he'd sing like a freakin’ bird, at this point.
His singing would be so professional, he could have Beausoleil's band accompany him. LOL!

The only logical conclusion, I can draw:

Brown (and the DA) didn’t “modify” Bruce’s approval (“cut a deal“, as it were), because Gaul/Sharp WASN’T the deciding factor (between Davis and the door)…. and moreover… Gaul/Sharp ISN’T as important as Beauders suggests.
It’s evidently, not as important as recovering Shorty’s remains… that’s for sure.

Brown (and the DA) don’t want Bruce out… period.
They stated several reasons for keeping Davis behind bars.
Like I said… Bruce’s denial, wasn’t even a “near miss”.

The bottom line:
Beauders has a theory.
There may (in fact) be some substance to her theory. Gaul/Sharp may (in fact) be a concern for the Governor and DA…. but, it’s one of many concerns (at best).

I like Beauders.
She’s very knowledgable.
But, I can’t have folks coming in here, and dropping the gauntlet like that, without proof.

Peace… LS

leary7 said...

Yikes. I did not know Beauders was a woman.
With all due respect Lynyrd, let's tone it down a bit. I didn't react like platonium was discovered. I was simply stunned at the news that LAPD had offered Davis immunity in the Gaul/Sharp killings. That was a huge piece of information that I had never known about.
Again, with respect, I don't get this whole 'thrown down the gauntlet' thing. Beauders did not state her belief as fact, she started the sentance with "I have come to the conclusion". That clearly is an opinion. So are the folk who come to YOUR BLOG now to refrain from voicing opinions that may differ from yours.
There is no way Beauders or I or even you can know everything that went into Brown's decision. You can decide that Brown was transparent in his decision and laid evevrything out in his explanation. Others may choose to believe that there were additional behind the scenes discussions and factors. I am curious why you are so indignant and combative at that thesis.
If one can't postulate different thesis, what the hell is a blog for.

leary7 said...

and by the way, there is no "thirst for drama" here. As someone who writes I admit to being overly curious about human dynamics. I can call that empathy, you call it drama.
I simply try to see things from other folk's perspective. With regards to this decision I tried to imagine it from Bruce's perspective as well as Brown's and the DA's and Leslie's etc etc. Beauder's info about Bruce turning down immunity just put the whole shebang in a different color for me. Not Brown's decision per se, just the whole backstory. Sorry if that offended you.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...


I'm sure there were additional "behind the scenes" discussions and factors.

I'm not a complete fool.

Beauders' statement did not come across (to me) as mere postulation.

Beauders implied that Gaul/Sharp was THE reason (for Bruce's denial)... not simply ONE OF the reasons.
There's a huge difference.
To which I say... prove it.

And Yes... it is MY BLOG.

leary7 said...

"To which I say...prove it."

yeah, okay, justified. To which I say it could have been phrased in a more civil tone.
I still am baffled as to why you take these things so personally.
It's all just talk.

Unknown said...

Bruce Davis is not free because He was a member of the Manson Family.
If He was anyone else He'd be free now.
In My opinion the only thing that is really up for speculation is why was Grogan released?
Telling them where to find Sheas body shouldn't be enough to spring someone from that kind of sentence.
That should be something the prisoner could use at a later date in a parole hearing not an immediate release.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Leary,

If you run your own blog for a couple years, you'll have a whole new perspective.

I'm held responsible, for everything that is stated here.
If I don't contest a statement... folks assume, I agree.

This is the worldwide web.
News travels fast... and before long, I'm considered a Gaul/Sharp theorist (by association).

I don't want this Gaul/Sharp "theory" growing large on my blog, without proof.
It's as simple, as that.

Folks have to be careful, how they state things.

I get emails, from all over the world.

People from ALL walks of life, read these blogs... including law enforcement personnel.

Beyond that...
As an administrator, I have to be in control, at all times.
And yes... sometimes that requires me to be an asshole.

If an administrator is not respected on his/her own blog... you can flush the entire blog, down the toilet.
Take my word for it... without respect... things quickly become a circus.
I'll choose losing an individual blogger, over losing respect, any day of the year.
Things must be executed, that way.

I used to have the time and patience to "sweet talk" folks.
I no longer have that luxury.

If Davis killed a couple unknown gas station attendants in Oklahoma... he'd be free right now.
We're thinking WAY too far into this... and quite frankly, I'm simply exasperated.

How far afield, are we gonna get with this shit?

I'm sorry if I offended you Leary, but I'm in charge of the whole ship here.

"It is, what it is".

MrPoirot said...

Grogan was released for a very good reason: there were multiple murder convictions for Shea's death but NO BODY. The state wanted a body at any cost. This way there would be zero chance of Shea turning up alive one day and the state having the humiliation of finding out it prosecuted innocent men.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

MattP said:
"Bruce Davis is not free because He was a member of the Manson Family.

If He was anyone else He'd be free now.

In My opinion the only thing that is really up for speculation is why was Grogan released"

AMEN to that Brother!

Unknown said...

mr p.
Would you have given Grogan that same deal?

beauders said...

you're not an asshole lynyrd, i know that. my idea is just a theory, it's just when brown cited that davis was looking out for manson family interests that i remembered that meeting with deemer and another detective occurred. i believed this meeting happened at folsom or soladad prison. This is the only time i've heard davis actually put manson family interests over other interests.

MrPoirot said...

Matt P yea I'd have given him that deal. A body eliminates all doubt. It eliminates problems such as reported sightings which call into doubt the murder ever occurred. Is a murder really a murder w/o a dead body?

Unknown said...

But then you're letting a murderer loose on the streets after just a few years of jail time.
I guess they made the right choice for what they needed...as far as i know Grogans been leading a clean life but I think they could have figured out some other way to get the same info without releasing him so early....made him serve another 5 to 10 or something.

beauders said...

for those interested in the meeting davis had with ssu agents and homicide detective happened on april 19, 1973. this meeting was before he became a christian, as his conversion happened in 1974. the officers traveled to folsom to meet him.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Beauders,

Don't sweat it.
I probably over-reacted.

You're a very knowledgable and valued TLB researcher.

You may very well be correct, that Bruce's lack of cooperation regarding Gaul/Sharp hurt his chances (of parole) at some level.
That situation certainly couldn't have helped him... and that's something the DA's office, probably would remember (while discussing reasons for denial with the governor).

Gaul/Sharp probably was another "log on the fire"... or, "nail in Bruce's coffin", as it were.

I just don't think, it was the be-all end-all.

I think as MattP suggested... Bruce's association with the name "Manson" is (and will always be) his biggest obstacle.

Sorry, if I over-reacted.

Please be cautious how you phrase things.

Thanks for your continued contributions and information.

Peace... LS

MrPoirot said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
Hi Beauders,

You're a very knowledgable and valued TLB researcher.(end quote)

Poirot replies;

Agreed. Also I might add that Beauders seems to give the appearance of "dropping a gauntlet" and then retreating back into lurker land. I don't think Beauders likes to tell all she knows from her apparently extensive research since she plans on releasing it in another medium. She does not make casual comments at least as far as I've noticed so when she posts something my ears always stand up.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Beauders knows her stuff.

She interprets things much differently than me, sometimes.
But, she's nobody's fool.

She's a warehouse of facts.
That's undisputed.

Vera Dreiser said...

When is somebody gonna ask Beauders for some documentation to prove that Bruce Davis said what she's alleging he did: "it's just when brown cited that davis was looking out for manson family interests that i remembered that meeting with deemer and another detective occurred. i believed this meeting happened at folsom or soladad prison. This is the only time i've heard davis actually put manson family interests over other interests."

She "heard" this? From whom? A lot of fuss for something that doesn't seem remotely grounded in fact. Show me that I'm wrong, Beauders, I'm waiting....

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

NOW, do you see what I mean Leary?

You have to watch, how you state things.

You can't just lay down assertions, without sources and proof.

I tried to slow this run-away (Gaul/Sharp) train for two days.
That made me the bad guy, around here.

Now, Beauders is gonna have to "anty up".

I tried...

MrPoirot said...

I'll give you some evidence Vera.

Two weeks ago Gov brown was told from the LA Dist Atty that the DA had questioned Bruce Davis about Gaul/Sharpe back in the 70s. In the interview bruce stated why he wouldn't divuldge anything which was to protect the Family. Gov Brown signed his name to a parole denial in which it was stated that the DA office made sure Bruce's refusal to help the Gaul/sharp was made known to the governor. This was a major concern to the governor and led to his decision to reverse the parole granted bby the parole board.

So there you have it Vera. The Da's office knows Bruce Davis knows a lot about the murder of Gaul/Sharp. So forget about Beauders statement. It is the Los Angelos District Attorneys office who made an official statement saying Bruce Davis is withholding evidence in an unsolved double murder from 40 years ago. The governor further stated Bruce needs to ante up if he wants out.

Vera Dreiser said...

So, Poirot, I put the same question to you: Source?
I saw NO mention of Gaul/Sharpe or unsolved murders in Brown's six page decision.
If not there, where do you get this shit???
You call it "evidence" but you sure as hell haven't shown me any. My eyes are open, though, let's see it.

Vera Dreiser said...

Or just show me this document, the "parole denial" you're referencing here:
"Gov Brown signed his name to a parole denial in which it was stated that the DA office made sure Bruce's refusal to help the Gaul/sharp was made known to the governor."

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Vera,

You're wasting your time with Poirot.

Beauders typically blogs between midnight (EST) and 5am.
(i.e., in the middle of the night)

Unless today is a rare exception, Beauders won't be reading your request for another 6 hours (at the earliest).

I don't know what time zone Beauders lives in... but, I've probably communicated with Beauders during the day, a total of 3 times (in two years).

Assuming her source is not located (handily) in her back pocket... it will likely be an additional day or so, before she can provide you with evidence.
(Assuming, she has any).

You've posed a fair question.
Please give the woman, a fair chance to respond.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...


I know you're trying to be helpful, but with all due respect... this is Beauders' theory.

Unless you have compelling evidence to support Beauders' assertion, please allow her to speak for herself.

I don't need this crap, get any more convoluted (than it, already is).



(an argument, story, or sentence) Extremely complex and difficult to follow.


Vera Dreiser said...

(Sorry, didn't mean to post same comment twice. Don't know how that happenned. Would delete it if I knew how but don't, so feel free to if you can.)

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

No problem...
It's deleted.

MrPoirot said...

Lynyrd the parole document for Davis has some very damning statements coming straight from the DA in LA. The DA is blatantly saying there are criminal issues seperate from and in addition to Hinman/Shea involving Davis. This is the first time this has been officially stated publically in writing by the DA. This is official verification that the DA has more on Davis than Hinman/Shea.

Vera Dreiser said...


That's a far cry from: "Gov Brown signed his name to a parole denial in which it was stated that the DA office made sure Bruce's refusal to help the Gaul/sharp was made known to the governor."
"Stated"? For real?
C'mon, everything you just wrote --in response to MY challange, not Lynard's -- is purely subjective and speculative. Brown makes no references to murders besides those for which Davis was convicted. That's a reaaaaaal loooooong stretch you made there, chief.
Nice try, but far from persuasive. Or, why don't you do this: go back to the document and pull one -- just ONE -- statement that you believe refers to murders involving Davis seperate from Hinman Shea.

MrPoirot said...

I can do better than that Vera but I'm trying to avoid dropping an iron gauntlet. I'll have to drop it somewhere else.

Vera Dreiser said...

Yeah, that was convincing.
(You were right, Lynard. Shouldn't have wasted my time).

beauders said...

well i never intended for this controversy to happen. i got this information mainly from brett. when i first wrote about this i said i believed that brown used information he received from the d.a.'s office to make his decision and that decision was based on the open gaul/sharp murder investigation. i was not with brown that day, this is my own personal opinion based on twenty plus years of research of taking one bit of information writing it down and adding to it one bit at a time. i would not put out anything i did not believe, i am very careful, since writing an encyclopedia means facts. when presenting theory i always state so.

beauders said...

i am now going to quote brett and in disclosure just want all to know i worked with brett in writing his section on davis but i did not help him in his research.
"On April 19, 1973 bruce davis was interviewed by Special Services Unit agents and detectives regarding an unsolved double murder case from 1969. The ssu of the california department of corrections received a request from the l.a. police department to solicit davis' cooperation in relating to what is known about a brutal double homicide case of two younf scientology students doreen gaul and james sharp. investi-gators believed davis knew the female victim and was peripherally involved or knowledgeable as to the identity of the killers. detectives had also received in-formation that davi lived in the same scientology boarding house as gaul and had dated her or been physically involved with her. They also believed that davis was angry at her because she started dating a black man.

Vera Dreiser said...

And the part about Davis "looking out for the Family interests" refusing to take a deal because he didn't want to turn in his friends, Beauders, where is that part???

Vera Dreiser said...

(this is ridiculous).

Vera Dreiser said...

(good night. I'm outta here).

beauders said...

the ssu was asked to interview davis and solicit his cooperation in the investigation, with a promise of immunity from prosecution. a reporting agent reviewed davis' file which revealed he had been asked once to testify against charles manson and had refused to, referring to his 'love'for manson. during the interview at folson prison, davis denied knowing doreen gaul and stated the nine girls he was intimate with, while living at thetan manor, he could presently account for seven being alive and two had left the country. he disclaimed knowing of any crime such as the double homicide involved. in general he expressed a posture of non-cooperation and noted that a guarantee of immunity from prosecution was not impress-ive to a person already serving two life sentences on two murder convictions. the interview was trying serveral methods of trying to get davis to open up.

beauders said...

this investigation into davis started on march 26, 1973 after a special agent met with lt. earl deemer, the detectives supervisor in the case. Lt. deemer, the detectives supervisor in the case. Lt. deemer advised that the investigation indicated the likelihood that davis may have been directly or indirectly involved in the killings. it was believed that davis knew who the resposible were.
lt. deemer said in an interview many years later that the information came as a result of several interviews with people living in the same house and who were close to doreen gaul. they had been working on the case for three years."

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

now vera i suppose you're going to have a problem with what i have wrote. people like you always do. i have spent two hours on this that i don't really have, but did because lynyrd seems to be stressing about all of this. if there is nice weather where you live vera why don't you go take a walk and calm down. also you should ponder the phrase "you get more flies with sugar than vinegar. you are a very nasty sarcastic person vera and lynyrd this is one reason i would never do what you do with this blog it is just not worth dealing with the crazy mean people. i come to these blogs because i periodically learn something. i don't give a shit about who's feuding with who, who's debating what, and all the other bullshit that goes on here. vera again go get that walk in it might do you some good.

Vera Dreiser said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vera Dreiser said...

Well, Beauders, all you had to do was say your source was Sanders (which you STILL haven't done). And regardless, reading the Sanders passages quoted by you (w/out attribution) we STILL see that Davis DENIED any knowledge or responsibility for the Gaul/Sharp murders, not, as you wrote in your OWN words in your first post about this, that when, "in the early 70's davis was approached by the lapd [and] told that he wouldn't be charged, but would get immunity, if he would talk about gaul/sharp. his response was that he wouldn't talk because he wanted to protect the Family."
That type of interpolation of the facts by you and others on these sites, is why I rarely come to them anymore. It's called twisting the facts to suit your conspiracy theories.

Vera Dreiser said...

And as for my vinegary attitude, well, my deepest apologies, but that's just my default reaction to misrepresentations of the truth. Nothing personal.

beauders said...

sanders was not my source brett is. if sanders was his source i am not aware of that. brett was very careful in his research as english was not his first language and i would assume used police department notes and records, but assume is the important word.

Vera Dreiser said...

Well both Brett and Sanders used the same Gaul/Sharp reports you quoted from in your passages (above) and back to the main point of all this: nowhere in those reports is Davis reported as saying or indicating he knows but won't tell about the murders of Gaul and Sharp because of his allegiance to the Family. He clearly states -- reread the passages -- just the opposite! That he knows nothing about the murders and didn't know Gaul or Sharp. Your original (and repeated) posts claimed he admitted knowledge but wouldn't share it out of allegiance to the Family.
That's a huge misrepresentation of the content of those police reports!
And THAT'S what I object to. Nuthin more, nuthin less.
You are spreading misinformation that gets picked up and carried forth as fact. And that ain't right, is all.

beauders said...

i never never never said that davis told the ssu that he knew about the gaul/sharp murder but wouldn't talk because of family interests, i wrote
"in the early 70's davis was approached by the lapd told that he wouldn't be charged, but would get immunity if he would talk about gaul/sharp. his response was he wouldn't talk because he wanted to protect the family." where did anyone get the idea that davis that he knew about the gaul/sharp murders but he wasn't going to talk? davis was pretty stupid in those days, but not that stupid.

Vera Dreiser said...

You're parsing words my friend. This is what you wrote:

"in the early 70's davis was approached by the lapd told that he wouldn't be charged, but would get immunity if he would talk about gaul/sharp. his response was that he wouldn't talk because he wanted to protect the Family."

The implication, whether intended or not (and I know you'll say it wasn't and I don't believe that) is that he wouldn't talk about Gaul/Sharp to protect the Family -- when, in fact, according to passages you quote later he actually said he knew NOTHING about(IE: "disclaimed") Gaul/Sharp.
So play your games here, I'm bored and done with this.

beauders said...

blah, blah, blah

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

Davis was not only questioned about the Gaul/Sharpe murders but he was also suspected in the Zero & Pugh murders. Look it up.

He was questioned about the Gaul/Sharpe murders. It was mentioned in both Bret's bio and Sanders' book.

Who knows where it came from?

Bottom line is what Lynyrd said. You can't keep someone in prison with suspicion.

Why don't y'all just drop it?

Vera Dreiser said...

Classy exit line Beauders.
And Katie, what you said is news to no one and totally irrelevant to the conversation, but you're right, I got the answer I was seeking from Beauders, Bruce never admitted to anything abt Gaul/Sharp, despite what she'd written at the top of this thread, so, yeah, so it's dropped. Finished. Expired.

katie8753 said...

Well thanks Vera for insulting me and Beauders.

I would love to do a one on one with you Vera, but you seem to disappear into nothingness for eons at at a time.

Too bad we can't do a vis a vis for a time frame. I'm sure you're afraid you'd lose.


katie8753 said...

Vera, I'm waiting for your answer..... (foot stamping)

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

vera you're just spinning in circles and trying to cause trouble. i gave you proof of what i wrote and yet you accuse me of lying. it is not my fault you assumed something. now you're making a fool of yourself by not apologizing and letting it go. the fact is you were wrong.

katie8753 said...

Vera I'm waiting on your answer

You rag-tagged this crap, now answer......

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

Well it looks like we finally took the trash out. LOL.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

MrPoirot said...

katie8753 said...

Bottom line is what Lynyrd said. You can't keep someone in prison with suspicion. (end quote)

Poirot replies:

But they can rearrest Davis and charge him for Gaul.Sharp the second he steps out of prison if the governor paroles him.