At parole hearing, Manson acolyte said she would have killed babies
Leslie Van Houten with her attorney before her parole hearing in Chino, California, on April 14. Photo: AP
California parole officials foolishly recommended a former Charles Manson disciple for release — even after she admitted she would have killed babies during her murderous 1969 rampage.
During an April 14 parole hearing, Leslie Van Houten, 66, went into graphic detail about her despicable role in the savage murders of a wealthy married couple in their Los Angeles home on August 10 that year.
Presiding Commissioner Ali Zarrinnam grilled Van Houten about her sick bloodlust, “You would have done anything at this point, right? If there were babies in the home, would you have killed babies, newborns, toddlers?”
Van Houten responded: “I think I would have if he’d have said,” referring to Manson, according to the 210 page parole board transcript exclusively obtained by The Post.
The gray-haired femme fatale never recanted or took responsibility for her shocking statement, saying instead that she had “surrendered completely, morally, ethically” to Manson.
Yet, parole officials have paved the way for Van Houten to be released from the California Institution for Women in Chino, Calif.
Governor Jerry Brown has the final say on whether she will be released. His decision is expected in the coming months.
During the seven hour parole hearing, Van Houten gave a chilling blow-by-blow account of the couple’s slaying at the hands of her and her accomplices, Patricia Krenwinkel and Charles “Tex” Watson.
Van Houten, then 19, said it started with Manson and “Tex” breaking into the Los Feliz residence and tying up Leno, 44, – a supermarket owner – and his wife, Rosemary, 39.
Manson ordered his brainwashed crew to make the killings appear less “gruesome” than the night before when he had ordered the murders of five other people, including Roman Polanski’s pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, Van Houten testified.
“[Tex] told Pat and I to go into the kitchen and get knives, and we took Mrs. LaBianca into the bedroom and put a pillowcase over her head,” Van Houten said.
“I wrapped the lamp cord around her head to hold the pillowcase on her head. I went to hold her down,” Van Houten testified.
At that moment, they could hear the “guttural sounds” and “struggles” of Leno while he was getting butchered in another room, Van Houten said.
Rosemary “jetted forward and started calling his name saying what are you doing,” Van Houten said. “And I tried to hold her down more, and Pat went to stab her on the collarbone and the knife bent.”
Watson showed up at the door and Van Houten told him that “we can’t kill her, it’s not working,” she said.
He then handed a knife to Van Houten and told her to “do something,” she said. “And I stabbed Mrs. LaBianca in the lower torso with the knife he gave me. Coroner’s reports say between 14 and 16 [times].”
Van Houten was convicted in 1971 for the LaBianca murders and sentenced to death.
Manson, 81, is also serving a life term with parole for murder along with several other accomplices.
Read Leslie Van Houten’s full parole board transcript:
http://nypost.com/2016/05/03/at-parole-hearing-manson-acolyte-said-she-would-have-killed-babies/
During an April 14 parole hearing, Leslie Van Houten, 66, went into graphic detail about her despicable role in the savage murders of a wealthy married couple in their Los Angeles home on August 10 that year.
Presiding Commissioner Ali Zarrinnam grilled Van Houten about her sick bloodlust, “You would have done anything at this point, right? If there were babies in the home, would you have killed babies, newborns, toddlers?”
Van Houten responded: “I think I would have if he’d have said,” referring to Manson, according to the 210 page parole board transcript exclusively obtained by The Post.
The gray-haired femme fatale never recanted or took responsibility for her shocking statement, saying instead that she had “surrendered completely, morally, ethically” to Manson.
Yet, parole officials have paved the way for Van Houten to be released from the California Institution for Women in Chino, Calif.
Governor Jerry Brown has the final say on whether she will be released. His decision is expected in the coming months.
During the seven hour parole hearing, Van Houten gave a chilling blow-by-blow account of the couple’s slaying at the hands of her and her accomplices, Patricia Krenwinkel and Charles “Tex” Watson.
Van Houten, then 19, said it started with Manson and “Tex” breaking into the Los Feliz residence and tying up Leno, 44, – a supermarket owner – and his wife, Rosemary, 39.
Manson ordered his brainwashed crew to make the killings appear less “gruesome” than the night before when he had ordered the murders of five other people, including Roman Polanski’s pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, Van Houten testified.
“[Tex] told Pat and I to go into the kitchen and get knives, and we took Mrs. LaBianca into the bedroom and put a pillowcase over her head,” Van Houten said.
“I wrapped the lamp cord around her head to hold the pillowcase on her head. I went to hold her down,” Van Houten testified.
At that moment, they could hear the “guttural sounds” and “struggles” of Leno while he was getting butchered in another room, Van Houten said.
Rosemary “jetted forward and started calling his name saying what are you doing,” Van Houten said. “And I tried to hold her down more, and Pat went to stab her on the collarbone and the knife bent.”
Watson showed up at the door and Van Houten told him that “we can’t kill her, it’s not working,” she said.
He then handed a knife to Van Houten and told her to “do something,” she said. “And I stabbed Mrs. LaBianca in the lower torso with the knife he gave me. Coroner’s reports say between 14 and 16 [times].”
Van Houten was convicted in 1971 for the LaBianca murders and sentenced to death.
Manson, 81, is also serving a life term with parole for murder along with several other accomplices.
Read Leslie Van Houten’s full parole board transcript:
http://nypost.com/2016/05/03/at-parole-hearing-manson-acolyte-said-she-would-have-killed-babies/
67 comments:
So Leslie admitted she'd kill babies in this hearing, and that's what got her out??? That's strange.
It's the final "blame Charlie" card, and it seems to have worked so far.
I haven't read the entire hearing, and probably won't get to until tomorrow sometime, but she said that she stole Rosemary's clothes because "Tex told her to under Charlie's orders". This is different from her previous testimony that she said "she gave Tex her jeans because his were dirty".
I'm going to read the testimony to see how long the family got to speak. Evidently Leslie's mouthpiece objected to Louis Smaldino being there. Why? Who knows?
More later....
That ridiculous stuff about Leslie giving Tex her jeans is ludicrous. She stole Rosemary's clothes because she wanted to. End of Story.
Oh wait, and she also said the only remorse she felt was that she couldn't kill like Tex & Pat!
What kind of parole board would say okay to that???? Gov Brown will certainly veto it.
Sorry horseteeth, you're gonna have to find another reality show mouthpiece for next time.
katie8753 said...
Oh wait, and she also said the only remorse she felt was that she couldn't kill like Tex & Pat!
What kind of parole board would say okay to that????
Sometimes, you play ignorant and though we don't know each other, I have to say ¬> it does you no credit. Because I don't believe you are ignorant.
You know, you don't have to place people's comments totally out of context or attempt to bring yesterday into now in order to show what nasty fruit was lingering in the Family basket. You don't need to make it seem like something that someone said or felt in 1969 still applies, especially when it's plainly obvious that statements they make or made about how they felt at the time of the murders are against the backdrop of them stating that they don't feel that way now and have not done so for many years.
We get that you hate Leslie Van Houten. You've stated that on these pages before. We get that there is nothing whatsoever on this earth either now or before the end of time {be it hers, ours or time itself, if you happen to believe in the end of the world as we know it} that she can ever do to cause you to approach her in anything other than a totally biased manner. We get that.
Personally, I don't much care whether you hate and detest her or love her to the max. Though I have my own opinions about messing with someone's name or constantly making derogatory comments about their appearance, that's neither here nor there, for that is often the way it is in cyberspace.
But I do think that one should take into account that people are still interested in this case and while we may flit from one subject to another and never remember what's been written elsewhere, there may well be others who will form some of what they go onto think from what they read in these archives. For these sites are precisely that ¬> archives.
The parole board were there to try to determine whether or not a murderer that murdered 47 years ago and has been in jail all that time {except for 6 months in the late 70s prior to retrial} was suitable for a recommendation for parole. How could any sane person even begin to look at that possibility without having some idea of how the murderer felt at the time of the murders, in the immediate aftermath and as the years have gone by ? It's important, nay, crucial to know that when 19, Leslie Van Houten would have killed babies had the situation presented itself. Important, because her position now and for 40 years is that she would not do so currently. That's how you have some idea of how to determine how far a person has travelled. One hears it in religious circles all the time. Gratitude to God for change because the person knows what they were capable of. There are former presidents and prime ministers and the like that become statesmen after violent pasts and will tell you of the kind of lengths they would have gone to had their particular 'struggle' gone on. Nelson Mandela would have gone further, a lot further, than sabotaging military installations.
In answer to the question "what kind of parole board would say okay to that ?" ¬> a sensible one that took seriously what it was doing.
Well Grim, I actually don't hate Leslie personally. I hate what she did and I hate it that she thinks she deserves to get out.
It appears that she's saying things in THIS parole hearing that she hasn't said before. I don't know what anyone else thinks, but it makes me think that she's had plenty of time to come up with new answers in hopes that she finally has the right ones.
Or am I missing some kind of paragraph????
If I was on any parole board and a convicted murderer said that she would kill babies if asked to, and that she only had remorse that she wasn't more of a vicious killing machine, I doubt that would make me feel all warm and fuzzy towards the release of such a person.
But hey...that's just me...
It's amazing to me in today's world how people get labeled. If you don't agree with the liberals, you're a "hater". The only people allowed to have an opinion are the liberals.
Not so in my world. My opinion counts. To me anyway.
I said Leslie has big teeth.
And Leslie went into a woman's home, tried to bind her up with a pillow case and a lamp cord, laughed at her when she got disoriented, helped hold her down, listened to her cry out when she heard her husband being killed, listened to her husband drawing his last breath, saw her fight with all her might and realized that she and Pat were useless assassins, called in Tex to finish the job, "did something" when she was order to, according to her, stabbed the complete stranger in the back "14 to 16 times", wiped the house down for fingerprints, rifled through the woman's closet, while standing over her dying body, hearing the guttural sounds of her dying, picking out a cute outfit, enjoying chocolate milk and cheese from the dead folks fridge, flirting with a boy to get back to the ranch, burning Rosemary's clothing the next day, and laughing about what she did for MONTHS afterward.
And now she's saying she would have killed babies. And that she only had remorse because she couldn't kill as good as Tex & Pat.
But I'm labeled as a "bully". And Leslie is a Saint??? I wonder how anyone figures that!
There is a long line of Leslie admirers, to which I guess if you want to join the throng, you have to get in back of the line.
That old lady must know voodoo.
Well I read through most of the parole hearing and Leslie again recounts how her parents divorce hurt her, yada yada yada, and she recounts how her mother made her get an abortion and it really upset her, because she wanted that baby to have a family.
But...HELLOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! She said she would kill babies if Manson said.
That doesn't make sense to me. But no sense makes sense, right?
Her attorney (mouthpiece, it's a slang, not an insult) says that Debra Tate can't be there. The parole board says she can. That's a moot point. I'm not sure why all of Leslie's attorneys say Debra Tate can't be there, when obviously, she can, because she is there!
So please future attorneys, or present attorney, don't waste everyone's time on saying that Debra can't be there. Might cut down on 5 minutes of stuff.
And finally, if the liberals in the State of California hadn't outlawed the death penalty in 1972 these people would have been dead by now.
But instead now they have to worry about old prisoners costing too much money for medical conditions. And now they're putting one foot on their butts and the other on the door jamb and saying "get out".
That's why these people are getting recommendations for parole. Because the State of California is tired of paying all their medical and dental costs.
I was just thinking, if they kick all those Manson killers out because they're old, maybe they can meet up at Barker's Ranch again, but this time, it's not a black and white war, it can be several different things. I can think of a lot of different things.
We'll have more fun with that later. LOL.
I hesitate to harken back to my days as a high school algebra teacher, but parole really comes down to Point A and Point B and the journey between.
Point A for Leslie is the night of the LaBianca murders - who she was at that moment and what she was capable of. I suppose Grim is right in that the parole board needs to understand Point A in its entirety but personally I think they focus to much on weening out the gory details.
Point B is who Leslie is today which is easy enough to determine not only with her testimony but all the behavioral and psych reports that are available.
What is interesting obviously is how the factor of 'notoriety' effects the formula. Will Mark Chapman ever be paroled? Will David Berkowitz? The other factor with regards to Point A is the intensity or severity of the act. Leslie loses as many points of consideration for that as she does for the notoriety thing.
Clearly, the ever passionate Katie feels that Point A should always trump Point B. That is a conservative perspective and most certainly a valid one. That is why Brown refused to allow Bruce out - citing the heinous nature of his acts. Notoriety should NOT be a factor in a Parole Board's determination, but the 'heinous' factor almost has to be given the human nature of the parole board.
I think we all agree pretty much that Leslie is not threat to society today. Not to put words in her mouth, but what Katie seems to be trumpeting is the proposition that our society cannot and should not allow anyone - no matter how reformed they seem - who has committed a heinous atrocity to walk free again amongst us.
We've been asking the same question for forty years with regards to Leslie - as a society can we, should we, allow a heinous act committed at the age of 19 and undeniably under "reduced" capacity to define a person for the rest of their life.
The answer probably breaks down along conservative/liberal lines - but the truth is that it is really a spiritual issue. As I've said before - redemption or retribution. The Bible contains both. It's a personal choice.
I may not always agree with Katie but I sure as hell respect her passion. Sing it loud, Katie.
the 'killing babies' question...that was a cheap grandstanding attempt by the board member to trap Leslie in a contradiction. Leslie has been saying for forty plus years now that she was under complete control of Charlie. If she were to have answered that query in the negative then the board member could have thus challenged her..."then in fact you wouldn't have done anything that Manson told you to do, you were NOT under his complete control as you have testified".
That is how fucked up the whole process is that a defendant admitting that she would have killed babies actually works in her favor in terms of substantiating her long held assertion of being a mindless zombie that night.
If nothing else in this twisted scenerio, I will always accept the mindless zombie depiction having, at that age, and under somewhat similar influences, been to damn close to it myself.
I suppose that is the ultimate lesson of TLB - how a combination of chemicals, nihilism and rage can create many a monster.
I'm pretty conservative but I see no relevance to LVH's state of mind back in 1969 with what she COULD have done then to her state of mind or suitability for parole now. On the other hand, I see no necessary reason for LVH getting out either. She is asking for something that does not need to be given and which she has no right to expect. I see nothing wrong on its face with someone serving their entire life in prison for a murder.
Hi Leary! Hi Stormy!
I think as well as looking at the gravity of the crime, they should look at the pain and suffering of the victims.
In Arizona (don't know about California) they have a stipulation that if the crime was conducted in a cruel manner and the victim most likely felt horrendous pain it warrants the death penalty.
I think that in these parole hearings, it should be taken into account the horror that these victims felt, in particular the LaBiancas, because we're talking about Van Houten, and the horrendous pain they suffered, not only being stabbed to death, but having their home invaded, hearing each other die, and ultimately having their bodies desecrated with weapons, most likely from their own kitchen.
I would think that would be used to weigh against parole a lot more than the personal rehab the killer has traversed during the years of incarceration.
Some crimes are just not excusable. And if a death sentence is not appropriate, then spending life in prison is a just substitute.
The law is the law. You can't bend the law because you don't like it. It's against the law to kill people. And there are certain crimes that are so horrendous that you just can't wipe the slate and say "after 40+ years, now it's okay".
What signal does that send people? That it doesn't matter what kind of murder you execute, that if you're good in prison for years, that you will get out?
That's not the signal that should be sent. Not now, not ever.
Jodi Arias is a prime example of this. She's a dangerous criminal that should never be in public again. Yes, she has friends like Leslie Van Houten, but what criminal doesn't? I can't even enumerate them. Even Scott Peterson has women writing him!
Why? Who knows?
Does it mean Jodi should get out someday? ABSOLUTELY NOT! She was sentenced to live in prison for the rest of her life. If some fluke allows her a chance for parole, should she get out? ABSOLUTELY NOT! She's a dangerous psychopath and she should never be around people in general again.
That's how I feel about these killers. They inflicted horrific FEAR, pain and suffering on their victims. The very thought that they SHOULD be allowed to get out is foreign to me.
Example: If I accidentally ran over someone in my car, through no fault of my own, no action of my own caused any of the destruction, an instantaneous act of the victim to be in front of my car, I would NEVER forgive myself. Even if I had no fault, I would live the rest of my life knowing that because of ME, another person was dead.
I would never be able to live with myself, and would never ask for anyone to forgive me, because I could never even forgive myself. I would live in my own personal prison for the rest of my life.
That's how I feel about these people. But what they did was NOT accidental. It was on purpose. Why do they subject everyone to this parole thing? Why don't they just buckle up and take it? Realize that what they did was wrong. Know that they were receiving a just punishment. Life in prison.
That's what makes me mad when these people try to get out. If they would just stay put, realize that they did something incomprehensible, they were the reason people are dead now, they are the reason that families cry at night, and if they would just bow their heads and pray for forgiveness to God, and just sit still and stay put.
Then, and only then, would I see them in a different light. That maybe they understand the horror of their crimes.
But all of this whining to get out of prison, makes me know that they are still selfishly thinking of themselves.
Katie, it looks like you're favorite inmate Jodie Arias is getting married.
Beauders thanks! Holy Lolita! Is it to a man, a woman or a pug? Nevermind...to the Batmobile!! HA HA.
Let me train that newlywed to only shower with his/her/its eyes open. And to never plan on going to Cancun without her. Or it's curtains I tell you...curtains...
katie8753 said...
I actually don't hate Leslie personally. I hate what she did and I hate it that she thinks she deserves to get out
Well, back last July you stated:
If you haven't figured it out by now, I hate Leslie Van Houten.
Just to make that clear if it wasn't already
That came after 6 or 7 rather negative posts about her inability to conceive, her bewitching of men, her school popularity waning and you stating that you felt sorry for Pat after what she went through during her teens. Almost everything you've subsequently said about Leslie has had this, um, edge to it that frequently includes something about her appearance. With you openly stating you hate her, it's pretty hard to reach a different conclusion !
When you say you hate what she did, you make it seem almost as though anyone that supports her or chooses to be reasonable and balanced about her doesn't hate what she did.
Reading through the transcript of her hearing, I don't get the impression that she thinks she deserves to get out. The law of the land entitles her to parole hearings, regardless of whether she wants them or not. That means that somewhere in the law there is a provision for early release for someone on a long sentence and parole for someone on a life sentence.
I don't believe it's just a matter of cutting down the prison population either because if that was the case, would not Bobby, Bruce and Tex would be hearing favourable noises ?
It appears that she's saying things in THIS parole hearing that she hasn't said before
I thought that was fascinating. She provided a whole lot of intriguing detail that I've never heard before. Sometimes, just little things, like saying that the LaBiancas were sitting on the couch when she entered the house or major league things like what she said about Pat and her not really wanting to be around her and why. I thought that was a bombshell. As far back as 1978 there was the beginnings of a small fissure opening up between her and Pat. In Pat's parole hearing that year, she was adamant that she hadn't told Leslie to wipe the house of prints and when asked why Leslie said such, she said she didn't know but that they'd have to take that up with her.
I was also intrigued by LVH intimating that Tex was assigned to look after her and that Gypsy was instrumental in her initiation into Family ways.
katie8753 said...
it makes me think that she's had plenty of time to come up with new answers in hopes that she finally has the right ones
You can hardly blame her for that though. Each few years, the parole board would tell her how wonderfully she was doing, then tell her she was denied parole for X years for this and that reason. So she'd go away for a year or three and work on those things, only for it to happen again and again. 19 knock backs for someone trying to show that they have changed from where they were at 40 years ago is no small thing.
But in a very real way, her journey is not really any different from that of any thinking person. As we get older, some of us are able to see how we may have been affected by things in our lives that we simply weren't able to see for decades. And not just negative things either.
If I was on any parole board and a convicted murderer said that she would kill babies if asked to, and that she only had remorse that she wasn't more of a vicious killing machine, I doubt that would make me feel all warm and fuzzy towards the release of such a person
Well let's look at that. She was asked if she would have killed babies and she said "I don't know." She went on to say she thinks she would have. Hardly conclusive. She cannot say for sure. The next question she is asked right after is whether or not she would have killed herself if Manson told her to. And she says "Yeah. Yeah." No hesitation. Totally conclusive. But interestingly, I've not heard anyone pick up on that.
Furthermore, she is relating to when she was 19 and now she's 66. I can tell you that there are things that I would have done at 19 had they come my way in '82 that I would not even want in my imagination now. Most real human beings that I've ever talked with over a certain age can look back at their earlier life and find things to regret. Maybe not murder, but I'm talking about a principle here. If she said she would still kill babies or that she wished that she'd been like Pat & Tex in the killing stakes, even now, then it would be a foregone conclusion before the hearing was even over. It came up a few times during the hearing, that the overriding matter at hand was current suitability. The DA woman was kind of told off for that, because she harped on about LVH being unsuitable but drew on events that were 35 years old. To say that because she had a lousy marriage partner showed that she lacked judgement and sense which would preclude her from being sensible today was frankly stupid. The DA's office have gotten away with it for 38 years, having their say at the end and dredging up all the old details. I think for the first 10~15 years they had to and were right to. I think in the next 15 or so years, it was touch and go but on balance, I think they couldn't be faulted for taking that route. But they have played themselves out. They've left themselves with little to say and if anyone can actually be said to be keeping the Manson flame burning, it has largely been them. It was only a matter of time before someone on a parole board said "is this person actually dangerous ?"
Paying enough for such crimes isn't an issue because one can never pay back for a life taken.
katie8753 said...
It's amazing to me in today's world how people get labeled. If you don't agree with the liberals, you're a "hater". The only people allowed to have an opinion are the liberals
The only reason you'd be classed a hater is because you appear to hate !
You are as adept at labelling as any of those liberals you criticize. Those that don't agree with you you label as liberals, pinkos or commies.
What I observe in the West these days is a grand, age old struggle between those that espouse your kind of values on the right and those who take on more liberal values, what we'd call in the UK centre left. Both groups are as bad as each other in terms of trying to claim the moral high ground of opinion and of casting aspersions on those that don't agree with them. Go back to the few Donald Trump threads that came up recently. The way you speak of those that disagree with you, you could almost be describing yourself in your quote above.
For the record, I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative or for that matter a communist/socialist. I could be described as all of those things and none of those things, depending very much on what subject we happen to be talking about. I happen to think that most systems of thought have something useful and good floating about somewhere........and much crap. I believe that God is reflected in every system in some way shape or form but never wholly because we as human beings are so fragmented that we can only reflect shards of light while cloaking ourselves in much darkness.
And Leslie is a Saint??? I wonder how anyone figures that!
St Leslie of Monrovia ? Sounds almost historical.
There is a long line of Leslie admirers, to which I guess if you want to join the throng, you have to get in back of the line
If my memory serves me right, for the last year across 4 different blogs, I have pointed out on a number of occasions that Leslie, unlike every other one of the murderers, stood apart because she was the only person who wanted to kill beforehand and actively looked to do so. Never mind that she froze when it came down to it {hence, her holding Mrs L while Pat did the nasty and her getting Tex to come and do more nasty and Tex having to tell her to 'do something'}, beforehand she wanted to go. And while virtually every person I've heard talk about Mrs L being already dead either scoffs at Leslie but offers no proof to support their position or goes along with Rosemary already being dead, I actually pointed out that if Leslie stabbed her between 14 & 16 times and only 13 of the wounds were post mortem, it can only mean she was alive when Leslie stabbed her. She had to have been so for at least one of the stab wounds.
I'm under no illusions about St Leslie of Monrovia.
But neither am I stuck and fixated on Les the biker's moll from Spahn '69.
People change. Whether they should ever walk the streets again is another matter.
That old lady must know voodoo
Back in the late 70s/early 80s someone, I think from the DAs office said that she should only be examined by female psychiatrists because all her male ones gave her good reports that said she was adjusting well and posed a low risk of re~offending and she had obviously bewitched them with her feminine charms. So they got female psychiatrists to look at her and........they came out with the same thing. That she was adjusting well and was not a risk if paroled.
That's some mighty good voodoo.
Grim said: Well, back last July you stated:
If you haven't figured it out by now, I hate Leslie Van Houten.
Just to make that clear if it wasn't already
That came after 6 or 7 rather negative posts about her inability to conceive, her bewitching of men, her school popularity waning and you stating that you felt sorry for Pat after what she went through during her teens. Almost everything you've subsequently said about Leslie has had this, um, edge to it that frequently includes something about her appearance. With you openly stating you hate her, it's pretty hard to reach a different conclusion !
'Sup Jack, are you stalking me??? That's not a good idea. I don't remember your posts from July, should I be tracking you? Are you writing another book to be mocked, forgotten and thrown on the back of the shelf? Hells bells!! HA HA HA.
Reading through the transcript of her hearing, I don't get the impression that she thinks she deserves to get out.
Then why does she even go to hearings???
I thought that was fascinating. She provided a whole lot of intriguing detail that I've never heard before.
I'll tell you something Grimmy old boy, the things she's saying in this parole hearing are MORE LIES.
She thought of a better story. Or should I make it plainer: SHE'S LYING AGAIN. I don't know how to dumb that down anymore than that.
I think that the current parole boards are trying to get rid of the old population because they're costing too much money (true, CA law) and also I think the board is a younger generation that doesn't understand the horror of the crime.
Grim, didn't you know that Bruce got a recommendation for parole for the same reason? Doesn't mean the CA Gov has to agree.
If I could, I'd like everyone here to think like a father would think, if his daughter got into a tremendous amount of trouble.
Females, and I don't mean to be sexist, are not known for their tremendous amount of rational thinking.
I'd like all of you to think, well, my little girl got into some kinda shit, and I wasn't a gold medalist when I was young either,
I'd like to you all to think when you were young, high, mixed up and didn't really know..
Then you can come back to 2016, your older years, and pass judgement on the internet.
The only reason you'd be classed a hater is because you appear to hate !
That is absolutely not true. The world is turning liberal and if you disagree with the liberals, you're defined as a hater.
That's the truth, and if you don't know that, you're not as smart as I thought.
Well actually I didn't label you as smart, I labeled you as a ysogenous-may uck-fay, oh well.
Whether you like it or not Grim, there is a long line of supporters for Leslie and you've just gotten into the back of the line. You're not new or important, you're now just a number. Enjoy the Ooo-doo-vay.
Do the ide-step-say! HA HA HA.
Well Tom I was a gold medalist, well actually I just won a race, but I can speak for all people who didn't win a race. Actually Bruce Jenner won a medal and he turned into a girl, well actually he didn't turn into a girl, he just pretends he did, he still has a dick, he just has fake tits, but he still talks like a man and walks like a man and acts like a man, so I'm assuming he's still a man. Of course he's still a man.
He likes to pretend he's a girl. Much to his family's chagrin.
A life for a life. She was convicted of murder and in my opinion only her incarceration for the remainder of her own life will satisfy what she took.
Right on Stormy!
Katie, the concept of retribution seems to get lost in these discussions all too often. We can talk about decades spent behind bars but if a person is allowed out before they pass while incarcerated then society is essentially saying you can take someone's life and still get a few years, maybe decades in some cases, of freedom and life living. Add to that convicted murderers getting married and siring kids while imprisoned and it seems to water down both the concepts of punishment and deterrence.
I agree completely Stormy. It does seem to water down punishment and deterrence. It gives the impression that you can commit the most horrible offense and yet expect to live a nice life after spending a few years in prison and not causing trouble.
Let's not forget people, that these people committed the most horrible offenses of the century, they were intent on shocking and scaring the world, and they accomplished it, and these people should not be rewarded because they got degrees, or they didn't steal someone's lunch box.
These people committed horrible crimes against humanity, and they should just remain in prison for the rest of their lives.
Should Pat and Leslie and the others have gotten a sentence of 'life without parole' like Pamela Smart and others have. Yes, I truly believe so.
But the simple fact is that personal opinions aside we do have a judicial system that offers parole to those who meet the qualifications. Should the heinous nature of the crime and the notoriety it inspired be a mitigating factor in determining if a defendant meets the parole qualifications???
A legal purist would argue no, but human nature would argue yes.
I am by no means a Leslie groupie or supporter. But I do believe she has traveled in these forty odd years to a place where she is 180 degrees from the person she was in '69. By the letter of the law she does meet the qualifications for parole. Whether it is fair or right or just we can argue till the cows come home. But it is the law, and the letter of the law HAS TO BE applied uniformly.
I lean towards Leary's point of view.
By law, we're supposed to be considering these people for parole (in an earnest fashion).
There's really nothing more Leslie can possibly do to demonstrate eligibility, except spend more time rotting-away in jail.
Does Leslie "deserve" parole? No.
Does ANY murderer "deserve" parole? No.
The point is, Leslie (and NO murderer for that matter), "earns" or "deserves" parole.
In my opinion however, the concept of parole for murderers, is based upon some degree of forgiveness.
If we're not prepared to extend an ounce of forgiveness to these people, then quite frankly, we shouldn't be holding parole hearings for them.
Considering that point, the question really becomes:
Has Leslie met the criteria for parole based on her sentence? I'd say, probably yes.
I'd hate to see her released... but from an objective unbiased standpoint, she probably meets the criteria.
One might argue (and I might agree) that the gravity of her crime(s) alone, should be sufficient to keep her in jail forever.
But if that's the case, then she should have been given "life WITHOUT the posibilty of parole".
Having said all that...
I would NEVER consider releasing Tex Watson or Pat Krenwinkel, based on the gravity of their crimes alone... no matter WHAT they accomplish in jail.
So... in that regard... I'm a hypocrite myself.
I would extend a few ounces of "forgiveness" to Leslie and Bruce.
I say... let them rot in jail for another 10 years, and if they're still alive in 2026, let them out.
Fuck it.
As for Bobby, I'd never let him out.
I just find him very smug.
And smug, is a quality I disdain.
Tex and Pat... forget it.
I like Pat... I believe she's remorseful on a genuine level... but she was second only to Tex, in the "blood" category.
My conclusion:
No matter how much one tries to remain "objective" and "unbiased"... the "human element" creeps-in (for most of us), and it becomes a subjective matter.
For these people to truly get a "fair shake", they'd have to be judged by someone completely unfamiliar with the case.
Peace!
Hi Tom.
It's good to see you.
Ozzy and Sharon Osborne have split.
Evidently, Ozzy was cheating with some young hairdresser.
I think Ozzy is crazy.
Sharon is fucking beautiful!
She's 63 years old, and more beautiful than most women half her age.
I definitely hit that...
I didn't know that Ozzy and Sharon had split up. An article about it can be read-->HERE.
When I was in college I won a radio call in contest, my prize was I could pick any single album at National Record Mart for free. I chose "Paranoid" by Black Sabbath. One of the songs on that album I liked was "War Pigs", an anti war song. While Butler has said that "War Pigs" is "totally against the Vietnam War, about how these rich politicians and rich people start all the wars for their benefit and get all the poor people to die for them", vocalist Osbourne has stated that the group "knew nothing about Vietnam. It's just an anti-war song."
I didn't find out until a couple of years ago that the original satanic lyrics of the song were changed at the request of the record company. "The original title of "War Pigs" was "Walpurgis", dealing with the witches'sabbath "Walpurgis is sort of like Christmas for Satanists. And to me, war was the big Satan", said bassist and lyricist Geezer Butler."-->Walpurgis.
katie8753 said...
Well I read through most of the parole hearing and Leslie again recounts how her parents divorce hurt her, yada yada yada, and she recounts how her mother made her get an abortion and it really upset her, because she wanted that baby to have a family.
But...HELLOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! She said she would kill babies if Manson said.
That doesn't make sense to me
It would appear that much doesn't make sense to you. You've stated before that you're not interested in trying to understand anything about any of the Family killers. So it's no surprise to me that you can't get your head around what appears to be a paradox on one hand and an attempt to chart the beginnings of a demise that ended in murder on the other.
But having spent 33 years working with kids, many of whom were damaged long before they reached adulthood, I don't find it difficult to understand at all. Paradoxes and contradictions are more common to all of us than we care to acknowledge.
I'm not sure why all of Leslie's attorneys say Debra Tate can't be there, when obviously, she can, because she is there!
What it tells me is that lawyers don't know everything about the law, just as doctors and nurses don't know everything about medicine ~ an unqualified person may know more in a particular area than both.
In a curious way, the presence of Debbie Tate and the grandchildren of the victims may now be reaching a point where it is working against them because they've got nothing more or different to say than they said last time or the time before that or the time before that. And although no one wants to be the one to say it on the record, I suspect that there could be people on some of these parole boards that just may be thinking "this happened 47 years ago ~ you were so little; I'm finding it hard to literally believe that these events have caused your subsequent life to grind to a halt."
When Black people in the West Indies and USA bemoan slavery or the peoples of Africa or India bemoan colonization or the Native American, Aborigine or Maori peoples bemoan how their lands were taken, they often come up against a mindset that says "look, just learn to get on with your life and move on."
When Doris Tate {at the behest originally of Steven Kay, according to Ed sanders} first got involved in victim support and parole opposition, there was a place for it in the particular context of Tate/LaBianca.
Time however, is not static and feelings rarely so.
katie8753 said...
if the liberals in the State of California hadn't outlawed the death penalty in 1972 these people would have been dead by now
They might have been. We'll never know that.
I came across an interesting statement in Ed Sanders' 1993 revision of "The Family." He said that at the time the DP was outlawed in California, there were 106 men and women on death row and over the next 20 years 40 of them had been released and 6 had re~offended {none with murder though one committed a rape}. What stood out wasn't so much that 40 had been released {which in itself was a surprise} but that this was written before 1993.
At one of his parole hearings, Charles Watson was asked why he had had children and he replied that around the time he and his wife had discussed this, in the late 70s/early 80s, there was an emphasis on rehabilitation and he felt that there might be a chance that he'd get out one day.
The point being that things seem to swing from one mode of thought to another and have been doing so for at least 40 years in California.
leary7 said...
parole really comes down to Point A and Point B and the journey between
I agree with this. While there are other side issues that have their part to play, a parole board has the responsibility to determine whether the person before them is at A or B, closer to A than B etc. Charles Manson has had regular~ish parole hearings but has never appeared to be anywhere far from point A so regardless of how much he costs the state, he stays in. He's had new teeth, he's been hospitalized, he's had money spent on him but I don't hear calls for his release. Susan Atkins died in jail even though one of her family's points in asking for her release was that it wasn't going to cost the state anything because they'd bear the brunt of any cost.
Not everyone changes, not everyone changes for the better and people have been paroled and re~offended. So it's by no means a cure all. Sometimes, it may prove to have been a bad judgement call.
leary7 said...
I think they focus too much on weening out the gory details
I think that they do too but I think it is a necessary part of seeing where a person is at. Of course people lie and act, but not everyone does and the fact remains that LVH was knocked back 19 times. That alone has told her that this ain't no game and that she has needed to be able to publicly face what she did and openly and publicly speak to questioners about such a horrific aspect of her life and being.
all the behavioral and psych reports that are available
I think psychiatrists can be fooled, not necessarily easily, but they can be and cons know this. Charlie did it when he was real young. But to keep it up for 40 years, especially with all the knock backs is one heck of a feat. I don't think that Leslie would have kept it up if she was on the fritz.
the 'heinous' factor almost has to be given the human nature of the parole board
The law may be dispassionate ~ people aren't always. In Bobby's 2010 hearing, board member Anderson gives, what for me, is a most biased display. He seemed to really wear his heart on his sleeve that day and one gets a feeling of tangible dislike towards Bob from the man.
But the man is a human being and somewhere within, he had to make decisions as a human being, not a book or a computer. And in making those kind of earth changing decisions, he had little choice but to be what he was.
what Katie seems to be trumpeting is the proposition that our society cannot and should not allow anyone - no matter how reformed they seem - who has committed a heinous atrocity to walk free again amongst us
The problem I have with that though, is that she places the LaBianca killing higher on her scale than say, a murder in the commission of a store robbery. If someone rubs a person out, is the methodology really the defining arbiter of how heinous the act is ? If my Dad was shot dead during a robbery in a shop and I'm a kid and your Dad was butchered like the LaBiancas and you're a kid, the net result is the same. Two people have been murdered. Two kids have been deprived of their Dad.
Steven Parent's death tends to be seen as a lesser death almost. Why ?
redemption or retribution. The Bible contains both
It may come as a surprise to some but I have no problem with retribution. I don't believe in the death penalty but I certainly believe that criminals should be punished for their crimes. There are also some crimes for which I believe a person should be inside for life. But this is also paradoxical because my waters have been muddied by the God factor. I've said before, being forgiven by God is no guarantee of being forgiven by humanity. In fact, it's really got very little to do with humanity if God forgives a person as that's God's deal. But if people do forgive then it becomes another matter. I believe in forgiveness and I believe people can change. And this seems to dovetail with parole, which is not something that a prisoner deserves, but is something they may be granted ~ at the state's behest, incidentally.
leary7 said...
I suppose that is the ultimate lesson of TLB - how a combination of chemicals, nihilism and rage can create many a monster
I don't know to what extent this happens in the US of A but here in England it's part and parcel of the way we go about life to ask questions about how certain situations came to be. We're forever having inquiries and looking into why people think or behave a certain way. Often people don't like the answers that are arrived at and therefore deny them but more often than not, running parallel are those that do want to understand.
In TLB, the victims and their associates are certainly interesting but nowhere near as much as the killers and theirs, primarily because they are still alive {or were for a long time} and therefore afford us the opportunity to learn something.
katie8753 said...
I think as well as looking at the gravity of the crime, they should look at the pain and suffering of the victims
I don't. There are immediate problems with that because right away, Sharon Tate's death will trump that of say, Steven Parent who was blasted away in 10 seconds.
Do you remember the post that asked "did the victims feel any pain ?" I thought that was such a deep question because most of us would probably say "yes" but the truth is, we don't know what anyone felt. So we, in trying to take the victims' suffering on board, would really just be projecting our own ideas and biases.
In Arizona they have a stipulation that if the crime was conducted in a cruel manner and the victim most likely felt horrendous pain it warrants the death penalty
I take it you are talking about murder ? I'm trying to work out what murder isn't conducted in a cruel manner.
katie8753 said...
The law is the law. You can't bend the law because you don't like it
Parole is part of the law.
there are certain crimes that are so horrendous that you just can't wipe the slate and say "after 40+ years, now it's okay".
What signal does that send people? That it doesn't matter what kind of murder you execute, that if you're good in prison for years, that you will get out?
I have a certain degree of sympatico with the first part of that but 40 years isn't 40 days. That's a very large amount of time. It's not the kind of time one can just put to one side. I remember 40 years ago. A universe has happened since then. Much of the world is unrecognizable from then. You make it sound like a couple of weeks.
Parole, even after much less than 40+ years cannot be equated with saying "it's all OK now."
And the reality is, if inmates are "good" in prison, they may get out. There's no guarantee they will but it's possible. And that's an important distinction. How many people behave themselves for 40+ years "just to get out," only to stick the finger to the system ?
Does parole really send the signal that you can execute any kind of murder but don't worry, you'll be out one day ? I daresay there may be a precious few that might think that. But there may be a precious few that think just about anything.
If I accidentally ran over someone in my car, through no fault of my own, no action of my own caused any of the destruction, an instantaneous act of the victim to be in front of my car, I would NEVER forgive myself. Even if I had no fault, I would live the rest of my life knowing that because of ME, another person was dead.
I would never be able to live with myself, and would never ask for anyone to forgive me, because I could never even forgive myself. I would live in my own personal prison for the rest of my life
With all due respect, you'd get no sympathy from me. If you want to put yourself through hell for something that was not your fault, you're welcome to martyrdom.
I wouldn't recommend it.
Were I in the same position, I think from time to time I'd think about it. Guilt could not play a part in my thinking though. If I was drunk or driving too fast, that would be a different matter. But something not one's own fault or deriving from any intent ?
I'm not into self flagellation.
katie8753 said...
Why do they subject everyone to this parole thing?
I wasn't aware that the Manson Family made up the concept of parole.......
Mrstormsurge said...
I see no relevance to LVH's state of mind back in 1969 with what she COULD have done then to her state of mind or suitability for parole now
Well, it's kind of misleading, isn't it ? It's a bit like when Charlie says something to the effect that had he been out, he'd have killed 500 people or whatever it was. What LVH might have done 47 years ago is always going to be somewhat secondary to what she actually did do.
At the same time, I guess they wanted to see what depth of insight she had regarding then and I guess it helps form part of the picture regarding the journey she's travelled over the years.
She is asking for something that does not need to be given and which she has no right to expect
I think the former Manson group have come to these hearings more in hope than expectation over the past 15 or so years, especially after what happened with Susan Atkins. I know that there is some feeling that if any of them were really sorry, they wouldn't attempt parole, but that makes no sense at all to me. Parole isn't something that is pushed by the prisoner, suddenly waking up in jail one morning and deciding they don't like it so they'd better try their luck. Parole isn't a defence initiated thing. It is initiated by the state.
I agree with you, there is no necessity to grant someone parole and the parolee has no right to expect it or suppose that they deserve it. If a lifer believes they deserve parole, I would see that as an indication that they really don't get it because that would tell me a heck of a lot about their mindset. Parole to me is like forgiveness of sin by God. One can't preen around extolling their virtue and shouting about how they deserve it. Much of it's power comes from precisely the opposite place ¬> one knows one doesn't deserve it but is more than glad it has come their way.
I see nothing wrong on its face with someone serving their entire life in prison for a murder
Nor do I. In the UK, for a long time there's been this debate that "life should mean life" because what happens is that someone will be given a life sentence and then they are told the minimum amount of time that they will serve in jail. It's unlike the USA where someone may be eligible for parole because their sentence offers the possibility but they may still serve the full life term. Here, that's kind of rare. One goes into prison with a certain amount of knowledge as to when they'll be free. It's like that for most offences and life sentences aren't much different. It's almost a given that a life sentence doesn't actually mean a life sentence. I don't think that's right. It's that that is far more likely to send out the wrong message than applying for parole when you've been inside for 46 years.
The law does need to be applied uniformly but at the same time, have provision so that things can be taken on a case by case basis, if that's not a contradiction.
Hey Lynyrd, I get told I look like Sharon Osbourne all the time! LOL
katie8753 said...
If they would just stay put, realize that they did something incomprehensible, they were the reason people are dead now
Do you seriously think that they don't realize that ?
they are the reason that families cry at night
They certainly were.
I wonder, 47 years later, the extent to which that is currently true.
I wonder how many people whose loved ones were killed as POWs during WW2 still cried 40 years later.
I don't mean to sound heartless and I'm not saying none would. But I'm genuinely curious, the extent to which these sort of events affect people half a century later in a directly debilitating way.
and if they would just bow their heads and pray for forgiveness to God
Your previous statements regarding Susan, Tex and Bruce when they've done this for 35 ~ 42 years give me no confidence at all in what you have to say on the matter. When they bowed their heads and asked God for forgiveness, God forgave and then helped them on the painful journey through the realization of the extent of what they'd done.
You just said "I don't believe them."
But all of this whining to get out of prison, makes me know that they are still selfishly thinking of themselves
Whining ?
Selfish ?
Thinking of themselves ?
On the face of it there may be something in that. Except that the law that you want upheld so badly makes provision for them to apply for parole. That's the law.
It's human nature to take an opportunity that one knows one doesn't deserve ~ and you know it.
'Sup Jack, are you stalking me???
Urgh !
That's not a good idea
Some said that about David Bowie forming Tin Machine.
I don't remember your posts from July
Well, maybe you should.
Are you writing another book to be mocked, forgotten and thrown on the back of the shelf?
Will you write the foreword ?
are you stalking me??? I don't remember your posts from July, should I be tracking you?
When I read what people say when I don't know those people, their words are the only thing that give me a sense of who they are and where they may be coming from. I guess I could just totally dismiss anything you say or not even to bother to read anything you say. Which then begs the question, why bother to contribute to a blog ? There a number of ways to understand a person and in the limited way that we get to do so on blogs and forums, frankly there's not much beyond our words. I happen to be a great believer in the adage that speech is self revealing. So if someone says something one month and then completely contradicts it the next, I am going to try to find out if they've changed their position and why.
Be careful what you sign......
katie8753 said...
Or should I make it plainer: SHE'S LYING AGAIN. I don't know how to dumb that down anymore than that
I'm sure you'll find a way.
you're not as smart as I thought
I'm rather proud of that !
You're not new or important, you're now just a number
And I've got work in a couple of hours. Toodle pip !
I think it's time for what we used to call an atomic wedgie but now I guess we can call it a cyber atomic wedgie.
Grim's last post wherein he said he was going to work in a couple of hours was posted at 7:37pm Eastern Time, which would be around midnight in the British Isles. At least he claims to be from there. So I'm assuming that's the truth.
He has personalized this stuff about me, so I'm returning the favor.
You must work some kind of "graveyard shift", which could mean a variety of things. NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT! HA HA. There's probably a lot of nice people who go to work at 2am.
Anyway, reading thru my comments back to July is creepy, to say the least.
You say that the families aren't crying now for their loved ones. How do do you know that? Are you peeking in their windows? And to compare these victims' families with families of POW's in WWII is just nuts. I still cry for my mother who died of natural causes a few years ago. How much more would I cry for my mother if she had been brutally stabbed to death while she was crawling on the floor face down on the carpet with 3 hooligans making sure she was dead and dead.
That was a World War, this are HOME INVASION MURDERS! Whole nuther different thing. And don't say why is it different, because please, you must know the difference between wartime and peacetime. I'm not going to take the time to explain that, because anyone with a thought process already knows that.
Your previous statements regarding Susan, Tex and Bruce when they've done this for 35 ~ 42 years give me no confidence at all in what you have to say on the matter. When they bowed their heads and asked God for forgiveness, God forgave and then helped them on the painful journey through the realization of the extent of what they'd done.
You just said "I don't believe them."
How do you KNOW they did that? Were you in their jail cells listening? Susan is dead. Bruce and Tex are arrogant in their parole hearings. Leslie makes stuff up. That doesn't sound like they're asking God to forgive them. They haven't even asked the families to forgive them, much less God.
Grim, I know you need the last word. Not just about me, but about everyone you encounter. But you must not know me very well, or you would know that I can do this for as long as it needs be done.
Oh and "Toodle Pip" to you.
If they would just stay put, realize that they did something incomprehensible, they were the reason people are dead now
Do you seriously think that they don't realize that ?
Do you seriously think that they do????? I've got some swamp land to sell you.
katie8753 said...
Grim's last post wherein he said he was going to work in a couple of hours was posted at 7:37pm Eastern Time, which would be around midnight in the British Isles. At least he claims to be from there. So I'm assuming that's the truth.
You must work some kind of "graveyard shift", which could mean a variety of things. NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT! HA HA. There's probably a lot of nice people who go to work at 2am
I start work at 4am. I used to start at 6.30 but many years ago once my children were born, I took a decision to go in earlier so that I could spend as much time as is possible with them, pick them up from the childminder, get them back from nursery, then school, see their school assemblies, get dinner together etc. Fortunately, doing delivery work enabled that. I'm a night creature by nature so 19 years of early mornings {especially when for so long I didn't start work till 12 so didn't have to get up till 10am} has been a shock to the system.
He has personalized this stuff about me, so I'm returning the favor
There is often a tacit assumption that being "personal" is being nasty and certainly negative. It most certainly can be. But I don't see it only that way at all. Many lovely and insightful things are also personal. Many challenges and observations are often personal. I have been personal with you, not about you. Pretty much everything I've ever said in reply to you or about you has been based on something that you, personally have said. If I've made personal observations about something you've said or a way you have come across to me at that time it has never been nasty, vindictive or anything approaching such. As I said a few times when I first started frequenting these pages, that ain't my style. If you feel I've been taking jabs at you, there's not much I can do about that. For the record, I haven't. I don't deny that I am sometimes sarcastic, that springs from my opposition to whoever it was that said sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I have never thought it was. Much of it can be hilarious.
Much of what goes on in forums is personal because we are persons, that is how we are made. We're made to be personal. Whether that 'personal' is lighthearted and affectionate or nasty can only be determined from case to case. Back last summer when I said to Surgio that I could make a case for Susan Atkins not being attractive in photos but wouldn't, he called me ugly. That was personal, that was nasty. When Tom G said I looked like I was on crack from my avatar photo, that was personal but that was in jest.
Context is everything.
Anyway, reading thru my comments back to July is creepy, to say the least
For the record, I remembered what you'd said. I have a fairly good memory and I often remember things that people say. I actually count people as important enough to remember things that they say. So I remembered what you'd said. I remembered it sufficiently well to register when you said that you didn't hate LVH. Because I recalled you saying the opposite. I gave you the date and the quote simply because I like to reference where I pick statements up from if I can.
I'm intrigued as to why recalling something someone has said and when they said it should be deemed as creepy. Are you saying your words aren't worthy of consideration ?
You say that the families aren't crying now for their loved ones. How do do you know that? Are you peeking in their windows?
Hugely ironic given what was just talked about. The record is there for all to see. I did not say that at all.
katie8753 said...
to compare these victims' families with families of POW's in WWII is just nuts
Well, it might be.
On the other hand, one can compare anything with anything. Sometimes the entire point of a comparison is to put two different things side by side and see if any common ground can be found. WW2 ended a sufficiently long time ago to at least ask the question if people today who were either not born then or were very young then are directly affected and debilitated by parental or grand~parental deaths that occurred then and how that manifests itself. The emphasis of my point was on being affected by deaths that should not have happened.
How do you KNOW they did that? Were you in their jail cells listening?
How do you know Susan, Tex & Bruce didn't do that ? Have you followed them all around for nearly half a century and gained access to the inner workings of the thought police ?
That doesn't sound like they're asking God to forgive them
I listen to what they have had to say about their lives since conversion. I match that up with the experience of many characters that have undergone a similar conversion {some of whom have reneged on it somewhere down the line} as well as hundreds of people I have known that have undergone the process.....and my own life experience and conversion. While it is true that you can't always know precisely what is going on in someone's head, God challenges me to weigh up and rigorously test all matters. I have my problems with Tex. I have my problems with Bruce. I have problems with much of Susan's life as a christian. But I also know that God deals with us with a patience towards some of our foibles that is, at least to me, astounding.
They haven't even asked the families to forgive them, much less God
Doris Tate said she was not interested in forgiveness where that crowd were concerned. The LaBianca's nephew has said the same thing, more or less. Debra has intimated similar.
And I'll say it again, when one of the victims' family members does forgive, you simply cannot allow yourself to take it for what it was and have to throw in lots of anti LaBerge remarks.
That, Katie, is why I have no confidence in anything you have to say on the matter of "the murderers, forgiveness and God." It's because you don't actually discuss it, you try to shut it down by blanket bombing statements that either cannot be answered to your satisfaction or throw out any balanced but opposing view which only go to demonstrate your refusal to actually discuss it.
Strange thing is, you don't have to believe them in order to have a meaty discussion on the topic. I've had quite a few and most don't believe their conversions.
I know you need the last word. Not just about me, but about everyone you encounter
Ordinary conversations bat back and forth. So do on line ones. I happen to think that many contributors raise enough interesting points to get my thinking faculties into gear. If some of my posts happen to be the last ones, I make no apologies for that.
But you must not know me very well
♪I'm ♫♪♫sure we'll♫ be very happy♫♪♫ together♫ though♪ ! ☺ ☺ ☺
I've got some swamp land to sell you
Ah ! Just what I need to bury some of those last words that I obviously won't be needing anymore.......
sunset77 said...
I didn't know that Ozzy and Sharon had split up
Ozzy and I are both Brummies {born in Birmingham} by birth. Actually, all the Sabs are.
Ozzy did time in prison in his younger days for robbery and burglary. Good thing he never progressed in that direction........
bassist and lyricist Geezer Butler
For me, Butler {along with Martin Turner of Wishbone Ash} is one of the most underrated bassists in heavy rock. I love Black Sabbath's first 6 albums and his playing on them is deceptively creative. He was a frustrated guitarist but made the bass so much more interesting than many guitar players made the guitar. His lead bass style rarely gets any credit, which often makes me wonder. But it's his lyrics for which he is utterly underrated {again along with Turner}. Because Ozzy was such a distinctive singer and talented melodicist, many think he wrote the lyrics but he rarely did. He had the ability to Ozzy~fy the lyrics but most of them on the albums before Ronnie Dio came from Geezer. His lyrics are incredible and his breadth of subject matter across those first six albums leaves me gasping for breath. Sometimes.
grimtraveller said...
They certainly were.
I wonder, 47 years later, the extent to which that is currently true.
I wonder how many people whose loved ones were killed as POWs during WW2 still cried 40 years later.
I don't mean to sound heartless and I'm not saying none would. But I'm genuinely curious, the extent to which these sort of events affect people half a century later in a directly debilitating way.
----
in a directly debilitating way
But there’s the rub. Loss, especially under these circumstances, is never truly measurable in a directly visible way. It’s a coloring of a life, or a sad staining of reality that leaves an invisible mark, unseen by most. It cannot easily be measurable and often difficult to put into words. It can reveal itself to others through problematic behaviors, but the pain of loss is uniquely felt by that individual. It is real and should never need to justify itself. Your words,”… in a directly debilitating way” seemed to ask for proof of Loss, and it’s a bit unnerving. How does one prove they’ve been directly debilitated?
Here’s an example that seems to show the impact decades later, if I’ve posted this story before, forgive me for I know not what I remember/ forget.
I had a roommate in college whose parents and both survived the camps in WWII, believing all their family was lost. They met and married in the US, started a business and became very successful and raised 4 daughters. My roommate’s father would come down to college and take us out to dinner and such. He was a man completely energized and delighted by life. It was palpable and contagious. As someone who had studied the Holocaust, I was impressed, in a profoundly human way by his capacity for joy and beauty, despite his trauma and loss.
Later in the year, we went and spent a weekend at her parents’ house. It was the first time I had ever met her mother. Her mother did not smile one time while we were there. She was polite and an impeccable host, but there was a sadness that seeped out of the pores of her being.
I was deeply impacted by the dichotomy of their ‘presentation’ to the world. It taught me that people respond, outwardly, differently to trauma, but I never underestimated or compared the pain the parents felt at their loss, they just presented differently. Was her pain worse cuz she presented it? Was his pain worse cuz he denied it? Are those perceptions even true? How could you know that, let alone even measure it?
One of their daughters got caught up, ironically, in a Christian cult (they were practicing Jews). Did the trauma-Loss her parents went through have any impact on that? What I call Trickle Down Trauma. My roommate (the baby of the family) could drink any man under the table and rarely show evidence of it. Was she impacted by her parents’ trauma? How does one measure that? I don’t know, but I don’t doubt that what the parents went through DID greatly impact their children, whether in a “directly debilitating way” or not. But how could it not, it impacted me and I only spent hours with them.
I later found out that my roommate’s mother had found a living relative. I always hoped that made her smile.
Thanks Maude! That's a very touching story, and I had not heard that before.
We really can't compare the victims of WWII to the victims of TLB. There were millions of victims of WWII, and it doesn't begin to compare. Also the victims of WWII suffered for months and even years before finally dying.
If Hitler had been imprisoned and then for some freakish reason he came up for parole, I'd bet my bottom dollar that the victims' families would rally against parole. Just a scenario.
I can't even begin to identify with the families of the victims of the TLB massacre (and I label it a massacre because that's what it was). I've never had that happen to me, so I can't even begin to know how that feels.
When someone is taken suddenly, i.e., car wreck or murder, the people closest to them probably say to themselves "if only I had said this or that, or done this or that". It's human nature.
To say that the victims' families don't cry anymore is just ludicrous. I've had moments of reflecting back years ago and I still get a little teary eyed wishing I could go back there one more time.
I think the comparison can come when discussing loss and it's impact. And we have all suffered loss, maybe not through brutal circumstances, but loss nevertheless. I know my roommates parents are not exactly what Grim was referring to, but loss is loss. And it can impact generations.
I lost my mother to cancer almost 25 years ago. The pain can still come, most often when I am with the next generation that never got to meet and know her. I will feel my loss of not being able to watch the expression on my mother's face when one of my nieces or nephew does something funny, or loving or mischievous-all things she would have loved. I feel the loss of seeing her delighting in that. No one "sees" that loss when I feel it. I'm not sure how I could measure or quantify that.
Loss gets easier over time, but some losses, especially the theft of a loved one through someone else's brutal actions, has to leave scars that are not measurable.
Loss gets easier over time, but some losses, especially the theft of a loved one through someone else's brutal actions, has to leave scars that are not measurable.
Truer words were never spoken Maude. Thanks so much for your input.
I'm sorry for the loss of your mother. I know how that feels. It's a sweet agony that never seems to go away.
God Bless you....
Great stories, Maude. Thanks for sharing.
maudes harold said...
But there’s the rub. Loss, especially under these circumstances, is never truly measurable in a directly visible way
I wouldn't say "never." I think sometimes it can be directly measurable. We're, I think, a lot better at connecting our dots over the last 40 or so years than in the "shrug everything off, carry on regardless, stiff upper lip" days when much behaviour appeared to be inexplicable simply because what a person was going through wasn't known or talked about. Many more people are likely to trace certain paths and actions back to their genesis and nascent stages. Ironically, that's what many prisoners do during parole hearings. The board members ask questions that in a way force some cons to confront things they may never have really confronted before. I'd say, even more ironically, that many past board members have unwittingly {or perhaps a better word would be unthinkingly} done, certainly the TLB killers, a favour with nearly 40 years of constant parole rejections. They've constantly said things like "not enough insight shown into past actions and it's effects" which has really caused that crowd to know assuredly that you don't take human life deliberately and have any intention of rejoining society without such a thorough overhaul of being which partly entails knowing, not just "being aware" of how society views your actions, but also recognizing all the kinks, all the little points where the wrong attitudes had a chance to gain a foothold because the chance cannot be taken of them ever getting there again. And as an added caveat, there is a more than good possibility that they'll never be paroled.
With that in mind, some prisoners can pinpoint almost exactly how they were affected by certain happenings and where those happenings led.
And it's not only prisoners. The number of people that have therapists, counsellors or undergo certain strands of psychiatric treatment indicates, at least to me, that joining the dots from where something began to where it currently is in that person's particular life is a fairly common event.
I don't deny that some just do a con job and I don't dispute that many don't bother. But even Charles Manson {if you think of the Nuel Emmons or George Stimson books on him} makes connections between early life events, teenage life events and adult behaviour. His entire Family shctick of separating the children from their Mums and the Dads not being important and why, shows this.
maudes harold said...
It’s a coloring of a life, or a sad staining of reality that leaves an invisible mark, unseen by most. It cannot easily be measurable and often difficult to put into words. It can reveal itself to others through problematic behaviors, but the pain of loss is uniquely felt by that individual
I agree with all of that. That such effects can't be easily measurable and put into words can be ever so true. I would say the same thing about feelings and ressponses on many things.
It's interesting, in schools today, if a child shows any kind of behaviour that makes adults uncomfortable, straight away people wonder if the child has been or is being abused or is party to or has knowledge of another child being abused. Most of the time, they aren't. But we look at behaviour and attach meaning to it and as a result, sometimes can say "this action led to be being depressed or getting into that relationship or whatever. It's not about blame, it's about association. And as you point out, each person reacts to things differently.
It is real and should never need to justify itself. Your words,”… in a directly debilitating way” seemed to ask for proof of Loss, and it’s a bit unnerving. How does one prove they’ve been directly debilitated?
That's a hard one and is packed with nuances. I wasn't asking for proof of loss but neither do I assume that someone who might have been 7 at the time a grand parent was killed {whether by murder, accident, in war, by illness etc} would, half a century later, have that direct feeling of pain that one might have a lot closer to the time. I stressed in an earlier post that I was not saying that none would.
Pat Krenwinkel, LVH and Bruce Davis could tell you how they'd been directly debilitated by being raped, having divorced parents, being forced to have an abortion, feeling ugly, fat and unloved....True, none of that proves anything but if that is the case all human beings may as well never utter another word because anyone can cast doubt on what someone else sees as a truth.
Also, if someone is going to say "this person should never get out of jail because of the trauma, pain and devastation they caused me and my family" and they are claiming that the trauma, pain and devastation has carried on for half a century, I feel they should have to quantify and articulate that. Not how it was back then {most of us would be able to empathize with that}, but how it is now because it is always the now that we are in. Otherwise, where does one ever draw a line ?
There are certain things that have happened to me during my life, starting with when I was a kid and I can tell you precisely how they've affected me. I don't hold things against the peoples concerned and I've moved away from those things but I remember them well. It's not a case of saying "oh, what a good boy am I !" like little Jack Horner, more a case of knowing how I responded to things. Sometimes I managed to turn a - into a +. Sometimes I didn't {and sometimes, I turned a + into a -! }
maudes harold said...
loss is loss. And it can impact generations
That was a deep story Maudes. The first thing that stood out to me was that both of your friend's parents were in the concentration camps. Even a glance at a few stories about that period brings a remarkable spectrum of responses to it, some just grateful to be alive that they live life to the full, some having had the spark extinguished and never truly able to enjoy life, some feeling guilty that they survived while so many didn't.....
I wouldn't minimize the feelings of loss of either of your friend's parents. What would be of interest to me though, to give things a TLB spin, would be to know what their feelings towards their captors would be 40, 50, 60 years later, especially if they heard that they were going to be released.
This strand of the conversation sort of began when I was replying to points regarding the victims' families coming to these hearings and constantly saying the same thing. I don't know how it works but me, being me, I do wonder at times the true extent to the depth of feeling, especially if Debra Tate acts as the victim rep. Why really would the LaBianca, Hinman and Shea families need that ? It could look as though Debbie makes the running which then begs the question that if she was not in the picture, would the family members be ? Rarely does one hear of a Parent family member being there. No family member from the Hinman's have been at any of Bobby Beausoleil's last 4 hearings {I don't know about before but none were there in '78}. Bruce Davis has had 6 hearings since 2007. Only in 2014 & 15 did a Hinman cousin appear. No Shea family in sight. That's partly why I'm curious as to whether most of the victim's families have just moved on with their lives, dealt with the fallout in whichever ways they saw fit and really would like to go back to being what they were even after the trials.....anonymous. When the parole hearings first began, they didn't get involved. Steven Kay {according to Ed Sanders} claims that he was the one that first flagged up Doris Tate to get involved in parole hearings.
Asking the questions doesn't equate to falling on any particular side, but I will not assume, in the absence of knowing.
Harrowing loss can definitely impact generations. But does that give the succeeding generations the freedom to live in that ad infinitum ? At what point can it ever end ? If justice is done in the eyes of the law but one feels that justice has not been done, then has justice been done ?
Grim,
My quoting you specifically was in response to the loss to victims of a brutal crime/occurrence. While we can discuss that some perpetrators had been victimized, leading to the Victims into Victimizer/Non-Victimizer discussion (fascinating topic in its own right and a fav of mine), that’s not what I was referring to.
I wasn't asking for proof of loss but neither do I assume that someone who might have been 7 at the time a grand parent was killed {whether by murder, accident, in war, by illness etc} would, half a century later, have that direct feeling of pain that one might have a lot closer to the time. I stressed in an earlier post that I was not saying that none would.
My roommate’s sister was in a cult that cut off all communication from her family, decades after her ancestors were murdered. Like a de facto concentration camp, if you will. Is it a generational impact? I’m not asking you to specifically answer these questions Grim, just throwing them out there. As a teacher, I asked far more questions than I ever answered. It’s a left-over habit!:)
Also, if someone is going to say "this person should never get out of jail because of the trauma, pain and devastation they caused me and my family" and they are claiming that the trauma, pain and devastation has carried on for half a century, I feel they should have to quantify and articulate that. Not how it was back then {most of us would be able to empathize with that}, but how it is now because it is always the now that we are in. Otherwise, where does one ever draw a line ?
I’ve bolded what seem to me to be contradicting statements, join the club-we’re full of em. Lol
I’d be curious to see what the 2nd bolded comment looks like. Especially the ‘quantify’, cuz I can see how you can articulate/qualify an impact, but quantify is more difficult for me to wrap my Emily Latella brain around. How do you quantify the potential of what could have been?
The number of people that have therapists, counsellors or undergo certain strands of psychiatric treatment indicates, at least to me, that joining the dots from where something began to where it currently is in that person's particular life is a fairly common event.
I agree, tho it can be/is done without those means/tools as well. It is a directly measurable and visible way of assessing loss, but not a wholly true measurement, more to give voice to it.
But even Charles Manson {if you think of the Nuel Emmons or George Stimson books on him} makes connections between early life events, teenage life events and adult behaviour. His entire Family shctick of separating the children from their Mums and the Dads not being important and why, shows this.
Charlie preached those connections, as well as used them for his own justifications, from day one, still does. I think he was a better study of Dot-Connecting in people than many.
Separating people wasn’t so much a schtick as a tool, and Charlie knew that.
Now, you brought up, Debra Tate, who has become a somewhat polarizing figure in this case.
Watching her now (past 5-10 years) I had been hard on her in my heart and head. It felt like she was wearing a Victim Badge. It especially didn’t help that she changed her stories about all sorts of stuff, repeatedly, and it seemed like she aggrandized her roles, always to be center in the story. It is irritating.
Having learned more about her experiences in the past, how her family responded immediately and over time, I can understand her better. Connecting seemingly measurable dots. Having to be a mom to Patti when Doris checked out for 10 years, losing her “family”, all sorts of stuff obviously impacted her. I’ve come to have a softer heart towards her cuz I can better see her experiences. Not only was her sister brutally murdered and robbed from her, it shattered her family as she knew it. Massive impact. Especially as a teen.
Is her present behavior proof of her directly debilitating pain? Almost 50 years later? I don’t know.
She’s still irritating to my brain.
That's partly why I'm curious as to whether most of the victim's families have just moved on with their lives, dealt with the fallout in whichever ways they saw fit and really would like to go back to being what they were even after the trials.....anonymous
It certainly looks like most of the families stayed relatively anonymous (despite us TLBers), and maybe those that have spoken up more recently have done so after seeing what the damage did do to their families over 40+ years.
Maybe they didn’t get involved cuz Doris did. Patti wasn’t involved until Doris couldn’t be. Debra wasn’t involved until Patti couldn’t be. Sometimes you step up to fill a hole and sometimes you don’t have to cuz someone else already did. And sometimes you just jump over the hole.
As far as Leslie’s parole:
If Leslie murdered my family member I would never want her out of jail, ever.
Legally, she has a right to consideration of parole. Has she met those conditions? That will be raged over til the cows come home, in TLBlandia at least, despite the official legal outcome. I do not think she is a present risk or would be to others if released.
In the REAL world of California politics, reality and agendas, I would rather her space be used to keep a violent high risk offender locked up.
If justice is done in the eyes of the law but one feels that justice has not been done, then has justice been done ?
I don’t think there is ever real justice felt by anyone when a loved one is murdered.
There are just some things you never get over, you never forget, you never forgive, you never solve and you never stop asking WHY?
It's amazing to me how someone can think they can just enter your life and take your very soul, then think they can get away with it.
Amazing...
maudes harold said...
My quoting you specifically was in response to the loss to victims of a brutal crime/occurrence. While we can discuss that some perpetrators had been victimized, leading to the Victims into Victimizer/Non-Victimizer discussion (fascinating topic in its own right and a fav of mine), that’s not what I was referring to
I understand that. I did kind of go off on one there as I was thinking in a general way about how any person could relate in a quantifiable way the impact of someone else's particular actions on their past and present life.
I’ve bolded what seem to me to be contradicting statements
The "I wasn't asking for proof of loss" part was in response to you saying: "Your words,'in a directly debilitating way' seemed to ask for proof of Loss, and it’s a bit unnerving. How does one prove they’ve been directly debilitated ?" ~ I wouldn't dispute that someone felt a loss unless they said they didn't. The bit about quantifying and articulating, I don't see as a contradiction. Just that if you are going to say something has affected you and it has an impact on someone else {in this case, someone's parole} I think you need to show how, even if only verbally. Because sooner or later, there is a risk that we reach a time when it becomes only words. I suspect that if we're not at that point now, we soon will be.
For me, quantifying is showing how much something has affected you.
Is her present behavior proof of her directly debilitating pain? Almost 50 years later? I don’t know.
One could argue that much of Debra's pain stems from things that happened within her family. That said, I've deliberately steered clear of getting involved in the Debbie Tate sagas because for me, she's not an interesting part of TLB.
Here is my one (possibly only) comment to this site on this subject. For what it is or isn't worth.
The law states a person is to be released if they have met all requirements and they are no longer a danger to society.
Prison psychiatrists are overburdened and I will always question any report from them. Lets face it, they dont go into the depths someone in private practice would. Take Dr. Loveys report for example:
http://primal-page.com/dpjloveys.htm
This doctor reads like fresh out of school and recommended her parole, after telling her it was her mothers fault. And that whole part about Leslie being visited by Rosemary LaBianca spirit has got fire engine screaming red flags all over it. But, that isn't my point here.
LVH has downplayed her role, changed her story and in the latest parole hearing has turned herself into a victim of: A. mommy B. Manson C.high school boyfriend D. pot E. an abortion at 15, no 16, no lets make that 17. F. Tex and/or Pat and Share.
It's the whole, Im wrestling someone who is being or has been stabbed but I didn't have one drop of blood on me---I dont know who took the milk.. Tex did it! ---- I wiped down the bedroom only (2016 version) ---- 6' Tex took my 5'5" pants and told me take Rosemarys, I turned my back and couldnt watch but Tex stabbed her in the back, while I wasnt watching and couldnt see.
She's not telling the truth so how can she be remorseful? And if she's not remorseful she can't be rehabilitated and remains a threat to society.
If she were to just say, 'I was a problem child, was attracted to the bad boys of society, got in way over what I could handle, I stole, robbed people in their homes while they slept, knew they were killing people, kept quiet.. I hacked up this couple and I am guilty as shit.'
And if she actually understood the impact of what she did, I would be more inclined to say that has served her time and should be given a chance to live next door to anyone but me. .. I say that because she is going to attract a lot media and lunatics. I also say that because she is totally institutionalized and if she flipped I wouldn't want to be her creepy crawled way of getting sent back.
So that's my opinion on it. I dont see a remorseful, rehabilitated person. I see a con manipulating the system.
REZA!!! Well spoken!!! Thanks for your comment!!! :)
Reza R said...
if she flipped I wouldn't want to be her creepy crawled way of getting sent back
There's not many 67+ year old women that would sneak into your house in the dead of night and kill you.
Unless you care to enlighten us otherwise.
I dont see a remorseful, rehabilitated person. I see a con manipulating the system
You see pretty much what you choose to see. She's still in jail ! How can she be manipulating the system ? The system says she's eligible for parole, not her. She has no control over it.
Post a Comment