Leslie Van Houten petitioning for release of Tex Tapes
Leslie Van Houten is calling out prosecutors for sitting on a recording she believes would secure her release at her next parole hearing. Van Houten insists the 1969 audio tapes bolster her argument Manson had her and the other killers under his spell. The DA insists the tapes reveal nothing more than "rambling musings
about LSD, secret worlds beneath Death Valley and bizarre racial
theories."
42 comments:
Can Van Houten's attorney keep the DA from attending her hearing? If there's nothing important on those tapes, why keep them a secret?
Van Houten swings both ways. At first she blamed it on Charlie, then she changed her tune and said that it was her fault, and that didn't get her out, now she's back to blaming it Charlie.
I can't imagine the Tex Tapes are any different from his psychiatric interview:
http://www.lsb3.com/2014/09/tex-watsons-1971-psychiatric-interview.html
This Van Houten story is the second lead on AOL news. For those interested I saw 48 Hours last week and they had a story on called "The Family." It was about an Australian cult headed by a woman named Anne Hamilton-Byrne. It has the usual's, stolen and abused children, LSD, and a leader who claimed to be the second coming of Christ. There is another cult called The Family/Children of God so don't get them confused. Katie I think this is right up your alley. I started the new Guinn book on Jim Jones and it is better so far than the Manson book.
Thanks Beauders. I'll check that one out.
It's funny how the TLB killings have suddenly become so newsworthy lately after all these years.
at least maybe something like this could get the tapes released so that we can judge for ourselves the value.
Hi Bobby! Yeah I'd really like to hear those tapes!!
The Manson show is on tonight at 8pm Central on REELZ. Beauders, the show before that at 7pm Central is a new show about Jim Jones. If anyone's interested...
Who is going to win the Kentucky Derby?
Well Tom I was hoping Patch would win. The poor little horsey with one eye. But it wasn't in the cards. Always Dreaming won.
Patch drew the 20th lane, which is the far outside lane. His jockey was going to try to get him over to the rail, so he could see the other horses with his right eye. That was pretty much impossible. Most horses will run faster when they can see the competition.
It's been said that when you lose one sense, the others are heightened, and Patch probably could hear the horses better than most, but they were running in slop today and that's hard on certain horses.
I've only watched half of this Manson show, and it has so many mistakes. But that's expected. Fake News.
They said the murders happened on a Thursday, not right. They said that Manson didn't know that Melcher had moved, not right. I wish they would fact check.
What do you expect from the National Enquiror?
katie8753 said...
They said the murders happened on a Thursday, not right. They said that Manson didn't know that Melcher had moved, not right. I wish they would fact check
It seems as though we live in a milieu where actual facts really seem to carry no weight. Interpretation I can live with, that often gives rise to interesting debate but denial or ignorance of facts ?
In reading Steven Tyler's autobiography, there's a part where he talks about how the life they were living is so aptly encapsulated in Joe Perry's "Bright light fright" but quotes the lyric from Perry's "Connection" instead {in Perry's autobiog, he puts in some of the wrong lyric when he's quoting his own "Connection" !}. Now, maybe one could argue that he wasn't trying to quote the lyric to the song he just mentioned as it's a bit ambiguous ~ although throughout the rest of the book, every time he quotes a lyric it's from a song he's just mentioned. However, later on he states that he was married to Cyrinda Foxe for 12 years having divorced her in 1987.....but he didn't meet her till '76 and married her in '78 !
I may be a maths O level failure but even I can see that doesn't match.
It's kind of seen as being boring and pedantic to have the facts correct but I think it's rather sinister to not have facts correct. Anyone can then say any old thing without being called out and that is very unhealthy. During the Brexit campaigning last year, we saw so much of that. In fact, even before that, you'd get people campaigning to leave the EU by saying that "75% of our laws were made in Brussels by the EU" but when you'd ask them specifically which ones, they'd never be able to tell you. Even in the parole hearings of the incarcerated killers, you get both the killers and the DAs office quoting things as facts that simply were not.
What can you do ?
lurch said...
What do you expect from the National Enquirer?
Even from a shitty rag, I expect them to get the facts right. If the facts are right, they can interpret and spin to their hearts content but at least get the facts right. How long would it take to determine the dates and days of the Cielo killings ? And it may have taken a little longer but a cursory glance through one of a few blogs would tell you whether it was known if Terry Melcher still lived there. We're nobodies and we know the answers to these simple matters.
katie8753 said...
If there's nothing important on those tapes, why keep them a secret?
Why put them out in the public domain ? It's only people like us that want to hear them.
Besides, they're not secret. Ray Hoekstra heard them when he was writing Tex's book with him. In fact, that's why Tex hasn't got a leg to stand on. Any client~attorney privilege disappeared 41 years ago. Tex wasn't against LAPD hearing them in the end which he would have been if there was anything that would incriminate him.
Wouldn't it be a blast if we actually took Tex at his word and believed that he didn't want them released because he didn't want a circus parade that would just dredge up pain for the victims families yet again.
That said, I'd love to hear them !
I remember when I read the transcript of Leslie's Marvin Part interview. That blew the top of my head off. Even in "Helter Skelter" Vincent Bugliosi hadn't heard it so he kind of brushed it on by, never realizing just what dynamite lay in those tapes. No wonder Part thought Leslie was insane and didn't want her tried in an umbrella defence.
I can't imagine the Tex Tapes are any different from his psychiatric interview
The Tex tapes however, are unique from one particular point of view. They were made at a time when he had no contact with any of the Family and therefore had no idea what Susan Atkins had said to Richard Caballero, Paul Caruso, Virginia Graham, Nancy Jordon, Ronnie Howard, Vince Bugliosi and the Grand Jury. He had no idea what Leslie had said to Marvin Part because she hadn't yet said them. He didn't even know where Pat and Linda were or what Charlie was saying, if anything or where he was. So in a sense they are raw thoughts of his, spoken out before he had to deal with extradition, and before extradition was imminent when he was in the comfort of his cousin's jail with his record player, Beatle records and meals from his Mum. Because when it became obvious that he was going to return to California, that's when Tex started acting up and getting into the fake mentally ill act that gave rise to the mindset he displays in those psychiatric interviews. The Tex tapes come from a time when Tex didn't have the info to hand that gave him the chance to construct a story that was in response to what had already been said. He may have been lying on them, but it would be lies without the advantage of other stories to react to.
katie8753 said...
Van Houten swings both ways. At first she blamed it on Charlie, then she changed her tune and said that it was her fault, and that didn't get her out, now she's back to blaming it Charlie
That's not true and simple chronology bears this out. In her November 26 & 28th '69 interviews with Mike McGann, she more than bends over backwards to keep Charlie out of it all. At that time, it wasn't known that she was one of the murderers. Yet, she tries hard to keep Charlie out. Then by the end of December when she's been indicted, she has that incendiary interview with Marvin Part and although she drops Charlie in it, it's not from a "Charlie is to blame" point of view. It's from a "we are the chosen ones and Charlie is Christ" point of view. In January '70, she tries to fire Part and says she'll do anything Charlie says and during the trial she takes the stand and confesses to crimes she didn't even participate in. All the while trying to keep Charlie out of it.
The important thing to not lose sight of was that it was the prison authorities that took it upon themselves to rehabilitate Pat, Susan and Leslie once their death sentences had been commuted to life with the possibility of parole. It was they that brought in feminist leaning teachers that opened their eyes to the underlying misogyny of Charlie's philosophy and practice. It was they that brought in Black lecturers to open up the insulting absurdity of the Black race in the USA needing some "drugged out Whiteys" to show them how to rise up and set the ball rolling for the Black revolt. It was they that brought the women back to the teachings of their youth and encouraged visits and letters from their parents and siblings where possible.
This is what eventually enabled them to see that Charlie had played them like the cheap hookers he'd played in the 50s when he was a lame pimp. It was primarily the prison authorities that helped open their eyes and that, combined with the realization that they were not God's chosen that had the freedom to go out and kill, but rather, scurrilous murderers that had violated the ultimate taboo of taking life is when they were able to see what pretty much everyone else had been able to see for years ~ namely that never in a zillion years would they have ever committed murder had they not met Charlie and fallen in with his schtick and his place in what had become their lives.
It's worth pointing out that that does not absolve them of the responsibility of what they did, any more than a 17 year old is absolved of responsibility for murder if they kill as a kind of initiation to join a gang. They are responsible, no doubt about that.
But so too is the gang.
From the time Leslie spoke with Marvin Part, even in her trial when she was taking the fall for Charlie, she was never 100% sure that Rosemary LaBianca was alive before she waded in. She's always been consistent about that. And from the time her eyes were opened to what had happened, she was more and more able to see Charlie's place in the whole matter. As can anyone that chooses to. She is guilty of murder. She was also influenced into committing murder. Whether one sees it as a paradox or not, both facts are true.
She is a murderer by choice, not by influence....
Pure semantics, Dill. Most would argue her choice was influenced. She also "chose" to participate in sex acts, cut ties with her family, and commit numerous other crimes. It is almost a chicken and egg question...she chose to be part of the family but certainly not just Charlie but family peer pressure as well influenced her subsequent decisions.
Did the men at My Lai choose to machine guy women and babies in the ditches or were the influenced by the horrors of war the sufferings of their comrades. Some chose not to participate and some even tried to stop the massacre...but many who did participate argued they had no choice. Mind control is a tricky thing...it is short sighted to automatically jump to the "choice" argument. Especially if you never have had your own free will taken away by someone or circumstances.
Charlie's genius, as it were, was in convincing about twenty drugged out idiots that they were in fact at war. It is not hard to do. Jim Jones did it too. Koresch also. It's actually been done countless times throughout history. If it hadn't happened in Hollywood with a movie star victim and at the apex of the hippie movement would we still be arguing over Leslie's free will?
For the record, I have always been a firm believer that Leslie's free will, as it were, was not just 90% gone but 100% usurped at the time of the murders. This is not to say I think she should have been found not guilty or served time, she most certainly deserved to. But I do believe her 'lack of free will' contention cannot be so easily dismissed. Unfortunately for her the heinous nature of the crime sentenced her forever to the "you get no slack from us" corner. I do believe Katie is queen of that corner, God bless her.
Leary, LVH chose to participate in certain "behaviors" long before she met up with the Wooly Hophead, or Bobby. Such activities were pre-cursors to later behavior with the Family, so the influences were re-inforcing previously made choices at best. The fact that it escalated later into murder, again was by choice. The fact that she was disappointed that she was not able to join in the killings the IRS night, but wanted to join in the second night further demonstrates free will and her ability to decide. A bastardized version of the Nuremberg defense still does not alleviate the fact that she whose to become who she was, and is, a murderer.
Here's an interesting article on Cielodrive.com:
http://www.cielodrive.com/updates/superior-court-judge-considers-granting-van-houten-hearing/
With an ever-changing legal landscape, California will see more and more of these types of claims, and challenges. As California leaders continue to soften the punishment for crimes, society is faced with real possibilities that could see murderers who rightfully belong in prison released long before their time. This is evidenced by the changes made by the California Legislature which further expanded the laws regarding punishment for youthful offenders to include those in their young twenties. From a legal perspective, requesting a Franklin hearing is a smart move, given the current beliefs that everyone is a victim...
Thanks Dill. I think the lawyer that Leslie has is the best one she's ever had. He might just get her out.
I would think that Pat & Bobby would be eligible for that hearing as well. They were younger than 23 at the time.
It is possible, but hopefully the 115's that Bob has received will be sufficient to trip him up.
Let's hope Dill!
Here's the thing Dill. You clearly are seeing the issue of "free will" mostly through a legal eye. I respect that. But for me it is far more of a spiritual and psychological issue. Everyone is given free will. But one has to recognize that some people either willingly abdicate their free will (your perspective) or at other times have it taken away - often without their full realizing it.
Certainly Leslie exercised free will in her younger years and in her older years. But we are talking August 1969 ONLY.
Are you asserting that EVERYONE in the Family had total "free will" at that time? I seriously doubt any mental health professional would agree with that. And from my perspective there was a wide range among Family members in terms of "free will lost". Leslie is the only one I believe completely lost her free will, willingly or not. I think Pat was 85% 'free will gone' mostly because she was so eager to please and be accepted. Sadie on the other hand I would put at only 50% gone. She was mostly just naturally nasty.
Lynne and Sandy and Nancy and Gypsy I'd put in the 75% gone. Gypsy is on record as saying it took her a full decade to get Manson completely out of her head. And Squeaky was still defending the killings as "the right thing to do" well into the mid-80's.
Others like Kitty and Ella Jo and such would grade out as only 20-30% gone, as their defiance and actions proved.
Ruth Ann is a most interesting case. Based on her attempting to kill or at least seriously damage Hoyt as well as her telling Donkey Dan that she "couldn't wait to off her first pig" is a pretty fair indication that she was all the way in with Manson's vision. But was that really Ruth Ann. Can a 15 year old kid who has grown up weird really have control of her free will. Or are the influences in her life stronger than her ability to act on her own volition. It happens, we've all seen it.
You know what is an interesting case to discuss with regards to free will is the Caril Ann Fugate case where she went on that murder spree with her boyfriend Starkweather. It was done as the movie Badlands with Martin Sheen. That case got serious publicity at the time just as the Manson did later. Starkweather of course got the chair. Caril Ann was seen as to young and "influenced" to get the death penalty though she was found guilty. Though her crimes were every bit as heinous as TLB, Fugate was paroled after 17 years. Even Vince thought Leslie would serve just about that long.
From a legal perspective Dill, "free will" can be interpreted in black and white terms. It is just not the same from a spiritual or mental health perspective.
By the way Dill...my favorite all-time quote is Carl Jung's comment that "the German people have a particular and peculiar susceptibility to mass psychosis."
Mass psychosis is a real thing. TLB is a case study in mass psychosis, just as Jonestown and Waco are.
Mass psychosis and "group think" are not compatible with free will.
Just sayin.
Leary,
I am not saying that perspective, free will, or anaytical ability to make decisions is not influenced by external environmental exposure, surely it is. What I am saying is that ultimately each person makes a decision regarding their actions, and it is their responsibility for whatever occurs.
As far as Caril Fugate, I believe that she was every bit as culpable as Starkweather, and deserved the same punishment. Unfortunately, she benefited from a time in society that did not want to believe that a young girl could be involved in murder, so she was not handled in the manner she should have. We have seen many cases over the years, Menendez Brothers, Dana Ewell, Kevin Yocum, as well as other regional cases of parenticide.
I was thinking about something today, and I think I'll make a thread tomorrow on it.
There are so many questions about the Cielo Drive invasion, and also the Waverly Drive invasion. So many different accounts as to what happened, so many different opinions as to "why", etc.
I have a question that has been bugging me for years, and I'll post about it tomorrow, if I have time. It has nothing to do with motive, it has to do with what happened, according to the killers, who are the only ones left to say what happened.
I would do it tonight, but I'm so tired, I'm getting to bed. Maybe I'll start on it.
Dilligaf said...
She is a murderer by choice, not by influence....
I'd never dispute that she chose to participate in murder but neither would I throw out her being influenced. Yes, she had been walking the lawless path before she met Charles Manson but there's a huge difference between what she did and killing someone.
There is often this underlying implication from those that share your view that anyone that attempts to look deeper into how she got to where she did is somehow trying to get her off the hook of responsibility or somehow imply that she's not totally to blame. I don't know how many times I have to state it ~ she's guilty of murder. But it is important to ascertain how she got there. She didn't just wake up one day a murderer having not been one the day before. And she was influenced by both Charlie and the group to the place where she was prepared to kill. Once she evinced a desire to go out and kill and even hope {as she told Marvin Part} that there would be more killings so she could take part, then she bears responsibility for her part in what went on to happen.
But she was influenced to that point by outside parties. It's not to say that she didn't have much to do with assessing the strands of that influence, she did. She had to. But that influence was there and I don't believe she would have engaged in murder had she not been in a group that moved increasingly in that direction.
That's why I say it's a paradox.
Why is it important to ascertain how she got to the point in which she became a murderer? It is not like other girls attempted to copy her life and commit similar killings. The only reason would be to attempt to diminish her crime so as to possibly qualify for parole at some point. Just like there is no societal benefit to releasing her, there is no societal benefit to understand why she embraced criminal activity at an early age, or why she conspired to murder two people.
Dilligaf said...
Why is it important to ascertain how she got to the point in which she became a murderer? The only reason would be to attempt to diminish her crime so as to possibly qualify for parole at some point
Well I beg to differ. I find it consistently fascinating that for you any attempt to understand equates to diminishing responsibility and trying by the back door to say "Well, she wasn't really so bad after all and what she did wasn't either. Many have done a lot worse."
I'm not saying that at all.
I come from a Christian perspective in which there is a tacit recognition that human beings are warped, entrenched in what the biblical writers posit as a sinful state, so I don't need to minimize the things that we do. I happen to also believe that people can come back from the worst of deeds ~ if they're allowed to. Many, possibly most in the criminal justice system won't or don't. But many is not all.
One of the important factors for me is the attitude and behaviour of the murderer in incarceration. It's important to at least look at how people may have reached the path they did, regardless, but if someone is penitent, even more so. People rarely emerge as murderers in a vacuum.
Besides which, when all is said and done, all of them have the possibility of parole as part of their sentence which makes it all the more important to try to determine if they've moved away from where they were at half a century ago.
"Many come back from the worst of deeds".
If those deeds include either the willful taking of a life, or the molestation of a young child, exactly what is there to come back from. In either crime, the perpetrator knows what they did was wrong, but did it anyway. There is no moral debate of it is okay in this instance, but not in another instance. Wrong is wrong, and there are certain things that rehabilitation will not change. The convicted's perspective may change, they may perform well in a controlled prison environment, but the damage is done from which there is no coming back for the victim(s). I have no problem with an inmate saying that something happened in their life that caused them to become who they are, but it does not excuse what they did, nor should it. In the US, society has moved towards an excuse makes everything okay, that it is not my fault, it is someone else's. That may make a murderer feel better, but it is not his, or her, feelings that I am concerned with. It is the victims, and society, that require protection from, such soft-headed approaches...
Dilligaf said...
In the US, society has moved towards an excuse makes everything okay, that it is not my fault, it is someone else's
It's not only the US, it happens frequently here in the UK too.
I do not deal in excuses. I am interested however, in reasons. Reasons can never absolve a person from responsibility for what they've done but I'm duty bound to take the God line which is that a person, while not being able to change what they have done, can change the mindset that brought them there {usually with much help} and can be given another chance. Will everyone given another chance never screw up ? Of course not. But life is a continuum consisting of many different phases, some of which we mess up at times.
If one's wife/husband/partner was caught in bed with someone else, could they come back from that ? In reality, for many the answer would be 'no.' For others it would be 'maybe' and for others still, it would be 'yes' ~ tentatively.
People come back from all kinds of things and ultimately it's down to whether someone is prepared to allow that, kind of like Suzan LaBerge did.
How does one come back from being a murderer? How do you change the mindset that murder is okay at the time of commission? I would never question anyone's faith, but to me, God wants more than someone deciding not to murder again, or trying to justify their prior acts. Given another chance does not mean being release into society, it is being accepted by God, even in prison. God takes no position on parole.
The concept of human duality is one of the most challenging subjects. There are many who believe we all have the devil inside us...but that some are more prone to its unleashing than others. For most of us, however, it is hard to see a devil in Mother Theresa or Tom Hanks just as it is impossible to see goodness in Manson or Koresch or Jim Jones.
TLB is a case study in human duality. Not with Charlie so much because his own self-analysis claimed pure evil. But the others seem to have been decent folk at some point in their lives prior to TLB and certainly many became good citizens afterwards. That in fact is why I continue to be fascinated by TLB and the Family. The book I would love to read is a solid depiction and description of Family members NOW and how they quelled the evil inside them that was unleashed at Spahn, Is Mary a nice person now? Is Ruth Ann? We know that Leslie and Pat have become nice women and dedicated to doing good. How did they make that journey?
Can somebody come back from being a murderer? If you think of human behavior on spectrum of good and evil than certainly people can move on that spectrum due to external factors some do it thru Jesus like Sadie and Tex, the two most evil members of the Family besides Charlie. Some just do it through age and maturing. But there is also the real possibility that others like Cappy and Sandy and Nancy still believe in Manson and his rap. THey still have strong anti-social hatreds that given the right circumstances and influences could bubble up.
Seriously, Dill, if you had to choose who would you rather have as a neighbor - Nancy or Leslie?
Leary,
If I had my choice, I would have my own compound, for much like family, you don't always get to choose your neighbors.
However, neither would be my first choice as both have what I consider to be very serious character flaws that manifested themselves not just once, but numerous times. Whether it be deflecting responsibility upon others, or repeatedly becoming involved in behavior that is detrimental not just to individuals but to society as a whole.
Dilligaf said...
How do you change the mindset that murder is okay at the time of commission?
I don't know. But plenty of people have done. It could be a combination of many things, including an attempt on the life of the murderer. Many never change that mindset but everyone can, the same way that any human being can experience a change in any mindset they happen to hold at a given time, be it a wholesome or foul one.
God wants more than someone deciding not to murder again
True, but deciding not to murder again is an important place to be, especially if one is not/no longer justifying their past murders.
or trying to justify their prior acts
This is an important point because many murderers, even those that reacted to years of abuse and snapped, continue to justify their actions. When it comes to coming to God, there are no justifications for anything. How could a person need saving if some of the things for which they need saving were justifiable ? It doesn't fly with God.
Given another chance does not mean being release into society
Of course it doesn't, but it may do. And certainly, someone that has come to Christ, having fully taken on board what it meant for Christ to take the punishment for our sins on his own self and being guided in the new life, will want to live out some of that life out of prison ~ if there is the possibility to do so. It's not a divine right, it's not something any prisoner "deserves" but provision is made for it in many circumstances.
it is being accepted by God, even in prison
This is what Davis, Atkins and Watson discovered in jail. Many that don't share their faith hate the fact that any of them could say that they are {or in Atkins' case, were} forgiven by God but the reality is that they are. They will also know that there is every chance that they will die in jail and cannot complain about that and that even if that be the case they will still be loved and accepted by God.
God takes no position on parole
Perhaps on parole in general. But we don't know exactly his thoughts on specific people and their parole. What I would say is that God has shown us the supreme example of granting people that have murdered a chance to put it all behind them {Cain, Moses, David etc} but it always came with a caveat, as does any parole granting in the modern day.
If people choose to stay who they were, that's one thing. If they work hard at moving well away from who they were, then they really don't fall into the same category. As ever, it's difficult to be general about this matter, case by case is the only way to make head or tail of it.
leary7 said...
if you had to choose who would you rather have as a neighbor - Nancy or Leslie?
No contest, Leslie. It's irrational on my part and based on intangible things but I've always found something really odious about Nancy Pitman. In a curious way, maybe it's because she didn't kill, she never had to truly confront who she was and the mindset that went with that whole schtick whereas the incarcerated killers did. They were ultimately defeated by the society that they challenged, dropped out of and violated. And society forced them to admit that they had been wrong and the society for all its wrongs and faults was better than anything that they had come up with in its place.
No small thing.
Nancy on the other hand, carried on her merry way, following the same trajectory and keeping at least one foot entrenched in criminality and spawned a new generation of crime magnets.
I think Leslie is where she deserves to be but I'd rather have her as a next door neighbour because for one thing, she profoundly regrets her journey and destination. I'd hate for that Marvin Part interview of December '69 to be the thing that I'd be remembered by.
The interview with Marvin Part would be incredible if it happened before Susan's story leaked.Did it?I really don't know. If it was after Susan's story I put zero stock in it. It would be obvious this was a ploy to jump on board Susan's fantastic story and go for an insanity defense.Which was his plan. Leslie herself said it was all BS that part coached her to say.
Yeah but she said that during the penalty phase of the trial where she was lying her blaggers off. Don't forget, in that phase, she placed herself and not Mary Brunner in the Hinman crime and supported Susan as the killer of Gary, both of which we know are not true. Or are you going to argue that ? You can't have one without the other.
Leslie's interview was after Susan's story but that's kind of irrelevant. Of course Part was aware of Susan's story and as he was representing Leslie, he wanted to know how much credence it had. When it came out that Leslie went all with it, he wanted her evaluated as he didn't think she was fit to stand trial as he felt she must be insane. It's kind of pointless saying that he coached her ~ of course he did. He knew the questions to ask her to elicit the replies that he wanted because he'd talked to her before. You can hear that in the tape. He mentions things they've already talked about.
Marvin Part was doing the best he could for his client. He thought she was insane and by getting her to say her story on tape, he thought no judge would allow her to stand for trial or that her insanity defence would be a powerful one. In the end his plan didn't work because the judge wouldn't listen to the tape, the 3 psychiatrists that did said she was sane and most importantly, Leslie, feeling a little guilty after landing Charlie, Tex, Susan, Linda and Pat in it, sacked Part as part of her showing Charlie that she was back in his fold.
In retrospect, Leslie may well regret how she played her hand. She was offered immunity, even if she was one the murderers {Mike McGann said this to her before Susan went to the Grand Jury} and turned it down, she had a chance at a psych defence and moved away from that.
Post a Comment