Free Leslie Van Houten

This web page has been created for the purpose of organizing a letter writing campaign to Leslie Van Houten's parole board in support of her release from prison:​

​

http://labyrinth13.com/Free_Leslie_Van_Houten.htm​

​

Leslie had been incarcerated for more than 30 years, an amount of time that is far longer than most other persons serve who were convicted of similar crimes. Despite being a model prisoner, she has been repeatedly denied release from prison, a fact that tends to illustrate that it is actually personal prejudices, media-hyped hysteria about the so-called "Manson murders," and political posturing that are being used to thwart justice and deny freedom to Leslie.​

​

Leslie has complied with every single recommendation from her past parole hearings. However, even after being told exactly what she must do to win parole, the prison board has chosen to ignore Leslie's accomplishments, effectively and illegally turning her life sentence into life without parole. And it is important to note that California law does not permit life sentences without the possibility of parole, a fact that has been pointed out by California Superior Court Judge Bob Krug who has jurisdiction over the case. (It was Judge Krug who instructed the parole board that they must tell Leslie specifically what it is she must do in order to earn her release). In the past, Judge Krug has noted how Leslie's situation with the parole board has serious legal considerations: while speaking directly about the case, Judge Krug commented that Leslie "has proven to be a model prisoner in the 30 years since her incarceration, completing all available prison programs and assisting other inmates with these programs. . . She has earned two college degrees and has maintained a clean disciplinary record in prison . . . she is serving a life sentence without parole, a sentence unauthorized by law."​

​

http://labyrinth13.com/Free_Leslie_Van_Houten.htm​

​

Thanks.​

 

_______
Are you crazy?!? Why in the world would we want to do a thing like that. You say that 30 years is long enough for such a crime?! I don't think you'd believe that if the crimes she was convicted of was someone that you loved. Sheesh, how model is a person a butchers a bunch of people including a expectant mother. Now if she had weapons and opportunity to recommit the crime in prison and she withheld doing so for 30 years than I might reconsider.

 

For the record, Leslie did not kill an "expectant mother." Her crime included participation at the murder scene at the LaBianca house where she stabbed Rosemary LaBianca after she was already dead. She also participated in removing fingerprints and other evidence.



While that is a horrific crime in and of itself, after more than 30 years, Leslie has finally been able to come to terms with her crime and the pain that she has caused to others. (And I would point out again that people convicted of similar crimes have been released much sooner).



I urge you to please take the time to read about her case, get the real facts and not continue to include Leslie in with the ongoing and negative "Manson mystique" and general hysteria surrounding that case. Leslie has long ago disavowed both Manson and the beliefs of that group.


Thanks

 

______________________________________________
There are two movies, a book and lots of court documents about the case. Just because she has come to terms with what she has done doesn't mean the families of the deceased have and that's whom we should think about just as much if not more than Leslie. There are probably people out there that think Charles Manson should go free because he technically didn't get involved manually with the killings. If you try to use the excuse that she was brainwashed and couldn't help herself than here is a thought for you; what says that the same thing couldn't happen again and even be worse. Thank you

 

Thanks again for your reply.



The families of the victims are a very important aspect of the case and that is not something that Leslie has ignored. At her previous parole hearings, she has apologized directly to the families and has even had the support of one family member who also believes that Leslie has paid for her crimes. (I refer to Suzanne LaBerge, daughter of Rosemary LaBianca).

Charles Manson’s case differs significantly from Leslie’s. Manson was the real catalyst behind the Tate-LaBianca murders and has never shown one ounce of remorse for what he has wrought. As such, it is my opinion that he should never see freedom outside the walls of prison again.



As for the same thing happeing again as far as Leslie is concerned, the record (books, television interviews, personal correspondence) reveals that Leslie no longer holds any of the beliefs that she once held as a member of the so-called “Manson family.”

 

I have always been really interested in the Manson case... Read many books and watched many movies... It does suck that she is in there for sooo long.... For such a small part in the murders... But She gets what she gets.... She was once under mansons ability to brainwash people... It could easilly happen again with someone else... So unfortunatly she should stay in jail... Its probably the safest place for her

 

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, it (brainwashing) could easily happen to someone else and actually has many times with other fanatical religious groups since the Manson murders -- but it most certainly will not ever happen to Leslie again.

Leslie has had 36 years to contemplate what she did wrong, including being naïve enough to get mixed up with a consummate con man such as Manson and falling for his manipulations.

Anyone who thinks that Leslie could fall for the same thing again knows very little about the case at present.

Most of the books and movies out there concentrate primarily on Manson and have little to say about Leslie’s present condition and state of mind. Read Karlene Faith’s book and you will understand Leslie much, much better.

http://labyrinth13.com/Free_Leslie_Van_Houten.htm

 

It is absurd to minimize her crime by claiming that she "only" stabbed Rosemary LaBianca after she was dead. In a TV interview she once recalled feeling no pity as she repeatedly stabbed Rosemary to death, after she pleaded for the life of her husband Leno who was screaming in horror while being butchered.

It's a travesty that California law prohibits life imprisonment without parole. First degree murders deserve no second chance. If she's truly sorry for her crime, then she should quit trying to avoid her justly deserved sentence.

 

Thanks for your reply.

Emotionally, you would be correct on your first statement -- but from a legal standpoint, it has real importance that Leslie did not actually kill anyone. And make no mistake that Leslie is still in a legal fight for her freedom.

It seems that at this point, it is Leslie's past associations with the Manson cult that is the real reason why she is still incarcerated; as I have pointed out in the past, she has served much more time than others convicted of similar crimes -- in fact, almost twice as much.

I'm not sure which TV interview you are referring to, but it was/is most certainly not Leslie's position at present. And it is of vital importance that the Leslie of today should not be judged by media hysteria and sensationalism that tends to focus only on what she said while 19 years old and still a member of the Manson cult. What she has to say as a women now in her 50's who has spent over 35 years in prison for her crime is what is important to consider here.

I disagree with you on your second statement and feel that certain people deserve a second chance. And while I am no legal scholar, I know that there have been plenty of instances where those convicted of first degree murder have been released to become productive members of society again. It is also important to note that the law is there for everyone, regardless how one may feel about it emotionally or politically. To apply justice in an arbitrary or capricious manner is not the way our system is supposed to work. (And just for the record, I believe that California law now permits a sentence of life without parole, but that sentence was not available at the time that Leslie was re-tried and re-convicted).

Leslie is truly sorry for her crime. Leslie has disavowed Manson and the beliefs associated with that group. Read the current information about the case and you will see what I'm talking about.

Thanks again for your input.

 

I find that claim absurd. Who can say which of the several dozen stab wounds actually killed Rosemary LaBianca? Even Van Houten admits on your web site that she "took away" her life.

If people who've committed equally heinous atrocities are truly out on the street, then that is a grave injustice. Freeing any of the Manson murderers would only compound the injustice.

It was a fairly recent interview in which she expressed her regret, but she flatly admitted that she had no qualms at the time about helping slaughter the terrified Rosemary LaBianca as she cried out in anguish to her beloved Leno. She didn't make any lame excuses about supposedly "only" stabbing a corpse.

What she said then or now is beside the point; it's what she did that matters.

I would wager that many more of them have killed again. Regardless, any such risk is too great. Moreover, releasing murderers is an affront to the victims and society. I think that incarceration is both about justice and protecting the public.

I think that participation in one of the most grisly crimes in recent US history warrants a healthy dose of skepticism about granting parole.

I realize that she (and the other Manson women) have repented, and I'm heartened by this fact, but that doesn't erase their debt to society. I've even corresponded with Susan Atkins about this:

[post]1040702[/post]

 

HuckFinn wrote: "I find that claim absurd. Who can say which of the several dozen stab wounds actually killed Rosemary LaBianca? Even Van Houten admits on your web site that she "took away" her life."



As far as I understand it, Leslie’s meaning about how she “took away” Rosemary’s life was in fact not an admission that she actually, physically killed her, but rather that she felt responsible just by her mere presence at the crime scene. What you are seeing there is Leslie taking full responsibility for Rosemary LaBianca’s death, regardless of whether it was her actions that caused it or not. (Legally, that is not an admission of causing her death by her actions, but rather as being responsible from her inaction, i.e., being at the scene and not doing anything about it).


>If people who've committed equally heinous atrocities are truly out on the street, then that is a grave injustice. Freeing any of the Manson murderers would only compound the injustice.

I disagree. I feel that Leslie has been rehabilitated and is no longer a threat to society. Additionally, I’d feel completely comfortable having her as a neighbor.


>What she said then or now is beside the point; it's what she did that matters.



I agree. What she did at nineteen years of age, under the influence of drugs and the manipulations of a religious cult and a master con man are certainly something to consider, just as what she has done in the past 35 years to rehabilitate herself is something to consider. Good point.



>I would wager that many more of them have killed again. Regardless, any such risk is too great. Moreover, releasing murderers is an affront to the victims and society. I think that incarceration is both about justice and protecting the public.



I disagree and believe that Leslie is no longer a risk. And I am not aware of any other people that have been killed by “them,” by which I assume you are referring to former members of the Manson cult?



Incarceration is a good thing for dangerous people. I am for keeping the dangerous ones in jail and giving a second chance to those who have proven that they have been rehabilitated. It is the compassionate thing to do.



>I think that participation in one of the most grisly crimes in recent US history warrants a healthy dose of skepticism about granting parole.



Most certainly it does. As does being enlightened enough to apply parole with an even hand and where it is most deserved. My argument is in favor of parole for Leslie because I feel she deserves it.



>I realize that she (and the other Manson women) have repented, and I'm heartened by this fact, but that doesn't erase their debt to society. I've even corresponded with Susan Atkins about this.



I disagree. There has to be some sort of clearly defining line that says when someone has been rehabilitated and paid their debt to society, otherwise we might as well just lock people up forever.



Thank you for your thoughts.

 

Again, I don't know how it could be possibly be verified whose stab wound(s) actually killed Rosemary LaBianca. Moreoever, I believe that direct accessories to such crimes are just as legally liable as the perpetrators.

No. I was referring to murderers released from prison.

As I said before, first degree murderers should be locked up for life. Some crimes don't warrant a second chance, but we obviously won't agree on this.

 

HuckFinn wrote:



“Again, I don't know how it could be possibly be verified whose stab wound(s) actually killed Rosemary LaBianca. Moreoever, I believe that direct accessories to such crimes are just as legally liable as the perpetrators.”



I’m not an expert on the testimony at Leslie’s three trials for the murders, but if I recall correctly, there was evidence that the wounds she inflicted were post-mortem. That fact was noted by both Vincent Bugliosi (the original Manson prosecuter) and by Karlene Faith in her book about Leslie. Again, that fact doesn’t diminish the fact that she took part in a horrible murder, but legally, it does makes a difference in the amount of culpability when considering something like parole. (Regardless of how one feels about that emotionally, this is a legal case where such hair-splitting is the norm).



On the emotional level, yes, it was a horrible thing to do. And we have only Leslie’s words at present to judge whether or not she is truly sorry for what she did, regardless of the awful, final outcome. It is my position that her remorse is genuine. That is obviously where you and I disagree.



>No. I was referring to murderers released from prison.



The only murderer released from prison who was a member of the Manson family is Steve “Clem” Grogan. He was convicted of the murders of Gary Hinman and Donald “Shorty” Shea. To date, Steve hasn’t gotten into any trouble, as far as I know. (And just for the record, I am only working in support of the release of Leslie Van Houten as I have not followed any of the other cases of other members of the Manson cult. And the little that I do know about Susan Atkins’ and Patricia Krenwinkel’s cases is not enough for me to base a fully enlightened opinion on at present).



>As I said before, first degree murderers should be locked up for life. Some crimes don't warrant a second chance, but we obviously won't agree on this.



We shall agree to disagree, then. But I will say in closing that I don’t want to live in a society that doesn’t give out second chances. Our legal system is not perfect and mistakes are made all the time. Just look at the number of people who have been freed from death row after DNA evidence proved they had nothing to do with the crimes they were convicted of. While that example is not completely on point as far as Leslie’s situation is concerned, it does illustrate that there are times when common sense and compassion have to come into play.



Thank you again for your thoughts and honesty.

 

I'll grant that her remorse is genuine. She may be forgiven by God and the LaBianca family, but that doesn't warrant her release from prison.

I wasn't talking about the Manson family, but convicted murderers in general.

I have no problem with second chances for lesser crimes, but not for premeditated murder.

That's the only reason I oppose the death penalty. It's not a matter of "compassion" to ensure that the innocent aren't wrongly executed or imprisoned; it's a matter of justice. It's also a matter of justice to ensure that the guilty don't go free.

 

HuckFinn wrote:

“I'll grant that her remorse is genuine. She may be forgiven by God and the LaBianca family, but that doesn't warrant her release from prison.”

Than I must ask you, what *would* warrant her release? And keep in mind that Leslie is legally eligible for parole and will eventually be released someday.

Joycelyn Pollock, in a review of Karlene Faith's book, writes that "The other woman whose ghost resonates throughout these pages is Karla Faye Tucker. Again, the stories are different. Tucker actually killed while Van Houten did not; Tucker was in a haze of alcohol and drugs, while Van Houten was under the haze of Manson's brainwashing. But in both cases, even though few doubt the fact that these women "reformed," and even though it's widely acknowledged that they were not in their "right mind" when committing their crimes, we have refused to grant them any vestige of mercy. The two cases raise the same questions: When does someone deserve mercy? Who should give it? Can we forgive murderers? We didn't forgive Karla Faye Tucker; we executed her. It remains to be seen whether Leslie Van Houten will die in prison without ever being granted the simple freedoms to see the ocean or spend a Christmas with her family. Does she deserve to? Perhaps not. But whose humanity is lessened by keeping her in prison?"

(See review at: http://www.wellesley.edu/WomensReview/archive/2001/10/highlt.html)

“I have no problem with second chances for lesser crimes, but not for premeditated murder.”

And you are entitled to hold any opinion that you want, but the law is clear on this one: she is eligible for parole and has complied with all of the requirements of the parole board, in fact, above and beyond that of most people in similar circumstances.

“That's the only reason I oppose the death penalty. It's not a matter of "compassion" to ensure that the innocent aren't wrongly executed or imprisoned; it's a matter of justice. It's also a matter of justice to ensure that the guilty don't go free.”

Obviously, but as I said, that was not the ideal point to make. I was only trying to illustrate that it is compassion that we must keep in mind here, and not abuse the justice system because politically it is more expedient to do so.

Thanks.

 

I remember seeing an issue of LIFE magazine complete with pictures,and I was horrified then and am horrified now...I do'nt think she should get out of prison any more than charles manson should;and was manson at the murder scene?what exactly was he convicted for?Yeah,is'nt he also "eligible" for parole?I agree that Leslie was no doubt young and naive,and fell into the wrong hands,but she still was a participant,andonly since being in prison has she seen the error of her ways.What if she were released and decided what she thought all those years in prison was after all incorrect?Do we want to risk the lives of more innocent people and give her a chance?Do we want to give manson another chance?I know for a fact that I could never be convinced that it is okay to brutally murder anyone,no matter what some guy told me.I know the difference between right and wrong and I believe it is a basic human instinct to know how wrong that is.I am just expressing my opinion but I REALLY disagree,I mean think about what you are saying.I do'nt want to risk my loved ones lives because she has paid the price!If you can't do the time ,don't do the crime.An eye for an eye....

 

Audreyanne wrote: "I remember seeing an issue of LIFE magazine complete with pictures,and I was horrified then and am horrified now...I do'nt think she should get out of prison any more than charles manson should;and was manson at the murder scene?what exactly was he convicted for?Yeah,is'nt he also "eligible" for parole?"

As it says on my website: "Manson was the primary catalyst and mastermind behind the Tate-LaBianca murders. Manson, both a racist and a misogynist, has never shown one bit of remorse for any of his victims, including those whose deaths he ordered and those in his group whom he led down a path of crime and murder. As such, the opinion held here is that Manson should never see freedom outside the walls of prison again."

There really is no comparison to be made between Leslie and Manson today. I would also suggest to you that it is important to read the most current information about Leslie and not rely on the old stories.

Audreyanne wrote: "I agree that Leslie was no doubt young and naive,and fell into the wrong hands,but she still was a participant,andonly since being in prison has she seen the error of her ways.What if she were released and decided what she thought all those years in prison was after all incorrect?Do we want to risk the lives of more innocent people and give her a chance?"

Anyone who has become familiar with Leslie's case today would not ask the question that you asked. It is obvious that Leslie has been rehabilitated and is no longer a threat to society. I urge you to read more about her life *as it is today* and not the way she was portrayed by the media while she was still under Manson's control.

Audreyanne wrote: "Do we want to give manson another chance?"

No. See my statement again about Manson above.

Audreyanne wrote: "I know for a fact that I could never be convinced that it is okay to brutally murder anyone,no matter what some guy told me.I know the difference between right and wrong and I believe it is a basic human instinct to know how wrong that is.I am just expressing my opinion but I REALLY disagree,I mean think about what you are saying.I do'nt want to risk my loved ones lives because she has paid the price!If you can't do the time ,don't do the crime.An eye for an eye....

It is obvious to me that you have not read anything current about Leslie's case, nor do you seem to be at all familiar with what we know today about cult manipulation. It is way too easy to say that you would "never be convinced that it is okay to brutally murder anyone, no matter what some guy told me" if you have not been exposed to the same sort of coercive persuasion that Leslie and members of the Manson cult were exposed to on a daily basis.

From my website:

In order to fully appreciate Leslie's case, it is of vital importance that we consider her situation in light of what we know today about the effect that other fanatical religious "cults" similar to the Manson family have had on other people. Since the time of the Manson murders, many other groups have surfaced that also held obsessive and dangerous religious beliefs nearly identical to those espoused by the Manson cult. And anyone who believes that the cult mind control practiced by Manson was a unique occurrence would do well to remember other instances of cult manipulation that also led to suicide and murder, including the Rev. Jim Jones (People's Temple), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Luc Jouret ( Solar Temple), Marshall Applewhite (Heaven's Gate) and Shoko Asahara (Aum Sect).

Margaret Singer, Ph.D., one of the world's leading experts on cults and brainwashing, once wrote that, "[Cults] prey on the most lonely, vulnerable people they can find, cage you with your own mind through guilt and fear, cut you off from everyone. . . they don't need armed guards to keep you. [They are] liars [and] tricksters; it's been the same ever since Eve got the apple, and I doubt it will ever change. They're all basically, really the same, con men."

After more than three decades, we now have a very clear picture of how Leslie and the others in the so-called "Manson family" were subjected to extreme indoctrination techniques on a daily basis. This "brainwashing" by Manson -- or "coercive persuasion" and cultic "thought-reform," as it is known today in academic circles -- included sensory and social deprivation, intense peer pressure, physical and sexual abuse, malnutrition, extreme isolation, mental programming for a closed system of logic that allowed no valid input or criticism and the use of massive amounts of mind-altering drugs, all designed to both subjugate and to break his followers down mentally.

Only after many years in prison was Leslie finally able to finally break free from the manipulations and programming she had been subjected to by Charles Manson. But perhaps most importantly of all, Leslie has also come to fully realize and accept personal responsibility for her role in the crime that put her in prison.

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

The thing about "forgiveness." It doesn't mean "What you did was OK." All it means is that "What you did will no longer enslave me to the hatred I had for you, or the anxiety I had about what you did." It DOES NOT mean that the "forgiven" person is no longer in debt to society.


MANY womyn and men who were sexually abused as children have learned to forgive their abusers, but that, by no means means that these abusers have the right to walk free. Forgiveness does not substitute for keeping society safe from people like a member of the Manson Family.

JMHO.

 

'model' prisoners have been released and as soon as they were out they committed the same crimes again. she has been in for 30 years. i'm sure she does want out and if she is smart she will play the game. sounds like she is to me. i wouldn't trust her with my life.

 

For the record, I don't think for a second that Leslie is trying to get anyone to think that what she did was "O.K." Quite the contrary.

As for forgiveness, it is an important part of the healing process, but that is only one part of the equation here. The rest has to do with following what the law has to say about her situation. Your opinion may be that forgiveness only goes so far, but that doesn't address the fact that regardless of any emotional factor, Leslie is, by law, eligible for parole and will walk out of prison someday.

She and lots of others feel that the time for that is now, not in another ten or twenty years.

Leslie is not trying to get forgiveness to substitute for anything. If you read her story, you will know that.

She also feels that 35 years and her rehabilitation (demonstrated almost beyond debate) is enough to pay her debt to society. So do I.

In my opinion, if anyone has a right to walk free, it is her.

Thanks.