Free Leslie Van Houten

I would trust her with my life. Get to know Leslie's story from past right into the present and then see if you would still make the same statement.

 

She is only eligble for parole because the death penalty was eliminated after she was originally sentenced, right? At that time ALL prisoners were eligible for parole. When someone has a parole hearing, not only their state of being NOW is taken into account, but the original crime is as well. I, for one, am pretty sure she will never get out. And I would feel safer if she stays there.

A LOT of people lost their way in the 60s. Only a few decided to commit horrible murders, that alone should say a LOT.

Regardless, I don't think any of us have much to worry about. She ISN'T getting out.

 

Maggie Sugar wrote: "She is only eligble for parole because the death penalty was eliminated after she was originally sentenced, right? At that time ALL prisoners were eligible for parole. When someone has a parole hearing, not only their state of being NOW is taken into account, but the original crime is as well. I, for one, am pretty sure she will never get out. And I would feel safer if she stays there."

No, that is not correct. From my website: In 1976, Leslie's original conviction -- for which she had received the death penalty -- was overturned on appeal. Subsequently, she was retried twice in 1978 and 1979. Her second trial ended with a hung jury; the third trial resulted in two concurrent seven years to life terms, making her case no longer a "death penalty overturn" and henceforth officially separated from that of the other Manson defendants.

Legally, that makes a lot of difference as I understand it. And it also makes her eligible for parole.

My opinion differs from yours on your last statement. I feel sure that society would be safe with Leslie in it and that real justice would be served by allowing someone who has proven that they are rehabilitated to go free.

I base my opinion on what I have learned about Leslie's efforts to change and rehabilitate herself. On what do you base yours?

Maggie Sugar wrote: "A LOT of people lost their way in the 60s. Only a few decided to commit horrible murders, that alone should say a LOT."

Yes, it says quite a lot; some in the 60's were fortunate enough to only "lose their way," while a few were unfortunate enough to be sucked into brainwashing cults like that of Charles Manson and be subjected to his horrible manipulations.

What that says is that more people from that time period should thank their lucky stars that they weren't caught up in the same horrible situation.

What that says is that most were fortunate enough to not have been so-ensnared, but a few weren't.

I believe in compassion for those who weren't so lucky. What many people don't realize or choose to ignore about the Manson case is that those individuals who became caught up in Manson's world were victims of Manson, too.

As such, we owe them at least that much understanding. (And make no mistake, so-called "cult mind control" was/is a very real thing).

Maggie Sugar wrote: "Regardless, I don't think any of us have much to worry about. She ISN'T getting out."

No, that is not at all correct. She most certainly will get out. Because of her retrial, Leslie is legally entitled to parole and the law requires that she be released someday.

Leslie's parole status is discussed in great detail in Karlene Faith's book, which I recommend to anyone who wants to learn the current facts about Leslie's situation. (And I urge everyone to not just rely on what you have read in such books as The Family and Helter Skelter, two highly sensationalistic books that seek to entertain through morbid titillation, rather than to educate anyone about what the status of the case is today or what legal and moral questions have been raised by keeping Leslie incarcerated).

It is inevitable that Leslie will see freedom someday. My only hope is that she will win her that release much sooner, rather than later.

Thanks for your input.

 

Iknow you think you are doing the right thing,and I can respect that,but those people are still dead,their familes were cheated out of their family members.And you say we need to read about her case today...I just dont see it.I will spend a little time and try to see this with an open mind,but facts is facts,and every part of my being says this person should be where she is.I mean I'm sure alot of murderers had a list of unfortunate events that culminated in them not operating with a full deck.Comitting crimes that a rational person would never consider.And furthermore,you do'nt know me or anything about what I've been through in my life.I have been exposed to controlling people,and thankfully was able to choose another path.Like I said I think there is a basic human instinct that brutally murdering another human being is just WRONG!And perhaps she is sorry about it.God,to me it is unfathomable!I feel bad for whatever part of society allowed her to become under manson's "spell",and that quite possibly she also was a victim.But she is alive,what about the people she robbed of their very lives.

 

Audreyanne wrote: "Iknow you think you are doing the right thing,and I can respect that,but those people are still dead,their familes were cheated out of their family members."

The murders committed by the Manson family were some of the most horrific that this country has ever witnessed and involved a fate that no human being should ever be subjected to. I fully appreciate and sympathize with the grief that the families of the victims of the Manson murders have endured, including a full understanding that the surviving family members justifiably still hold strong personal feelings against the perpetrators of those crimes.

But at the same time, I stand by the view that Leslie Van Houten, along with her parents and other relatives, were also victims of Manson and that it is vital to seek to promote tolerance, forgiveness, and healing for all concerned.

Audreyanne wrote: "And you say we need to read about her case today...I just dont see it.I will spend a little time and try to see this with an open mind,but facts is facts,and every part of my being says this person should be where she is.I mean I'm sure alot of murderers had a list of unfortunate events that culminated in them not operating with a full deck.Comitting crimes that a rational person would never consider."

It is absolutely imperative that you read the latest information about Leslie's case, otherwise, you can't claim to truly understand what the case is really all about.

I am fully convinced that after people do just that, they will have a much clearer picture of Leslie and not just some knee-jerk reaction about her as a "former member of the Manson family."

There is so much more to the case than that.

Audreyanne wrote: "And furthermore,you do'nt know me or anything about what I've been through in my life.I have been exposed to controlling people,and thankfully was able to choose another path.Like I said I think there is a basic human instinct that brutally murdering another human being is just WRONG!And perhaps she is sorry about it.God,to me it is unfathomable!I feel bad for whatever part of society allowed her to become under manson's "spell",and that quite possibly she also was a victim."

I was not making any assumption about your life, only pointing out that cult mind control is very real and that no one who has not been subjected to it, especially the kind of manipulations that those who were under Manson's control were subjected to, can safely say that they would never do what Manson's followers did.

However, it does seem to me that you may be making a few assumptions here. You have made statements about the Leslie of the present after admitting that you haven't read anything about her life that is current and up to date. I am not trying to negatively criticize you with that, only using this as an example to point out that there is much more to know about Leslie's life story in 2005 and that getting current information is the key if you really want to understand her.

And while you may have been "exposed to controlling people" as you put it, I hardly think that you have ever been subjected to the same thing that Leslie and the others were subjected to, which included control of their most basic thoughts, intense peer pressure, sexual coercion, frequent doses of LSD - a powerful, mind-altering drug that makes a person highly vulnerable to manipulation, especially by a master con man such as Charles Manson.

From my website: 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.

Audreyanne wrote: "But she is alive,what about the people she robbed of their very lives."

Leslie has paid for her involvement in the Tate-LaBianca murders with over 35 years of her life. She is a model of rehabilitation and is very remorseful about what her actions and inactions have caused to the victims and their families.

She has paid her debt to society and it is time to release her from prison.

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I just finished reading the info on you're site.I think that it is great that she has toed the line and has been a model prisoner.How nice for her to have earned several degree's.She was given an education that many of us have not the opportunity.And sobriety is a good thing,but it's easy when you are inside to be clean and sober.What happens when you are tempted by real life?And when she is alone in her cell and thinking about the reality of why she is there,I am certain it must be hard to accept and deal with.I also don't think it is right that the law contradicts itself,and that she has been given false hope about any inpending release.There is alot of injustice in the world,and I have often felt there was no justice;there's "just Us".I still have to go with my gut feeling,and I think she needs to be in prison.Perhaps she would do best to spend her remaining time benefitting others,and indeed prison does accomplish something in that it is hell on earth to have to face you're self in light of what you have wrought.I pray the universe can forgive her .Living hell,she is alive.Those people are not.I guess I just am unwilling to give someone like her a chance.Not around MY loved ones.Again this is my opinion and you are most certainly entitled to you're own.I agree to disagree and that is what is so awesome about our country,free speech.God speed ,pilgrim and love and light surround you.....audreyanne

 

Audreyanne wrote: "I just finished reading the info on you're site.I think that it is great that she has toed the line and has been a model prisoner.How nice for her to have earned several degree's.She was given an education that many of us have not the opportunity.And sobriety is a good thing,but it's easy when you are inside to be clean and sober.What happens when you are tempted by real life?"

There are temptations for Leslie every day as far as staying sober is concerned. Drugs are as easy to get in prison and they are on the outside.

Audreyanne wrote: "And when she is alone in her cell and thinking about the reality of why she is there,I am certain it must be hard to accept and deal with.I also don't think it is right that the law contradicts itself,and that she has been given false hope about any inpending release.There is alot of injustice in the world,and I have often felt there was no justice;there's "just Us""

I agree.

Audreyanne wrote: "I still have to go with my gut feeling,and I think she needs to be in prison."

Why would you think that? Ask yourself what need or purpose does keeping her in prison serve?

Leslie has been rehabilitated and ready for release back into our society.

Audreyanne wrote: "Perhaps she would do best to spend her remaining time benefitting others,and indeed prison does accomplish something in that it is hell on earth to have to face you're self in light of what you have wrought.I pray the universe can forgive her .Living hell,she is alive.Those people are not.I guess I just am unwilling to give someone like her a chance.Not around MY loved ones.Again this is my opinion and you are most certainly entitled to you're own.I agree to disagree and that is what is so awesome about our country,free speech.God speed ,pilgrim and love and light surround you.....audreyanne"

Leslie wants her freedom and I think she deserves it. She would serve society much better and benefit others just as well outside the walls of jail.

Thanks.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

Helter Skelter is hardly "sensationalist." It's a hard-hitting factual account of the Manson murders by the man who prosecuted them. Here's an excerpt about the tenuous claim that Van Houten didn't actually participate in killing Rosemary LaBianca:

By the time I’d finished my cross-examination on this, Leslie had admitted that Rosemary might still have been alive when she stabbed her; and that she not only stabbed her in the buttocks and possibly the neck, but "I could have done a couple on the back." (As I’d later remind the jury, many of the back wounds were not post-mortem, while one, which severed Rosemary LaBianca’s spine, would have been in and of itself fatal.)
​

I believe she also once admitted to helping hold down Mrs. LaBianca while others stabbed her.

I read part of her 2000 parole hearing transcript, and it appears that she is not helping her herself by minimizing her role in the murders. Assistant prosecutor Stephen Kay rightly pointed out that she still hasn't fully come clean, which calls her alleged rehabilitation into question.

As for the appeal of her original conviction, it was based on a technicality. She decided after the fact that her attorney Ronald Hughes should have been replaced. He had been killed (likely on Manson's orders) for his efforts to portray Van Houten as a hapless pawn of Manson, a defense which she rejected at the time.

Finally, the notion of "mind control" is very debatable:

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?427

 

You wholeheartedly disagree about what specifically?

 

HuckFinn wrote: "Helter Skelter is hardly "sensationalist." It's a hard-hitting factual account of the Manson murders by the man who prosecuted them."

I liked the book too, but I called it "sensationalistic" in that beyond a full account of the crimes and the prosecution, one gets very little about the current status of the Manson family members who are still in jail. Helter Skelter is more geared toward "true crime" entertainment and as such, is not very concerned with the issues as they stand today.

For that, Karlene Faith's book on Leslie is one of the best and looks at the crimes from a different perspective.

Too many people read books like Helter Skelter and The Family or watch the made for television movies and think they know all there is to know about the Manson case today. They are wrong.

HuckFinn wrote: "I read part of her 2000 parole hearing transcript, and it appears that she is not helping her herself by minimizing her role in the murders. Assistant prosecutor Stephen Kay rightly pointed out that she still hasn't fully come clean, which calls her alleged rehabilitation into question."

I disagree with the way you characterize Stephen Kay as having "rightly pointed out" that Leslie has not "come clean" or taken full responsibility for her crime.

It should be noted that anything Kay has to say about Leslie should be heard with the full understanding that for reasons known only to himself, he seems to have a particular axe to grind when it comes to her.

It has been noted by many other people that Kay's position seems to have more to do with self-aggrandizement and political posturing than seeking any real justice, i.e., the man is hardly a credible source these days.

HuckFinn wrote: "As for the appeal of her original conviction, it was based on a technicality. She decided after the fact that her attorney Ronald Hughes should have been replaced. He had been killed (likely on Manson's orders) for his efforts to portray Van Houten as a hapless pawn of Manson, a defense which she rejected at the time."

Saying that her appeal was "based on a technicality" is, in my opinion, simply an attempt to use an emotionally charged buzz word or phrase designed to elicit disfavor against someone who is simply using the legal system to ensure that they get the same legal protection as everyone else in America (the Constitution was designed to protect everyone and not just the people we like). For better or worse, we all have the same legal rights and garuntee of protection under the law.

And it should be noted that Leslie was still very much under the influence of Manson's programming at the time of the trial and that practically none of her legal decisions were her own and that Manson was concerned only with saving his own skin.

Your statement implying that Ronald Hughes was murdered by the Manson group because he was supposedly bucking Manson's authority is just so much unproven rumor, and one that is constantly bandied about in the whole Manson mystique. (It was Vincent Bugliosi in Helter Skelter who first suggested a murder link, but he himself admits that he had virtually nothing to base that on besides pure conjecture).

HuckFinn wrote: "Finally, the notion of "mind control" is very debatable"

That Leslie and the other "family" members were under the control of Manson is hardly a debatable issue at all, and one that generally everyone believes was the case! Even the prosecutor (Bugliosi) who wrote Helter Skelter presented his theory of the case to the jury based on how Manson was able to convince people to kill -- and most of them young girls -- because he (Manson) controlled their thoughts. Get real.

Everything is debatable and you and I could sit here and haul out expert after expert to counter each others contentions about "mind control," or cultic "thought-reform," as it is known in psychology today.

But go tell the members of Heaven's Gate and the Branch Davidians (and many other groups that have practiced such techniques) that mind control is debatable. I think you would get some strong disagreement from that quarter.

Thanks for your continuing input and thoughts.

 

The parole board evidently agreed with him. She really should drop the childish and untenable excuse that she didn't inflict any fatal stab wounds.

The appeal was not based on any new factual evidence. Moreover, a truly repentent person doesn't try to beat the rap. If she were really sorry, she'd have plead guilty at her later trial.

Family members said that his death was "just the beginning" of a retaliation for the trial.

Bugliosi claimed that they were slavishly devoted to Manson, not that he literally controlled their thoughts and actions, something I contend is quite impossible to do. Manson obviously couldn't "control" Linda Kasabian's mind.

 

HuckFinn wrote: "The parole board evidently agreed with him. She really should drop the childish and untenable excuse that she didn't inflict any fatal stab wounds."

Don't be fooled, the parole board is under as much political pressure as anyone. That they agreed with Kay's bias is no real revelation.

And the evidence about the stab wounds Leslie inflicted, while to some degree still inconclusive, still tends to show that she probably did not inflict any fatal stab wounds.

Is it childish to insist on presenting the facts of your case that tend to lessen your culpability? No attorney in America would agree with you, I'm afraid! It is the basis of any real defense.

HuckFinn wrote: "The appeal was not based on any new factual evidence. Moreover, a truly repentent person doesn't try to beat the rap. If she were really sorry, she'd have plead guilty at her later trial."

I disagree. What Leslie was trying to do at her retrial was to use a diminished capacity defense, something that her attorney argued resulted both from her massive drug use and from the influence that Manson had on her. The first trial ended in a hung jury on just that very issue, i.e., some of the jurors agreed with the defense.

At the third trial, Kay fought to keep the diminished capacity defense out of the courtroom and succeeded through a lot of legal wrangling (he based his new prosecution at the third trial on what you referred to earlier as a "technicality" in that he switched gears and charged Leslie with felony murder in the course of a robbery since some items were taken from the LaBianca residence). So the use of "technicalities" works both ways, you see.

I don't agree that Leslie was trying to "beat the rap," as you put it (another use of a buzz word to evoke a negative connotation, I might add), but was in fact putting on the defense that she should have been allowed to use at her first trial, and which probably would have resulted in her being charged with accessory to murder instead of the first degree murder conviction she received. She wasn't given the chance at the first trial.

HuckFinn wrote: "Family members said that his death was "just the beginning" of a retaliation for the trial."

"Family members" said a lot of things that later turned out to be untrue, didn't they? Just one example: those same family members claimed that Donald "Shorty" Shea had been beheaded and his body cut into nine pieces. But in fact, when Steve Grogan finally led authorities to Shea's body, it was completely intact. You must keep in mind that the members of the family liked to say lots of things to intimidate "straight society," but without any facts there to prove such allegations, it all so much hot air.

HuckFinn wrote: "Bugliosi claimed that they were slavishly devoted to Manson, not that he literally controlled their thoughts and actions, something I contend is quite impossible to do. Manson obviously couldn't "control" Linda Kasabian's mind."

That is simply not an accurate representation. Go read the book again. Bugliosi was fully convinced that Manson had his followers brain washed. He even noted that Manson's style of brainwashing to get people to kill was in fact not much different from the techniques used by the U.S. military when training soldiers to kill.

And if you remember, Linda Kasabian was only sent along with the others because she had the only valid driver's license at the time. (Mary Brunner had one, but she was in jail at the time). That, as it turned out, was a huge mistake on Manson's part because as Linda was very new to the Manson group, she was not as fully under Manson's control at the time. It proved to be Manson's downfall. Bugliosi even points this out himself and that fact also would lead most people to accept that Manson's "mind control" was for real.

Thanks for discussing this with me. I appreciate the chance to talk about Leslie's case, even if we don't agree on much!

With that, I'm off to do house chores until tomorrow.

 

Whoa whoa whoa, back up and hold your horses, let me get this straight...

First, you seem committed to getting Leslie Van Houten released from prison. Your arguments are lucid, intelligible and in some cases, valid. Then, you openly compare the Manson Family to Heavan's Gate and the Branch Davidians???

I hope you're not an attorney. You're going to be very hungry very soon if you are...

 

Thanks for your reply and kind comments.

I used the Heaven's Gate and Branch Davidians as examples of other groups that practiced cult mind control because the poster Huck Finn said that actual mind control was "debatable."

My comparison of those groups to the Manson family was made to illustrate how people are vulnerable to mind control and that they may come to believe and do many things that they normally never would outside of such a group's influence.

What exactly are you taking issue with about that comparison?

(And for the record, I am not an attorney)

 

What will you do if your arguements are heard, the prison releases her and she commits another crime? What will you do and say then? How will you explain to her new victims and their families? How can you assure us that she will not be dangerous and easily led? One of my biggest hang-ups about her and probally the reason why she doesn't get paroled is her inability to accept her role in the crime. There are plenty of people that get "talked into" things but they don't commit major crimes. It wasn't like Chales Manson held a gun to her head and forced her to commit these crimes. She did it because she was, in her own words, "weak-minded". Modle prisoner sounds nice but truthfully, what does that mean to the people on the outside that don't have the skills and the means to protect ourselves from her criminal element? I mean there are people that have commited simular or even worse crimes than she has and they can handle her where as she could once again be brainwashed into doing something else to one of us. There are people that can exersize control over her in prisons because they have weapons and order whereas on the outside she would be free and possible dangerous. Let the state decide when she should be released please.

 

Bellfire01 wrote: "What will you do if your arguements are heard, the prison releases her and she commits another crime? What will you do and say then? How will you explain to her new victims and their families? How can you assure us that she will not be dangerous and easily led?"

I don't believe that Leslie will commit another crime, hence the reason why I am in favor of her release.

I don't believe that she is dangerous and further, that because she has spent over 35 years in prison, she more than anyone else is well aware of her shortcomings and won't let the same thing happen to her again. (Trust me, if I thought that she was still a threat to society, I would not be doing what I am doing). Because I believe in her rehabilitation so strongly, I don't worry about such things.

Bellfire01 wrote: "One of my biggest hang-ups about her and probally the reason why she doesn't get paroled is her inability to accept her role in the crime.

Frankly, I have no idea how can you say she hasn't accepted responsibility for her crime when she has done so at numerous parole hearings! That is not reality, man!

Bellfire01 wrote: "There are plenty of people that get "talked into" things but they don't commit major crimes. It wasn't like Chales Manson held a gun to her head and forced her to commit these crimes. She did it because she was, in her own words, "weak-minded".

I think that the fact that Leslie was under the influence of Manson and did his bidding has been thoroughly discussed in this thread and that the evidence for brainwashing is pretty clear.

If I am remembering correctly, I believe that by saying she was "weak minded," Leslie was referring to the fact that she felt bad about not being strong enough to resist the pressure she had been placed under by Manson and for allowing herself to get involved with drugs.

You have to remember that Manson didn't just show up on the Haight and put knives and guns into people's hands and tell them to start killing people. The build up to murder was a long and slow process in which he first won his followers love and trust and then, in a completely amoral fashion, violated that trust in the most horrific way possible. That is the most vicious thing I can think of to do to another human being short of murder.

You must also keep in mind that Leslie and the others were so consumed by Manson's rap and immersed in his world that at the time of the murders, they were willing to both kill and die for him. And no, Manson did not hold a gun to Leslie's head . . . I daresay that once he had convinced his followers that he was Jesus Christ, he really didn't have to.

Bellfire01 wrote: "Modle prisoner sounds nice but truthfully, what does that mean to the people on the outside that don't have the skills and the means to protect ourselves from her criminal element? I mean there are people that have commited simular or even worse crimes than she has and they can handle her where as she could once again be brainwashed into doing something else to one of us. There are people that can exersize control over her in prisons because they have weapons and order whereas on the outside she would be free and possible dangerous. Let the state decide when she should be released please."

Your statement relies on the assumption that Leslie has not been rehabilitated enough to be released and is still a danger to society. I believe that she has been rehabilitated and is no longer a threat to anyone.

And now I really do have to get my chores done!

Thanks

 

You believe, you think, you assume, you suppose...

But the question remains: Will you take personal responsibility for her if she is NOT rehabilitated, if she DOES in fact commit some other crime, even at her advanced age?

And please do not thank me for my comments, do not launch into some diatribe about her time in prison or how she found herself in this precarious situation, there is no need to be so gracious, simply answer the question "yes" or "no".

Would you, the individual known as Labyrinth13, upon her release, take full responsibility for the person known as Leslie Van Houten, since you have lobbied so vehemently for her release from the California Penal System?

 

Zoomie wrote: "You believe, you think, you assume, you suppose...

But the question remains: Will you take personal responsibility for her if she is NOT rehabilitated, if she DOES in fact commit some other crime, even at her advanced age?"

Let me see . . . sure, why not?

Zoomie wrote: "And please do not thank me for my comments, do not launch into some diatribe about her time in prison or how she found herself in this precarious situation, there is no need to be so gracious, simply answer the question 'yes' or 'no'."

Wow, that is the first time anyone ever called me onto the floor for being too gracious! I fear that I may have annoyed you in some way, but can't imagine why, unless you feel that I am too opinionated? Correct me if I'm wrong . . .(However I must say that I hardly see how anything I have written could be labeled as a "diatribe." But yes, strongly opinionated as noted above).

Zoomie wrote: "Would you, the individual known as Labyrinth13, upon her release, take full responsibility for the person known as Leslie Van Houten, since you have lobbied so vehemently for her release from the California Penal System?"

Yes, I Labyrinth13 do solemnly swear that I will take full responsibility for Leslie Van Houten's actions upon her release from prison.

Is that straight shootin' enough for you, cowboy?

(Written while folding my laundry; excuse the rushed reply).

 

No. I wanted a syllable, not a novella.