Free Leslie Van Houten

Wow, I still sense what almost seems like some sort of underlying hostility coming from you . . . is that just my imagination or what?

Well, just so long as you got all the information you needed and are satisfied with it, I say let's call it even.

That is what good discussions are all about, right?

 

Thanks. I really do appreciate that.

 

Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonably biased, right?

Her own testimony under cross examination completely undermines this fanciful argument.

It is childish and disingenuous to contrive lame excuses for a crime such as this.

She freely chose to incapacitate herself with drugs and to submit to Manson's perverse influence.

Yeah, well, a jury also acquited the unquestionably guilty O.J. Simpson.

Thank goodness!

Claiming "diminished capacity" is dodging responsibility, pure and simple. It destroys any credibility her apologies might otherwise have.

Suit yourself. I only said that Hughes was likely killed on Manson's orders. It seems plausible enough to me, though I realize it's unproven.

You believe that US soldiers are effectively reduced to mere machines that have no will of their own? I seriously doubt that Bugliosi would agree.

She was not the only one to cooperate with the authorities. Paul Watkins also once thought Manson was Christ, but he wanted nothing to do with his bizarre "Helter Skelter" apocalyptic vision.

 

You know what I am curious about,is what is the inspiration driving you Labyrinth13?I mean why are you so on a mission to help get this woman out of prison?I believe there are much more just causes to find righteousness for.So what's up,how did you get caught up in this?Are there really that many who agree with you?Do you really actually believe yourself to be completely educated on this subject of what she may or may not do if she is ever released ?How could you personally gaurantee any thing?Have you spoken directly to Leslie you're self,and what on earth are you basing these theories on?I sure wonder about you're motivation .This is not an attack on you're character,I am seriously curi.ous why you have made this you're mission

 

HuckFinn wrote: "Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonably biased, right?"

No, I was only referrng to Kay when making that statement, not anyone else and I'm sure that you are well aware of that fact. Please, let's not let our areas of disagreement about Leslie degenerate into some sort of personal thing, O.K.?

I am not here to just argue with people or to turn this into some personal, silly war of the wills with someone.

I am here to promote a letter writing campaign to support Leslie's release from prison and in the course of debate, to try and correct any innaccurate statements that anyone may make about her.

I have enjoyed debating with you here, but I ask that you please not try to attribute the wrong meaning to statements I make that you know were not in my original intent. In my opinion, that sort of tactic cheapens the debate and diminishes the spirit of friendliness here. And I want to keep this as friendly as possible.

Now by saying what I just said, I'm not trying to "get in your face," but I really do sense that things between you and I may have degenerated beyond the decorum of good debate and that is not what I want at all. Please correct me if I am wrong.

However, if that is the case, then I suggest that we both just back off for awhile and resume this discussion later. It might be the wise thing to do.

Until I hear back from you on what you want to do, I'll comment on the rest of your post.

HuckFinn wrote: "Her own testimony under cross examination completely undermines this fanciful argument."

And how so? Examples please.

HuckFinn wrote: "It is childish and disingenuous to contrive lame excuses for a crime such as this."

A classic example on the use of word semantics. What you label as "contriving a lame excuse," defense attorneys might call zealously and tirelessly defending a client.

HuckFinn wrote: "She freely chose to incapacitate herself with drugs and to submit to Manson's perverse influence."

While your statement may have been true to some degree in the very beginning, it is misleading in that you leave out some very important facts: Manson didn't start out as the evil person he would later become. At the start, Manson was all peace and love like any good hippie guru. He attracted many people to him because in the beginning, he was actually preaching about understanding, caring, harmony and many other positive aspects of the hippie value system. But as everyone knows, Manson later went through some serious negative changes. By the time that the murder plans came down, Leslie and the others had already been completely sucked into his world. By making such a blanket statement as you did above, it appears that you are trying to make it sound like she willingly walked right into an existing den of evil from the very beginning. History shows that was not the case at all.

HuckFinn wrote: "Yeah, well, a jury also acquited the unquestionably guilty O.J. Simpson."

The point I was tyring to make is that Leslie's jury in the second trial had serious doubts about the prosecution's case, meaning that at least part of the jury believed that there was real merit to the defense's argument.

Karlene Faith explores that fact in great detail and also how that was the prime reason why Kay got nervous and resorted to using a legal technicality in the third trial that would effectively kill Leslie's ability to use that defense again. Now where is the real justice in that, I ask you?

For Kay, it seems more like a concern to "win the big game for the home team," instead of letting real justice prevail. Now that can be seen as either an example of Kay's personal bias showing or his acting as a zealous prosecuter. If it is the former, than it is both wrong and grossly unprofessional. If the latter, one has to wonder about what Kay's true motivations are beyond just "doing his job."

(And for the record, I believe O.J. did it).

HuckFinn wrote: "Claiming "diminished capacity" is dodging responsibility, pure and simple. It destroys any credibility her apologies might otherwise have."

Another classic example on the use of word semantics. What you call "dodging responsibility" others might call putting on a defense at a murder trial.

HuckFinn wrote: "Suit yourself. I only said that Hughes was likely killed on Manson's orders. It seems plausible enough to me, though I realize it's unproven."

I was just trying to make an example of why it is not wise to stick with unfounded rumor and to continue to repeat innacurate information while seeking the truth.

HuckFinn wrote: "You believe that US soldiers are effectively reduced to mere machines that have no will of their own? I seriously doubt that Bugliosi would agree."

No, again you are taking my words out of context and trying to attribute the wrong meaning to my statement.

I used the Bugliosi quote while debating the mind control issue with you to show that Bugliosi did believe that Manson was brainwashing his followers, a fact you earlier had tried to deny. I said that Bugliosi, while discussing Manson's mind control techniques, drew a direct correlation between what the U.S. military does when training recruits to kill to what Manson did when convincing his followers it was O.K. to kill.

Go back and read the thread again and please, I ask that you don't continue to use this type of debating trick with me. I'm not here to simply butt heads with you or to argue with you for no reason.

HuckFinn wrote: "She was not the only one to cooperate with the authorities. Paul Watkins also once thought Manson was Christ, but he wanted nothing to do with his bizarre "Helter Skelter" apocalyptic vision."

True, but perhaps that only shows that Watkins was less easily manipulated than the others were? I don't know everything about how mind control works and I don't have all the answers here. But I still believe that the evidence tends to show that the Manson family was a brainwashing cult.

Thanks.

 

audreyanne wrote: "You know what I am curious about,is what is the inspiration driving you Labyrinth13?I mean why are you so on a mission to help get this woman out of prison?"

I'm glad that you asked that question. I have worked in the criminal justice system for the past 16 years and like to see the system work for everyone. I believe that Leslie has paid her debt to society and has been rehabilitated.

audreyanne wrote: "I believe there are much more just causes to find righteousness for."

Well, that is where you and I differ. I believe that this is an equally just cause. (And for the record, this is not the only project I am working on. I also volunteer my time at homeless shelters, help organize politically at the local level, and support environmental causes with my time and money).

audreyanne wrote: "So what's up,how did you get caught up in this?Are there really that many who agree with you?"

See answer to the first part of your question above. And yes, along with other partners in this "Free Leslie" project, we are starting to accumulate quite a few letters to the parole board.

audreyanne wrote: "Do you really actually believe yourself to be completely educated on this subject of what she may or may not do if she is ever released?"

Yes, as much as anyone can be.

audreyanne wrote: "How could you personally gaurantee any thing?"

That is an interesting question. Who can personally guarantee anything but death and taxes, to use the old cliche'?

All I can say to you is that I believe in Leslie. I believe in her rehabilitation. I trust her when she says she is sorry for her crimes and that she wants to live a quiet life of freedom like the rest of us. And I do so because I have gotten to know her beyond the image of her projected by the true crime books and television shows. I believe that she is ready to join us in society again.

audreyanne wrote: "Have you spoken directly to Leslie you're self,and what on earth are you basing these theories on?"

Yes, I have corresponded with Leslie.

You will need to give me further information about your "theories" question because I'm not quite sure what you are asking there.

audreyanne wrote: "I sure wonder about you're motivation .This is not an attack on you're character,I am seriously curi.ous why you have made this you're mission."

There is not much to wonder about. My only motivation is to see justice applied where I believe it is really needed. Beyond that, there is simply my religious belief about showing love and compassion for another human being in a time of need.

Thanks.

 

Here's an example exerpt from Helter Skelter that I provided earlier:

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.)

​

Her actions were indefensible. As I said before, a truly remorseful person would direct her attorney to plead guilty, instead of trying to weasel out of her justly deserved conviction.

"Positive aspects" like orgies and mock crucifixions?

You say she was "sucked in" as though she somehow ceased to think and act on her own volition.

Once again, her efforts to defend her indefensible crime demolish the credibility of her professed remorse.

When soldiers commit atrocities, their culpability is not lessoned by claiming they were only following orders. That weak "defense" was totally rejected at the Nurenberg trials.

Again, I contend that it is impossible to literally control another's mind. Maybe you could explain how you define "mind control."

 

Of the Manson Family are you crazy!

 

Huck Finn wrote: "Her own testimony under cross examination completely undermines this fanciful argument." Here's an example exerpt from Helter Skelter that I provided earlier: (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.)"


Since the time of the first trial on which the book Helter Skelter you quote from above is based, the evidence of Rosemary LaBianca's death and the stab wounds that were inflicted on her have undergone two more separate examinations. I don't have the passages from the book right in front of me at present, but if I recall correctly, Karlene Faith's book says that the latest evidence tends to show that Leslie did in fact only inflict post mortem wounds. If I have time this week, I will re-read the book to look for those passages in Faith's book and supply quotes and page numbers for them here. Thanks.

Huck Finn wrote:
"Quote:
A classic example on the use of word semantics. What you label as "contriving a lame excuse," defense attorneys might call zealously and tirelessly defending a client.

Her actions were indefensible. As I said before, a truly remorseful person would direct her attorney to plead guilty, instead of trying to weasel out of her justly deserved conviction."

You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one as it is clear that neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

Huck Finn wrote:
"Quote:
While your statement may have been true to some degree in the very beginning, it is misleading in that you leave out some very important facts: Manson didn't start out as the evil person he would later become. At the start, Manson was all peace and love like any good hippie guru. He attracted many people to him because in the beginning, he was actually preaching about understanding, caring, harmony and many other positive aspects of the hippie value system.

"Positive aspects" like orgies and mock crucifixions?"


Lot's of people were experimenting with all sorts of unusual things back in the 60's, including alterative sexuality and alternate religious ideas.


I don't know how old you are, but I can tell you that more than one of the communes that I visited during that same general time had similar practices, so the Manson family was hardly unique in that aspect.


Whether such experiences as you cite above can be seen as either positive or negative should be left up to the individual to decide. I try to never make judgments about other peoples sexual practices or religious ideas.


Huck Finn wrote:
"Quote:
But as everyone knows, Manson later went through some serious negative changes. By the time that the murder plans came down, Leslie and the others had already been completely sucked into his world. By making such a blanket statement as you did above, it appears that you are trying to make it sound like she willingly walked right into an existing den of evil from the very beginning. History shows that was not the case at all.

You say she was "sucked in" as though she somehow ceased to think and act on her own volition."

That is close to what I am saying. More precisely, I meant that she had stopped questioning her old value system because it had been replaced by Manson's via his programming, which by all accounts, was a slow, deliberate process, not by some instant choice as you seemed to be implying.


By the time the murder talk started, Leslie was already under Manson's control, just as Bugliosi described it in Helter Skelter and just as many other people who have studied the case have described it.

Huck Finn wrote:
"Quote:
Another classic example on the use of word semantics. What you call "dodging responsibility" others might call putting on a defense at a murder trial.
Once again, her efforts to defend her indefensible crime demolish the credibility of her professed remorse."

You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one as it is clear that neither of us is going to change the other's mind here.

Huck Finn wrote:
"Quote:
I used the Bugliosi quote while debating the mind control issue with you to show that Bugliosi did believe that Manson was brainwashing his followers, a fact you earlier had tried to deny. I said that Bugliosi, while discussing Manson's mind control techniques, drew a direct correlation between what the U.S. military does when training recruits to kill to what Manson did when convincing his followers it was O.K. to kill.

When soldiers commit atrocities, their culpability is not lessoned by claiming they were only following orders. That weak "defense" was totally rejected at the Nurenberg trials."

And I never said that anyone claimed to have been "only following orders." And no one at the Nuremberg trials was claiming to have been brainwashed by a religious cult, as I remember my history, but that really has nothing to do with what we were originally talking about here anyway.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up all these strange side issues on this part of the thread . . . maybe it is because you are still uncomfortable with the fact that I pointed out about how Bugliosi believed that Manson brainwashed his followers? That is what we were originally talking about here when I brought up Bugliosi's "U.S. soldiers v. Manson followers" parallel. You do not seem to have grasped that yet.

Let me try this one last time: I didn't use that example in any other context except to illustrate for you what Bugliosi believed about the mind control aspect of the case, which you were trying to deny. I make no other assertions about his statement in any other way beyond that. I hope that is clear.

Huck Finn wrote:
"Quote:
True, but perhaps that only shows that Watkins was less easily manipulated than the others were? I don't know everything about how mind control works and I don't have all the answers here. But I still believe that the evidence tends to show that the Manson family was a brainwashing cult.

Again, I contend that it is impossible to literally control another's mind. Maybe you could explain how you define "mind control."

My definition of mind control is in the same context where any religious or other kind of cult has convinced followers that it is O.K. to do things that people outside of the cult would instantly know is wrong.


Thanks.

 

If your post is addressed to me, then the answer is no.

Please read this entire thread for more information.

Thanks.

 

Why don't you try to get RICHARD RAMIREZ freed as well? We can leave you and them on the outside along with O.J. , all the remaining serial killers, pedefiles, and other assorted criminal elements while we lock oursleves behind bars.

 

>>>and another thing that keeps jumping into my brain...what is the deal with Lelie only stabbed her after she was dead,or that her stabbing did not cause the fatal wound!Oh, so its less of a crime to stab someone who was already dead?C'mon how sick si that?stabbing dead people ?That in no way makes her not guilty!That sounds like we are reaching;I mean really taking a big leap.

 

Your statement is insulting to me, appears to be mean spirited and is not worthy of any further comment.

 

Legally, it means a lot. If you have been following my replies to other posters, you would have the answer to your question.

 

OK, let's stick with the example of US soldiers. Do you think that they are truly reduced to mere puppets with no moral capacity of their own? Should they not be held accountable for war crimes such as the Mi Lai massacre?

Bugliosi obviously didn't believe that the alleged "dimished capacity" of Manson's followers lessened their culpability in any way.

 

_______________________________________
It's no meaner than what you are trying to do to society. If you feel that this lady should get out so much than let her stay in your custody. You make excuses for her because she's a woman, white or both. I just bet it really turned your stomach when I mentioned her in the same breath with Ramirez. Well let me tell you something, her crimes were just as bad and the fact that she believes that they weren't is showing me something. I've listen to you defend her and quote passages from articles like some people quote passages from the bible. Just keep in mind that she committed a crime and try not to worship her so much, in fact, let's worship her from a far. (A very safe distance.)

 

I understand the legal ramifications,I was'nt being mean spirited.I feel you were totally dismissive,which is certainly you're perogative.So if she did not cause the fatal wound,how does that make her any less guilty?And how is it that the conclusion was drawn that her stabbing did not result in death?How could that be proven on a forensics level,did someone consult their watch to note the time,and is that proven beyond the shadow of a doubt?I see that you are passionate in your beliefs,and can respect that,but is this not a discussion?I also am passionate in my beliefs so if you think I was being mean,perhaps you may want to consider looking inward.Namaste

 

__________________
She meant my quote not yours lol. She thinks that leaving her on the outside with all the beautiful people wasn't a happy though. lol

 

Would you consider it mean if someone started action to keep Leslie Van Houten in prison?Do you believe that just because you feel so strongly about releasing her that somebody else can not share a different point of view?See,that upsets me that you feel anyone is being mean if they do not agree with you.