Sunday, November 29, 2020

Leslie's Parole Again Reversed By Governor


 

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

NOV. 28, 20209:20 PM

LOS ANGELES —  California Gov. Gavin Newson has reversed parole for Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, marking the fourth time a governor has blocked her release.

A California panel recommended parole in July for Van Houten, who has spent nearly five decades in prison. Newsom reversed her release once previously and his predecessor, Jerry Brown, blocked it twice.


Van Houten’s attorney, Rich Pfeiffer, said they will appeal Newsom’s decision.


“This reversal will demonstrate to the courts that there is no way Newsom will let her out,” Pfeiffer said. “So they have to enforce the law or it will never be enforced.


Van Houten is serving a life sentence for helping Manson and others kill Los Angeles grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, in August 1969. Van Houten was 19 when she and other cult members fatally stabbed the LaBiancas and smeared the couple’s blood on the walls.


The day before, other Manson followers, not including Van Houten, killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others.


Newsom said in his decision that “evidence shows that she currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison.”


Pfeiffer had unsuccessfully requested her release in May due to the coronavirus pandemic.


In 2017, at her parole hearing, Van Houten talked about her childhood, including being devastated by her parents’ divorce when she was 14, using drugs, and running away with a boyfriend at the age of 17. She met Manson while traveling along the coast.


Manson was living on the edge of Los Angeles with the “family” he recruited to survive a race war that he said he would spark with random, horrifying murders.


Manson died in 2017 of natural causes at a California hospital while serving a life sentence.

56 comments:

Cooltide said...

YAAAAAAWNNNNNN....It ain't gonna happen...Ever.

gina said...

Cooltide said: YAAAAAAWNNNNNN....It ain't gonna happen...Ever.

Correct. And rightly so.

Unknown said...

I watched the parole hearing for Susan Atkins' release on compassionate grounds. I was struck by the parole board's interest on where she would be cared for. They really stressed this. Wherever it was, I would not like to be the Chief of Police responsible for keeping the peace. I think the era of the internet & cellphone has spelt the end to paroling any high profile murderers likely to attract much attention. The TLB case lends itself to ongoing coverage simply because of the contemporaneous photos and film of Sharon and the defendants. I could at one point imagine Krenwinkel adopting a new identity and retreating in decent obscurity to an enclosed religious order ,spending the rest of her life scrubbing floors for the nuns in expiation. But, Beausoleil- decent obscurity!!! Not going to happen.

Unknown said...

Clicked post too soon. I think Van Houten is the second least likely candidate for obscurity. I now cannot imagine any of the 5 surviving convicts resisting the lure of self publicising on the pretext of doing good by holding themselves up as a cautionary example to youth.

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Irony, how ya doin'?
Fine, yeah it's me open the door, I'm alive!
Open the damn door!

Okay, what happened here?
Why, it's a road to justice that discriminates and leads to nowhere.
If you're someone that some people just wanna see 'get it' cause they want revenge
and so their hang-ups and personal prejudice...against, especially against the females that we enjoyed watching on trial in the city of Angels in '70 or so.
People that are in L.A.'s D.A. office or some attorney with the prosecution during the Manson trial. These people.
And so, they stick their noses where it's none of their business.

And,
On denying Leslie parole now, do you sleuths here and on other sites think that it was that simple? That the Governor 'considered...' Ha ha
Really?

Here we are,
that same old story: the governor reviewed the parole papers and of the so-called facts of the case and he determined...no he didn't.
No, that was done, as it was before, when Leslie was denied her parole, by some members of the governor's staff and they gave a quick briefing-saying/telling him that these are the 'facts blah blah.'
You know-the 'crime so terrible'- and 'danger to society' and more bull.

Here's some of what's wrong:
the California Supreme Court in rulings, in 2008, that the 'viciousness' and so on of a crime cannot be the sole reason for denying parole. That there must be shown, as it were, and let's repeat this word and it's meaning: Shown, that the inmate is a danger to society. "here Governor, she's this person that was this and that with Manson and..."

Ir's worse than that: they built up and keep hammering as to how terrible the crime is...to justify saying 'an unreasonable danger to society!'
How the hell is Court gonna deal with that? So the 2008 rulings can be ignored!
In other words, quite simply, you can deny any inmate parole by saying, as these staff who wrote the decision for the Governor to sign did, "danger to society."

And when you say (which I do): "why is it that cold blooded murderers that took the lives of 1 and 2 people have been released by the 100's since 2008 and so, why did they keep non-murderer Susan Sadie when she couldn't even move" and they say, to that, "I don't care let them all stay in prison."
Ah no, that's not the way it works in law and in practical reason, otherwise, this system will be a 'free for all' and fall apart.

How, tell me, can you hate or whatever reasons you have give/for gloating over Leslie or Susan being denied release when you know that we're supposed to be fair across the board and justice is supposed to be for all?
How does that work morally and legally? Did the Supreme Court say that well, "tell ya what" y'all in the future, if you hate Susan Atkins and Leslie Van Houten and some others like them, okay you can leave 'em in prison.
And release the scum that raped a young teen girl and killed another and release the fella that stabbed to death two people, on the street, after 18 years.
And, oh yeah (Fayez speaking now) give 'em a computer, cash and some counseling.(I've seen it)

Aren't we so nice, what a system. That's just swell.
One more thing-the Governor does not deny cause of voters/elections. Come on!
All you gotta do is look at the politicians all over getting away with all types of this and that, they still get elected and later get big money and it goes on.
Hell's bells

gina said...

Fayez: She has no conscience about the murders and is capable of killing again. Hence, a danger to society. That's what Newsom determined. He's right. It has nothing to do with the original crime anymore, but what she might do if released.

Robert C said...

In 1982 at the age of 22 actress Dominique Dunne was strangled to death in the driveway of her home in broad daylight. The murderer served 3.5 years and has since owned and operated restaurants -- the latest in Seattle.

Steve Grogan served a combined 15 years in prison for murder. He's long since been free, married with kids, plays in a band among other jobs, and has not knowingly been a threat to society.

Similar results are endless in the California courts over the last hundred years.

To the best of anyone's knowledge Van Houten killed no one, stuck a knife in the lower back of a dead person, and receives a death sentence later commuted to life with possibility of parole, and then is tortured as the parole option is regularly trotted out and dangled in front of her but then denied.

Then a string of two-faced hypocrite Governors have declared she's still a danger to society.

I dunno ... I have to still think hard on this one (barf-barf). I really don't care about her smarmy ass and have no personal dog in the fight other than to look for some semblance of justice in the legal system -- the system that holds this country together. Fairness and consistency is paramount.

Matt said...

Blogger Robert C said...
I really don't care about her smarmy ass and have no personal dog in the fight other than to look for some semblance of justice in the legal system -- the system that holds this country together. Fairness and consistency is paramount.


Couldn't have said it better myself...




Donna said...

Leslie has more than paid for her part in the crime. She is less a danger to society than Trump is.

John Seger said...

Horsey face Lulu deserves to never be paroled

Dan S said...

Fayez, well said.
Ridiculous that this old bat who had completely changed from the naive sucker can't be release..

She had already changed when she was released pending her 2nd trial and showed exemplary behavior. All those who think her actions were especially abhorrent compared to many who have been released don't pay any attention to any crime but this one

Dani_P said...

I agree with Robert.

When you look at HOW the justice system is supposed to work and then see reversals like this it just doesn't pass the smell test. The reasons they cite also don't work. They claim she's still a "danger to society" but has a spotless 50 year prison record and lived as a productive member of society in between her trials -- that doesn't scream "threat to society" and as it is I *thought* they had to back up their assertions. I mean, just the fact that she happens to have committed a crime in a state that even allows governor reversals is just luck of the draw and not something that is allowed across the board.

I totally understand why people feel the way they do but lady justice is supposed to be blind and the law is supposed to be handed down fairly (although we know that isn't always the case). They just don't even seem to try to come up with justifications that would satisfy all legal minds and simply put down "danger to society" because they can.

I also really don't think politically it would make much of a difference -- especially in this tribal day and age. I'm 34 years old and I don't know many people who would even know who Leslie is, I'm sure they've heard of Charlie but many don't even know the details of the crime and if asked would say "Charles Manson is a serial killer cult leader". That may be different in California where the crime is more local than all the way across the country in Boston but I just don't think it would make THAT much of a difference, especially because of the tribal lines that have been drawn. Liberals in Cali aren't going to suddenly vote for a Republican governor because Newsom let out Leslie Van Houten after the 5th time she was recommended for parole -- in fact, I think I know more people that would be outraged the governor even holds that power.

It doesn't matter to me either way, I'm not some Leslie supporter but solely based on a legal perspective it just doesn't seem right -- especially because of the reasons given.

Chrisonthecape said...

In the halls of justice, the only justice, is in the halls. At this point she is nothing more than a political prisoner. California's record on cases similar to hers does not pass the sniff test. Perhaps if she pledged allegiance to BLM she may be out for breakfast tomorrow.

Cooltide said...

I'm sorry to say but I personally think that the Girls, ,singing,smiling,laughing and generally playing up during a horrendous murder trial in front of the World's Media is what keeps them locked up, well, in Atkins and Van Houten's case anyway.
Krenwinkle never had a chance at Parole.

Robert C said...

*** Krenwinkle never had a chance at Parole. ***

Agreed. She participated in murder both nights.

*** ... well, in Atkins and Van Houten's case anyway. ***

Atkins did participate in murder (?) and attempted murder (Frykowski) the first night so it would be hard to see her ever being released had she continued to live based on past Governor behavior.

Milly James said...

Hi Folks, A little off topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any views about the Jeremy Bamber case. The White House Farm murders. I read a few books about it and discussed it with a friend who happens to be a high profile defence solicitor in the UK. We both thought it was an unsafe conviction. Not a nice man apparently. But then again, many of my friend's clients haven't been altogether brilliant. Bamber refuses to admit guilt therefore he is not eligible for early release or anything of that sort. Thought I'd throw it into the mix...

AustinAnn74 said...

These people are not ever going to be released, nor should they! You participate in a live horror movie, then when caught, unremorsefully prance down the halls of justice singing, laughing, smiling and not giving one shit for the pain & destruction you caused the families left behind and then......you have the audacity to act put out & shocked when the suits won't release you?!

orwhut said...

Off Topic:

Blogger Milly James said...
Hi Folks, A little off topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has any views about the Jeremy Bamber case.-snip-

I had to read the Wikipedia article to refresh my memory of the case. Jeremy Bamber's story reminds me of one version of what Ronald DeFeo told about who killed his family in the Amityville Horror house.

In my opinion, both sons are "probably" guilty and I'm thankful not to have been on a jury burdened with making either determination.


Fayez Abedaziz said...

Gina,
I just can't take the gist of what you wrote about
Leslie not having a conscience or that she's a danger.
How many times has she taken responsibility for her actions and how many times has she professed regret and sadness as to what she had done, had been a part of?
The answer is:many times in many interviews with her.

Actually, I was rather amazed and unhappy as to how she even took the blame for the
crimes at the La Bianca house-as if she was a part all of them.
Don't see what acts of crime she may commit if released, that just doesn't fit her personality in any way.
What's she gonna do, shoplift and shove a worker as she runs out of the store?
Any acts of violence or threats from her after all those years in prison?
She really is an average person, with no degrees in say, quantum mechanics, yet she is a basically common sense person.

August 9 and let's go for a ride.
Is it necessary Charlie, to tell some Spahners' to get into the car?
You're telling 'em, so you are telling people what to do.
So, Charlie, for you is it that there's nothing to do so let's ride and then find people to kill?
Easy life Charlie drives, some say Linda Drouin also drives part of the way and they're eventually gonna go and Leslie is with 'em. So is dear Susan, asleep and dazed, in the back seat.
Hell, it's punishment enough to be with these quite grubby people there in that car.
Though Susan Sadie was a clean girl.

1-Leslie wanted to fit in and was another insecure person, as are many that age, and this was hip and commune type living, though that could be young people in any era or decade.
They say she said she wanted to be part of the mayhem, the killings, such as occurred at Cielo. That was Leslie trying to, as I just said, 'fit in.'
Big mistake on her talk, but really, you think she wanted to kill people?
Then why didn't she at Waverly Drive?
Why did it take Tex grabbing her chin and saying, "here..." do something and he puts a knife in her hand?
Susan (Atkins) did not and Leslie did not initiate any violence at all.
They coulda been back at the Raunch (sic) eating candy bars and lsd as Charlie and the freaks Tex and idiot caveman Clem Grogan were fine with any violence that may be on offer, so to speak.
Pat (no spelling bee entry form for her please, thank you) had already killed. At Cielo.
Grogan was to murder poor Shea in a coupla weeks.
So you jackasses go, just leave Leslie and Susan alone.
You bastards.
If only...

'Baby Don't Go'-with somewhat different lyrics, it coulda...
The underrated songwriter Sonny with Beautiful Cher-1965
Where were you in 1965 Susan, oh where did you go
just one street away and you woulda never been in that damn yellow/white car.
Ford from Detroit.
Some things you gotta say, I just cant' dig it.
Run away if you don't like what I said, don't bother me.

Matthew said...

I understand when people say that these girls should never get out because of the brutality of the crimes, the behavior in the courtroom and the disregard for the feelings of the victim's families. But that is a passion way of thinking and not a legal way. If the governor is basing his decision souly on her being a danger to society, that is ridiculous. She has met all the criteria for release. She has shown remorse and has been an exemplary prisoner for almost 50 years. He can argue the heinousness of the crime but that is not something that she can change, so why even offer parole? At this point, she is a political prisoner. I am not a Leslie fan but the law should be equal across the board.
There are also people that argue that she is less guilty than the others because she may have just stabbed a dead body, but the California law states that if you go into a criminal act knowing that a crime is going to be committed, even though you are not the one that actually initiates the crime, you are equally guilty. So Leslie is just as guilty in the deaths of Rosemary and Leno as Stabby Tex and Pat. But because at her third trial, she was sentenced to life w/ parole, it is not like the others that recieved the death sentence and it was reduced to life because of changing laws. That should also make a difference in the parole decision.

grimtraveller said...

Irony, nuance and paradox.

Fayez Abedaziz said:

really, you think she wanted to kill people? Then why didn't she at Waverly Drive?

It is a simple matter of maths. Leslie says she stabbed 14-16 times. The autopsy states that less than 14 wounds were post mortem. Therefore anyone reading that or hearing it and still clinging to the notion that all she did was stab a dead body is blatantly, completely, wilfully and totally ignoring evidence that cannot be ignored.
I believe Leslie when she says she thought Rosemary was dead before she stabbed her. She said it privately to Dianne Lake in September '69 at Willow Springs. She said it privately to her lawyer in December '69. She said it on the stand during the penalty phase when she was doing her utmost best to absolve Charlie and get herself lodged in the gas chamber. She has said it throughout her time of parole hearings. There was even a time when she said it as a way to mitigate and deflect from her guilt. She says it now. I have no reason to doubt her. She has been utterly consistent about 2 things in her history ~ HS as a motive for the killings {even when she was a Charlie supporter before the trial !} and that she thought Rosemary was already dead before she began stabbing her. But that does not mean that Rosemary was dead. Only that Leslie thought she was.
Her own words ~ she stabbed 14~16 times. Scientific, uncontrovertible evidence ~ less than 14 of the wounds were post mortem.
That body was alive when Leslie commenced stabbing. The evidence against Leslie was way more powerful than any that was brought against Tex or Pat because their Cielo prints only proved they were there.

gina said:

She has no conscience about the murders and is capable of killing again. Hence, a danger to society. That's what Newsom determined. He's right. It has nothing to do with the original crime anymore, but what she might do if released

How do you balance that statement and thought with this question asked by one of the parole board members just 4 months ago ?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GROUNDS: “So, you’re not violent before the life crime. You’re non-violent when you’re out on your own recognizance while you’re going through the trials, and you’ve been non-violent for 50 years.”

I have to ask you Gina, just as a point of curiosity, do you really believe that a 71 year old woman that has not shown the slightest penchant for violence in 50 years and has consistently, for at least 47 of those years, publicly turned her back on the group, leader and life that spawned her displays of violence 51 years ago, might, if released from jail, murder again ?
You could be totally right but I'm keen for you to put some flesh on the bones of your thinking.

grimtraveller said...

Cooltide said:

I personally think that the Girls, singing,smiling,laughing and generally playing up during a horrendous murder trial in front of the World's Media is what keeps them locked up

Yet interestingly, it is never brought up in the hearings. Even the DDA never touches on it.

AustinAnn74 said:

You participate in a live horror movie, then when caught, unremorsefully prance down the halls of justice singing, laughing, smiling and not giving one shit for the pain & destruction you caused the families left behind

And you point that out rightly. You do so because it was outrageous. So what happens when remorse does become part of the equation ? When the perp does start giving a shit for the pain inflicted on the victims' families ? Is it to count for nothing ? Is it to make no difference ? Are you daring to say that it makes absolutely no difference and that in fact, they may as well cock a snook at the families until they die ?

Fayez Abedaziz said:

Though Susan Sadie was a clean girl

Not according to her own words ¬> "We raided garbage cans for discarded food that was stilledible. Most of us carry traces of acne and other problems resulting from eating things that were less than wholesome......we had reached the point of sharing everything, even underwear...." and she also speaks of her STDs and related infections {why she was even barefoot at Cielo, for example}. Not to say that all the Family had hygiene issues, but Susan's own words don't hold her up as a paragon of cleanliness.

They say she said she wanted to be part of the mayhem, the killings, such as occurred at Cielo. That was Leslie trying to, as I just said, 'fit in.'

Read that Marvin Part transcript. There was an element of wanting to 'fit in' but it was also a lot more than that.
She believed. And privately she told her lawyer she had no regrets and would do exactly the same thing again if faced with the same situation.

Robert C said...

Grim said: " Therefore anyone reading that or hearing it and still clinging to the notion that all she did was stab a dead body is blatantly, completely, wilfully and totally ignoring evidence that cannot be ignored ... Scientific, uncontrovertible evidence ~ less than 14 of the wounds were post mortem. "

First and foremost the autopsy people are 'suggesting' based on guessing because there's only a few ways to tell if a stab is pre or post-mortem and poor Rosemary really had none that Leslie inflicted ***that we know for sure*** , were, while Rosemary was alive nor even precisely how many of the stab wounds were Leslie's (is it 14 or 16 for example ... what's the exact number ... that's right, nobody knows for sure ... it's a guess).

Second, myself and a few others are proposing she technically killed no one based on the known evidence and even though she shares some guilt we feel it's not only far more slight than those who actually really murdered Rosemary but that 50 years of incarceration is not only far more than the crime warrants but is also not consistent with past California murder trial rulings.

Robert C said...

Matthew said : " There are also people that argue that she is less guilty than the others because she may have just stabbed a dead body, but the California law states that if you go into a criminal act knowing that a crime is going to be committed, even though you are not the one that actually initiates the crime, you are equally guilty. "

I think many if not most of us know the California law regarding this and are not arguing that point. What some are saying is in the context of technically we have no evidence that Leslie really killed anyone, legalities aside.

Fayez Abedaziz said...

I'll tell you this sort of hypocrisy (what's new in today's strange, contradictory political/social scene in society) has got to stop.
At least on some issues.
Every thing is supposed to be okay, everything is accepted and you shall not criticize anything and California is such a place of 'openness' and 'oh so liberal' that way, right?
Well, I come from the 60's liberal/left.
Actually I was considered a radical and there were teachers in my high school and professors in my College that I didn't even have classes with that were criticizing me at staff meetings and to the administrators.
One teacher confronted me in a hall way and said,"we don't have bars around this country...you can leave..." (if you don't like it, blah blah)
In College one professor asked if I was on a foreign student visa, as I was leading protests against the Vietnam war and other American foreign involvements. I said, "I have a green card." He said, "oh." He was disappointed. I laughed.
Here's why I bring this up:
unlike the 1950's, even before (but I mention the era of my being alive and so, observing/living there) and into the 60's, there were situations that, if a politician or a movie star was 'caught' at such as an extra marital affair or a bribe situation, they were, for the most part out of work, often disappearing from public view. Nowadays 'anything goes.'
Like, give them a break, it's no big deal and 'are you a 'prude' or 'what do you care.'
But that open mindedness doesn't seem to apply to people such as the 'Manson girls.'
Look at the history of the politicians in L.A. and San Francisco since the 70's.
From often open lies to outright 'affairs' while they are married, why, nothing happens to their career. They use government/taxpayer money to bribe others and to give to a women 'on the side.' There was political violence and some murders, mostly un-solved- see the San Francisco newspapers/60's and 70's.
Yes, I know I seem to be bringing up unrelated issues (and do I not downplay the Cielo-Waverly crimes) but it all comes down to what's been happening in society and so, why do these modern 'liberals' want Leslie to suffer rejection? To remain imprisoned?
What do they care?
Do you really believe the D.A.'s office in L.A. the people there that go to object to a parole for Susan or Leslie are crying for Voytek having died? No they don't.
They're just going with the program and well, since when do all of these people that pop up at parole hearings and gather signatures care about which inmate should be released or not? I didn't see 'em show up at someone that killed and was released after 20 years or 30, as most did that got parole.
You see friends and enemies o mine, what they're doing is trying Charles Manson at these parole hearings, as Leslie or Susan sit there. The crime is lived through again. Why? The victim's relative or whoever is okay with the gruesome details enacted? Why try the damn case again? It comes down to 'we don't like her.'
I suggest that another section be added to the Eights Amendment:
The length of time an inmate is subjected to after meeting the requirements set for parole or even if rejected, that the time served be reviewed by a judge or committee, so that one can ask, "so explain why those 1,400 were released since 2008 but not Susan Atkins? That subjecting Leslie to what they have been be then deemed:
Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
And, if you are not a relative don't bother, you're not welcome at a parole hearing.
Since three states have a governor veto of parole, that should be challenged and overturned. That is just politics is and grandstanding for some people.

There you go, a free article from me, enjoy reading it again. Dig?

Robert C said...

Fayez said: " Since three states have a governor veto of parole, that should be challenged and overturned. "

Agreed ... unless the whole board of appeals gets drunk a lot ;-)

Speculator said...

I understand the argument that gets made about other killers having been paroled after a lesser number of years so why not the Manson crowd too. Afterall the law should be applied evenly right? But the law is an ass as they say and some people believe that NO killers should get parole. And it’s always worth remembering Doris Tate’s words at one of Watson’s hearings - “will my daughter get up and walk out of her grave if you get parole?”. A point very well made indeed. Van Houten and the rest all enjoyed the ride they were on and the murders that came with it. had they not been caught they wouldn’t care a jot for remorse or regret. Suffer the consequences I’m afraid.

Dan S said...

Leslie is not in stabby tex or Charlie's league

Milly James said...

Orwhut - Thanks for commenting. Intriguing case. I think I'd have to go Not Guilty due the corruption/lack of evidence. Police notes, photographs, phone records are all over the shop. If you are interested in reading a balanced account I'd recommend the Sunday Times magazine article from some years ago. They covered all that business with the paint from the mantlepiece and the silencer. The journalist said they didn't know which way to call it either.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

had they not been caught they wouldn’t care a jot for remorse or regret

Well, we can never know that.
But it is an interesting point. After all there are a large number of unsolved murders and it can't be the case in all of them that the murderer died very quickly so one is justified in assuming that the murderer in at least some of those cases didn't feel remorse or regret.
But in the case of the Manson troupe, it's a moot point and largely irrelevant because they were caught and that did lead to their remorse and regret. The number of things that happen in the world that wouldn't have done so had something else not happened is staggering and isn't even worth talking about because the numbers are infinitesimal.

grimtraveller said...

Robert C said:

First and foremost the autopsy people are 'suggesting' based on guessing

Even in 1969, they could tell and did tell, which wounds were fatal, and which combinations of non fatal wounds, including blows to the head, would be fatal. There was no guess work involved.

because there's only a few ways to tell if a stab is pre or post-mortem

That doesn't really matter. They obviously utilized one or more of those 'few' ways.
Leslie was convicted primarily on the evidence of Dianne Lake. Her statement was that she'd stabbed a body that was already dead. That is crucial because that statement focuses Leslie's entire involvement on whether any wounds were post mortem. Are you suggesting that 19 year old acid head Leslie, freaking out at the sound of Tex in action was able to correctly determine something so startlingly accurately but Dr Noguchi who had done 4000 autopsies and supervised between 3000 & 4000 more was only 'suggesting' or 'guessing' ?
Bugliosi asked him if any of Sharon's wounds were post mortem. He definitively answered 'no'. Was that just a guess ? He asked the same when it came to Abigail's murder. And got the same reply. When talking with Dr Noguchi about Wojiciech's death, Bugliosi asked the same question and the Doc was able to differentiate between stab wounds that occurred while he was alive, when he was in the dying process {the agonal stage} and after he died. In both the questioning about Abigail & Wojiciech, the questions elicit a lot of testimony as to how they can tell what state the person was in when certain wounds occurred. There's no guess work there.
Leslie is in jail today primarily because the coroners knew how to distinguish between bodies stabbed when dead and while still alive.
In every one of the known Family murders and Crowe, one of the perps presumed someone was dead and in each case they were at some point wrong.

and poor Rosemary really had none that Leslie inflicted ***that we know for sure*** , were, while Rosemary was alive

We go by the words of Leslie Van Houten. No one else. She states that she could have done a couple of stabs in and around the neck. We don't dispute that. She states that she stabbed repeatedly around the lower back. We don't dispute that. Interestingly, she has always claimed that Tex stabbed Rosemary ~ but she also states that she did not see this. If we're going to take the line of what we are absolutely sure of, there's no proof that Tex did anything. There isn't even any proof that he was even at the LaBiancas beyond the words of the killers. But we don't dispute it.

nor even precisely how many of the stab wounds were Leslie's

Again, we have to go by the numbers that Leslie gives. The number has varied but for the majority of time it has been 14-16. You ask is it 14 or 16. Well, it doesn't matter whether it's 14. We do know for sure that less than 14 were post mortem. The exact number isn't given but we are told that it is less than 14 because of the group of 14 spoken of on the lower back and buttocks, the autopsy tells us "some" of that cluster were post mortem. So it tells us that Rosemary was alive when Leslie began stabbing. She may have been on the way out but she wasn't gone yet. You'll notice that I never said that any of her stabs were fatal. That is not the point I argue because in actuality no one knows.
But there is some maths and science that even God won't argue with.

Robert C said...

Grim said: " There was no guess work involved. "

Yes, there was in the case of the location identified as 'Leslie's area' of assault. Unless a major body organ(s) or arteries are hit (and we're speaking of knives here) it's difficult to determine who dunnit. People can also simply bleed to death from less serious untreated knife wounds but that's not what happened to Rosemary. In fact if you look at the crime scene and autopsy photos of Rosemary's back you'll notice all those 'Leslie' wounds did not bleed. Rosemary was dead. You normally don't bleed very much if at all without assistance after death.

Speculator said...

Grim - you miss the point when you say “that’s irrelevant.....they were caught which did lead to their remorse”. That is precisely my point. They were caught and HAD to play the remorse game in the hope of ever getting out! Just like all convicted killers! You mentioned unsolved murders. Tell me one where the perp was hit by so much “remorse” that he/she subsequently hadn’t themselves in despite never having been caught. “Remorse” is a self serving play to get out of jail.

Speculator said...

Hadn’t should read handed - sorry!

Matthew said...

Speculator said:
Tell me one where the perp was hit by so much “remorse” that he/she subsequently hadn’t themselves in despite never having been caught.

Edmund Kemper turned himself in but didn't sound so much like remorse as he just didn't see the point anymore.
His words:


When asked in a later interview why he turned himself in, Kemper said: "The original purpose was gone ... It wasn't serving any physical or real or emotional purpose. It was just a pure waste of time ... Emotionally, I couldn't handle it much longer. Toward the end there, I started feeling the folly of the whole damn thing, and at the point of near exhaustion, near collapse, I just said to hell with it and called it all off

LastGirlOnTheLeft said...

We had one too in the North of Ireland. A dentist named Colin Howell handed himself in 19 years after the murder of both his wife and the husband of his former mistress, Hazel. In doing so, he not only ensured he was convicted of murder, he also ensured the conviction of Hazel. Howell’s guilt appeared to stem from his Christian faith.

As for Leslie, I think she should be released. She’s no more a danger to society than any other elderly woman.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

you miss the point when you say “that’s irrelevant.....they were caught which did lead to their remorse”. That is precisely my point. They were caught and HAD to play the remorse game in the hope of ever getting out!

Well, all we can really do here is agree to disagree, as they say. Because we come from two diametrically opposed positions. I haven't missed any point you were making. You will not allow yourself to suppose that any of the killers could feel any genuine remorse. You think it's a game with an end goal ~ to get out of prison.
I don't believe that. I'm not so naive as to think that every person in the clink that says they have remorse over the murders they've committed or crimes they've engaged in actually feels that way. On the other hand, I'm not so cynical as to think every claim of remorse is fake.
Each one of the Family killers that is still incarcerated has spent 50 years {or in Bruce's case, just shy of that} or more in prison ~ the overwhelming majority of their lives. That's a heck of a long time to think through what you've done and realize the kind of destruction you left in your wake and how that had a knock on effect. And unlike a lot of offenders, this particular troupe cannot just forget about it all and fade away into obscurity.
Life is an interesting experience and there's no telling what kind of inner realizations and changes people go through.
What's interesting is that even when the original death sentences were commuted, we didn't see wholesale abandonment of the Family philosophy. That came gradually and followed many years of realization of the mess they'd made of their lives.
By the way, there are murderers who may feel remorse but I still would keep them incarcerated.

Matthew said...

I believe that Pat Krenwinkle is truly remorseful from the bottom of her soul. She said once that she wakes up every morning knowing how much destruction she has caused. But I also believe that she needs to stay right where she is. She went out on the first night, came back to the ranch feeling awful about what she did and then when out the second night and carved into an innocent man's body. I feel bad for her and the guilt that she carries but she did what she did.

Speculator said...

Matthew - precisely right. And part of her remorse, if genuine, should be an acceptance that she stays where she is. That goes for the others too.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

And part of her remorse, if genuine, should be an acceptance that she stays where she is. That goes for the others too

That logic is illogical. While I do think that Tex and Pat are unlikely to be released from jail {I certainly wouldn't release them} they are in jail in part because of their flagrant disregard for the law of their land. That led to a road that they have been regretting since before the 60s ended. So part of their turnabout has meant them acknowledging and accepting that not only were they wrong, but equally importantly, that society in general had been right. So to start going against the laws of that society again would be stupid. And the sentence handed down included the possibility of parole. So to apply for it is part of their sentence. Tex is on record as saying that he deserved to die and that if anyone was a candidate for the death sentence, it was him. That is not in conflict with him {or any of the others} after 50 years locked up applying for parole, particularly having turned their back in the most public fashion on the very philosophies and action that got them incarcerated in the first place. Like I said, I wouldn't release those two {not at this point anyway}, I wouldn't have released Susan Atkins or Charles Manson and I wouldn't have released Steve Grogan at the time he was released after just 14 years although he has shown that the parole system can work in the most dazzling way. Many others haven't.

Speculator said...

Grim - of course they regret their actions - they got caught!!!! Looking at Van Houten in particular, you’re saying that she now accepts what she did was wrong. However, she didn’t plead guilty at her trials and she was happy to enjoy her freedom in between her initial release and final conviction. No acceptance of guilt at that point I guess?! Acceptance of guilt is a well worn route to parole for convicts and neither you nor me know whether it’s genuine or just going through the motions. And regardless of statutory law, the law of natural justice says she stays put in my opinion.

Speculator said...

Grim - of course they regret their actions - they got caught!!!! Looking at Van Houten in particular, you’re saying that she now accepts what she did was wrong. However, she didn’t plead guilty at her trials and she was happy to enjoy her freedom in between her initial release and final conviction. No acceptance of guilt at that point I guess?! Acceptance of guilt is a well worn route to parole for convicts and neither you nor me know whether it’s genuine or just going through the motions. And regardless of statutory law, the law of natural justice says she stays put in my opinion.

Speculator said...

Grim - of course they regret their actions - they got caught!!!! Looking at Van Houten in particular, you’re saying that she now accepts what she did was wrong. However, she didn’t plead guilty at her trials and she was happy to enjoy her freedom in between her initial release and final conviction. No acceptance of guilt at that point I guess?! Acceptance of guilt is a well worn route to parole for convicts and neither you nor me know whether it’s genuine or just going through the motions. And regardless of statutory law, the law of natural justice says she stays put in my opinion.

AustinAnn74 said...

The most disgusting argument I've seen on this (and other) Tate/LaBianca blogs & boards is "Rosemary was alreay dead!" What the F*CK does that have to do with anything? Leslie was there, she gleefully participated and Rosemary & Leno were very much alive before those assholes broke into their home. Lest you forget Rosemary was also forced (by Leslie & Pat) at knife point to hear her husband being stabbed to death in the other room. His screams of agony must've torn that woman's heart out! Why is there no compassion at all for the terror these people went thru before death? Why? Leslie laughed afterwards, said she had fun doing it and didn't give two shits about remorse during court, until years later, when she was coached by her attorney and feminist teachers & counselors to act like she cared. Leslie is remorseful over herself having done it, not remorseful for the LaBiancas' brutal murders. She wants out of prison, but guess what: The LaBiancas wanted to live and didn't want to hear each other getting stabbed to death! They died a brutally agonizing way, but all anyone gives any compassion towards, is Leslie.

Doug said...

Dr Michael Stone (Columbia University) rates Leslie at Level 3 on his 22 Level Scale of Evil.

Manson, Krenwinkle, Watson and, Atkins are rated at Level 15 on his scale.

He's not the "be all/end all" source expert however, he's pretty knowledgeable about people who commit evil atrocities.

The Wikipedia link is only for reference to his various levels, people who he's assigned to the various levels and, what these people's actions involved.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil

xreles said...

Leslie doesn't laugh like she used to, I guess she doesn't find death funny anymore.
She doesn't sing the songs of those olden days gone down anymore.
Miss Van Houten can't muster smiles for the camera anymore.
Leslie Louise Van Houten doesn't have her good looks anymore.

Ain't Justice BEAUTIFUL!

xreles said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
xreles said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew said...

Austin, I agree with you 100%. What a horrible experience that was for Labianca's. However, to say that there is no compassion for them from anyone is really not true and to end by saying that all anyone gives any compassion towards is Leslie is you also not true. You honestly can't believe that you are the only person on the planet that holds compassion for the victims. I'm sure that is not how you meant it to read.

AustinAnn74 said...

Of course I didn't mean that, Matthew. That would be ridiculous!

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said...

of course they regret their actions - they got caught!!!!

of course they regret their actions - they got caught!!!!

of course they regret their actions - they got caught!!!!

I heard you the first time !

Anonymous said...

Gavin Newsome mixes in San Francisco high society circles which also includes... Elizabeth Folger (sister of Abigail). They’ve both attended the SF annual symphony ball over the years.

Unknown said...

you are crazy, truly, shes 70 years old, you really think shes gona get out then get a knife and totter around the streets looking for somebody to stab. You really think that?
Do some research on the case before commenting you will look less foolish.
If Leslie gets out, which will be a miracle, all her family and loved ones will be rallying round her, she will be so happy to be out and able to just do simple things like go to the refrigerator when she wants.
You think shes gona wait until her family arent watching, get a knife and go on a killing spree? hmmm

Unknown said...

The governors (newson primarily) are breaking the law through fear of losing votes. breaking the law for person gain. breaking the law due to thier own beliefs. Personally i would never vote for a governor who breaks the law for his own agenda even if the victims were my own family. I wouldnt (and dont) think murderers should be released at all, but the law states otherwise and should be applicable to all.
Newsom is a lawbreaking spineless prettyboy, i have more respect for Van Houten than for him, he needs to grow some balls and do whats right, uphold the law wether he wants to or not. its not a choice he should have, he should be jailed himself.

Unknown said...

I would have you as Governor.
Everything you say is true, one doesnt have to be a genius to see that. So why does California keep getting Governor after Governor with an opposing view to yours? Surely that type of person is a minority?
Doesnt smell good to me.
Leslie must be fuming at this criminal conspiracy against her, i hope the supreme court sets her free then she turns up at Gavin Newsom's house with an M60 and beltfeeds 10000 rounds through him like Rambo.

Unknown said...

Speculater said:
And it’s always worth remembering Doris Tate’s words at one of Watson’s hearings - “will my daughter get up and walk out of her grave if you get parole?”

I strongly disagree:
These are the most stupid, pointless, irrelivant, boring, overused words in parole board history.
These words mean "no parole for murderers" when a COURT has set 'possibility of parole'
Why have a parole hearing if one of the conditions of release is a victim rising from the grave? Now do think those words are worth remembering? No