Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Leslie van Houten

I've just been reading John Waters' ROLE MODELS, where he makes a very heartfelt appeal for Leslie van Huten's parole. She was not part of the Sharon tate murders but was a participant in the LaBianco murders the next night. He points out she was one of the first to repent; that she has written and spoken eloquently about her guilt; that unlike several of the others (like Tex Watson) she has not "found Jesus"; that she has been in prison for over forty years now, much longer than any of the German young women sentenced to life imprisonment for political murders for the Baader-Meinhof murders or any of the Nuremberg Trial Nazi prisoners not actually killed by the state (with the sole exception of Rudolf Hess, who served forty years than died).

by Anonymousreply 18611/11/2013

Waters has a misguided adoration for criminals.

by Anonymousreply 103/23/2012

Leslie van Houten should have been released on parole years ago.

by Anonymousreply 203/24/2012

Fact - None of them will ever be released, even the fringe members unconnected to the Tate murders (LVH, Bobby Beausoleil).

While everybody thinks this is because of Sharon Tate's celebrity, it is the $Folger$ family who long ago made sure that they all forever remain locked up.

Pat Krenwinkle (murderess of Abigail Folger) realizes this, which is why she has skipped out on some of her parole hearings.

by Anonymousreply 403/24/2012

How many fringe members are in jail? Squaeky got out but she came later, right?

by Anonymousreply 503/24/2012

Squeaky got out but she was in Federal prison (not California State). By "fringe", I meant on the fringe of the two-night Tate/Labianca crime spree, not necessarily unimportant members of the family.

Bruce Davis was second in command to Charlie, but he was only "fringely" involved in TLB (not in the actual murders, but many say he visited the crime scene with Charlie and Nancy Pitman later on that night).

Steven "Clem" Grogan also wasn't involved in the actual TLB murders, but he did drive around in the car with them on the night of the Labianca murders. He's the only family member, convicted of murder (of Shorty Shea), who has been let out. It seems he had family in high places.

While LVH, Bobby Beausoleil and Bruce Davis have the tiniest outside chance of parole, Tex Watson and Patricia Krenwinkel (the two most active in the murders) definitely do not, and it seems they are the most resigned to their fate.

by Anonymousreply 603/24/2012

The LaBianco husband and wife were inseparable and they loved each other immensely. The husband and wife wanted to be in the same room at least and these murders wouldn't allow their last simple wish before dying. They stabbed the husband first and he was screaming. As he was screaming, his wife begged them to let her at least be near her husband as they were stabbing him and again they refused. They carved war on his stomach and stuck a fork in his stomach with laughter. Then they repeatedly stab the wife near the buttox region as she screamed and begged for her life.They also rapped a lamp cord around her neck! I saw the autopsy photos online and what they did to the LaBiancos bodies is horrifying. Also, those in the Sharon Tate murders are astonishing as well.

I liked John Waters ,but now I think he is getting to the point in which he needs mental health. He is a sick insensitive heartless asshole

by Anonymousreply 703/24/2012

Forty plus years on, and still one of the strangest, most brutal crimes in Los Angeles history (and that's saying a lot). Mentioning the Manson family is still like mentioning voodoo in certain parts of LA. Its eerie and more than just a little creepy how they turned LA into a "locked-door and guard dog" society overnight.

by Anonymousreply 803/24/2012

R7, while the Labianca murders were atrocious and unforgivable, I'm not sure I would describe the Labiancas as inseparable. It seems they both had shady side-business going on (separate of each other). The more one delves into their background, the more it seems that their deaths were not random, but some sort of "hit".

by Anonymousreply 903/24/2012

r3 - So because John Waters is gay and makes films that you don't like, he's not entitled to opinions on certain subjects? How clever of you to point this out.

by Anonymousreply 1003/24/2012

I wonder if she'd have a problem adapting to the outside after being locked up all this time?

by Anonymousreply 1103/24/2012


And let her rot.

by Anonymousreply 1203/24/2012

r4, bobby B. murdered Gary Hinman, so he isn't exactly "fringe" when it comes to killing.

Coincidentally, I'm reading the accurately detailed book "The Family."

There is NO WAY anyone here would want to be neighbors with LVH or Sandy Good, or you name them, who cavorted in Topanga Canyon and environs in 1968-69 with Charlie.

by Anonymousreply 1303/24/2012

LVH happily carved an "X" into her forehead after shaving off all of her hair because Charlie inspired her. She joyously walked down the halls of the courthouse with Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel, laughing and singing cute little songs and smiling broadly for the cameras. She described her participation in the murder of Rosemary and was proud to be a part of it all.

She is right where she belongs. She is extremely lucky not to be dead.

by Anonymousreply 1403/24/2012

I can't believe she left her husband Kurt just because he lost his job at the cracker factory.

Wait - - we're talking about Milhouse's mom, right?

by Anonymousreply 1503/24/2012

R9 just because they had shady business dealings doesn't mean that they didn't love each other. I highly doubt that their murders were a hit. I think in this case it was coincidental.

by Anonymousreply 1603/24/2012

These weren't just one off murders. They were organized (by the group) serial, spree murders that went on and on. So NO they don't get to get out of jail. They really should have all be executed.

And for John Waters, I don't give a fuck what they do in Germany. What does that have to do with this? Nothing. When someone or a group of people that John knows gets murdered then he can spout off that he thinks they should be let out of jail. He would probably give this murderous bitch some money if she was let out - if he isn't all ready. If he really wants to rally about injustice he ought to take up the cases of abused women who murdered their husbands in self defense during the 1970's and 1980's. A lot of them are still in jail because the courts did not recognize the right of a woman to defend herself against her husband. Most of these women suffered years and years of beatings, rapes, and mental torture and then they were assaulted all over again by the justice system who told them they didn't have the right to defend themselves or their childrens lives and then sent them to jail for 25 yrs to life and the majority of them are still sitting in jail. That's a travesty. water's can go to hell (where he'll get to be with van houten and the entire manson crew)

by Anonymousreply 1703/24/2012

Leslie is in a prison a short distance from my home. I've contemplated going to visit her, but I heard she will not speak about the events that summer.

I don't think she deserves parole. Not at all. Charlie does if any of them. He got a raw deal. Still though, it's in society's best interest to keep him locked up for a multitude of reasons.

I've always been fascinated by the murders, that time in history, etc. It's a very surreal part of American History that will never be forgotten, hopefully the victims will not be either. Not just Sharon, but Jay and the others. It was all just so tragic.

by Anonymousreply 1803/24/2012

Charlie got a raw deal? The man is unrepentant and insane.

by Anonymousreply 1903/24/2012

Rosemary LaBianca's autopsy photo. Notice the dozens of stab wounds. Leslie and the others are animals who should rot in jail.

by Anonymousreply 2003/24/2012

Leno LaBianca's autopsy photo - even worse. Again, total sadists who should rot.

by Anonymousreply 2103/24/2012

"I don't think she deserves parole. Not at all. Charlie does if any of them. He got a raw deal."

I would say the people who were murdered got a raw deal. Fuck Manson.

by Anonymousreply 2203/24/2012

[quote] It seems they both had shady side-business going on (separate of each other).

No, both of the businesses were Leno's. His wife's dress shop was a money-laundering operation and he put it in her name in case anything ever happened to him -- lawsuit, arrest, etc.

It was really common in those days for shady men (and doctors and dentists) to put things in their wives' names to keep lawyers from getting to their money.

by Anonymousreply 2303/24/2012

[quote] Leno LaBianca's autopsy photo - even worse Again, total sadists who should rot.

He was dead when they carved that. If they were TOTAL sadists, they would have carved it on his stomach while he was alive.

by Anonymousreply 2403/24/2012

No parole. She originally got the death penalty - she's lucky to be alive at all. She will die in prison. I've seen the tapes of her parole hearings - she's full of shit, it's an act.

by Anonymousreply 2503/24/2012

When I say, "Charlie got a raw deal", I don't mean that I feel any pity for him. He didn't kill any of them though. He's a fucked up individual and people have been let off for doing far less than he did.

What Leslie, Tex, Patricia, and Susan did was far worse. They did the dirty work. The fact that they went and killed people when told to speaks volumes. I'm not saying Charlie is innocent, but if he's still in there.... why did the allow Linda to turn evidence in exchange for immunity? He was a scapegoat to make it all sound like the man behind the curtain is calling the shots. I just don't believe that for a second.

by Anonymousreply 2603/24/2012


They stabbed him repeatedly, carved words into his body, and then left a steak knife lodged in his neck and a fork stuck in his torso. Call it what you will.

by Anonymousreply 2703/24/2012


Manson committed "conspiracy to murder". He planned the murders, selected the victims, and directed the killers' actions - he wanted everyone to "get their hands dirty". How is that any less of a crime than what the actual murderers did?

by Anonymousreply 2803/24/2012

Oh, and I have to add. I secretly home one of them gets parole... Not because they deserve it, but because Debra Tate is such a fucking whore for pimping out her dead sister's memory still after all these years. She stands up and says that what Roman Polanski did should be forgiven, but is all about making sure these people spend the rest of their lives in prison. Yeah, sure Deb.

by Anonymousreply 2903/24/2012

There is no reason for van Houten not to be on parole when you consider how many people have murdered, been convicted after trial, been paroled since she was imprisoned and have not accomplished nearly what she has in prison.

The only difference is her case is notorious.

That's not justice.

That's America.

by Anonymousreply 3003/24/2012

There's simply nothing gained by keeping this woman in prison. Forty years is a very long time. She's been punished. She's shown genuine rehabilitation and remorse. She's been a model prisoner.

We have a pope who was under Hitler's spell as a youth.

We can let out of jail an elderly woman who was under Manson's as a youth.

by Anonymousreply 3103/24/2012


The reason they've been in so much longer is beacaue they received death sentences that were then commuted. They should be thankful for their lives.

by Anonymousreply 3203/24/2012

"There is no reason for van Houten not to be on parole when you consider how many people have murdered, been convicted after trial, been paroled since she was imprisoned and have not accomplished nearly what she has in prison."

So what? Many people close to those cases would say it's a travesty of justice that those murderers got parole.

And it still doesn't mitigate the sheer almost unthinkable cruelty that this poor reformed woman subjected her victims to.

Her sentence was a punitive measure commensurate with the crime committed. She "earned" it. And it will stick.

by Anonymousreply 3303/24/2012

[quote]There's simply nothing gained by keeping this woman in prison. Forty years is a very long time. She's been punished. She's shown genuine rehabilitation and remorse. She's been a model prisoner.

I think the technical term is Tough Shit.

by Anonymousreply 3403/24/2012

Is she the one who looks like Mary Tyler Moore?

by Anonymousreply 3503/24/2012

R28, actually most of the time people who hire someone else to commit murder or conspire to have someone murdered spend more time in jail than the people who actually committed the murders. Usually the murderers are persuaded to testify against the conspirator

by Anonymousreply 3603/24/2012


by Anonymousreply 3703/24/2012

the Labianca were horrible. Lesie is a sociopath.

by Anonymousreply 3803/24/2012

"There's simply nothing gained by keeping this woman in prison."

Yes, there is: JUSTICE. A measure of it, anyway. She was originally sentenced to death. That would have been the fitting punishment for her, but she was shown mercy and allowed to live, unlike her victims. She doesn't deserve mercy a second time. She should die in prison.

Two things about the LaBianca murders really haunt me. The first is Leno LaBianca crying out "stop stabbing me!" as they tortured him with knives. The second is the revolting acts of the murderers after they were done butchering the couple: they fixed themselves a snack with food from the LaBianca's refridgerator and had a bite to eat before leaving the house containing two mutilated bodies and words written in blood on the walls.

by Anonymousreply 3903/24/2012

R30,the justice system isn't always fair. You know how to avoid that? Don't ever get put into the justice system

These were NOT one off murders/crimes. They were serial spree murders that occurred over time. Why can't you understand that? It isn't the same as committing a murder

>>>"There is no reason for van Houten not to be on parole when you consider how many people have murdered, been convicted after trial, been paroled since she was imprisoned and have not accomplished nearly what she has in prison."

How many of those people released were involved in torture and serial spree murders? NONE. We don't release spree killers in this country. We don't. Currently people who murder two or more people or who have committed spree killings will be executed or spend the ENTIRE rest of their lives in jail.

This evil murderer's crimes can't be compared to someone who committed one murder and was released after 25 yrs in prison. It's crazy you equate these two types of crimes as being in the same category because they are NOT even close

by Anonymousreply 4003/24/2012

[quote]If he really wants to rally about injustice he ought to take up the cases of abused women who murdered their husbands in self defense during the 1970's and 1980's. A lot of them are still in jail because the courts did not recognize the right of a woman to defend herself against her husband.

Link please.

by Anonymousreply 4103/24/2012

I used to think she was so pretty.

Leslie and Ruth Ann Moorehouse.

Van Houten didn't age very well.

by Anonymousreply 4203/24/2012

r26 would say a captured and imprisoned Hitler "got a raw deal, because he didn't murder anyone."


by Anonymousreply 4303/24/2012

"why did the allow Linda to turn evidence in exchange for immunity?"

r26 needs to get out more.

1. She did not kill OR ORDER any killings.

2. She was an EYE-WITNESS.

3. The larger need was TO CONVICT the actual murderers.

4. Immunity for testimony is an integral aspect of AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE.

by Anonymousreply 4403/24/2012

Okay flyover idiots, time for some facts.

LVH's original conviction where she received the death penalty was OVERTURNED. She was then RELEASED FROM PRISON to await a new trail.

The first retrial resulted in a hung jury.

She was convicted in the second retrial and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

by Anonymousreply 4503/24/2012

One can even say they pulled some shady shit to get her sentenced/convicted(adding that bogus robbery charge to hem the jury). That first jury HUNG! Which I find REALLY interesting. Seems like Americans in the 70s were smarter and could think more critically than Americans now, who are revenge and blood thirsty. Just like Van Houten and her crew that night.

by Anonymousreply 4603/24/2012

Let's all have a Datalounge meet-up in L.A. Mark fake swastikas on our foreheads and go see this.

by Anonymousreply 4703/24/2012

I thought Manson murders were drug deals. How else did Charlie come up with who to kill?

by Anonymousreply 4803/24/2012

Where did these ignorant idiots get this incorrect idea that the prison system's sole raison d'etre is rehabilitation? That is a secondary component of the penal philosophy here in the US, but the primary one is PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME. And LVH and gang could live forever and still not be punished enough for what they did to their victims, to their families and, actually, to our nation's psyche.

by Anonymousreply 4903/24/2012

r45 and r46 get a fucking clue. The death penalty was abolished by a fucking overly liberål Supreme Court and was subsequently reinstated because of the overwhelming outrage of the American people. But all the murderers originally sentenced to death had their sentences commuted to life. Bitch should have fried then and she would have if it weren't for the bleeding heart asslickers who fight for the rights of the perpetrators and don't give a rat's ass about the victims.

by Anonymousreply 5003/24/2012

So? He's a bleeding heart, and I will bet everything I have he wouldn't let her into his home.

by Anonymousreply 5103/24/2012

[quote]water's can go to hell (where he'll get to be with van houten and the entire manson crew)

I love how Dataloungers say they don't believe in God but they believe in hell as a place of imprisonment for bad people.

by Anonymousreply 5203/24/2012

[quote]What Leslie, Tex, Patricia, and Susan did was far worse.

No, it was not at all. Not in the eyes of the law, and not in any moral or ethical sense. You are wrong.

He told the family members to kill everyone in Sharon Tate's home, and they did as he asked. They would not have done it had he not told them to do it.

He then told them they made a mess out of the Tate murders, and personally went with the others to the LaBiancas' house to make sure they did it right. He personally tied up Leno LaBianca himself with Tex Atkins, and they personally gave the order for Lesie VH and Susan Atkins to kill them both.

You do not have a case. At all.

by Anonymousreply 5303/24/2012

Linda Kasabian did not kill anyone or even go into the houses when the murders were committed. Indeed, she directly told Manson, "I'm not you, Charlie. I can't kill anyone." She stood lookout when the Tate murders were going on and ran away back to New Hampshire to hide two days after the LaBiancas were killed. She was terrified for her life.

She was willing to testify against Manson even without an immunity deal, but her counsel insisted she keep silent until the prosecution offered her immunity. She had a child at the time and was pregnant with her second one. She was brought back to the Tate residence to help reconstruct the crime and suffered a breakdwon while there.

Without Kasabian's testimony, the prosecution would have had to turn to Susan Atkins, the first to offer to make a deal with them: but she had been one of the most violent of the killers during the murders and seemed to all concerned especially depraved. It was Kasabian's testimony that cinched the case against Manson and the others. During her testimony, Manson would repeatedly look at her across the courtroom and draw his finger across his throat, indicating he would have her killed for testifying against him.

During Kasabian's cross-examination, Manson's defense lawyer Irving Kanarek showed her large color crime-scene photographs of the Tate murders. Kasabian's emotional reaction was in stark contrast to the other "family" members. Manson and Krenwinkel's defense attorney Paul Fitzgerald would later assert that Kanarek's tactic — meant to discredit Kasabian — was a grave error that completely backfired, and further it exonerated the state's primary witness. Composing herself enough to look up from the color photo of the dead, bloodied Sharon Tate, Kasabian shot a look across the courtroom to the defendants. "How could you do that?", she stated. The female defendants laughed. Manson's defense attorney Kanarek asked Kasabian how she could be so certain, considering her LSD use, that she had not participated in the gruesome act. "Because I don't have that kind of thing in me, to do something so animalistic," she replied.

She turned all but one interview for all but forty years after the murders, choosing to remain anonymous until very recently. Even today she receives frequent death threats from the other members of the Manson Family.

by Anonymousreply 5403/24/2012

[quote]but the primary one is PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME

No, it's to segregate the criminally violent from the rest of us.

r53 your thinking is bizarre. 'not in any moral or ethical sense' ... 'they would not have done it ...'

The fact is they did it. And it wasn't a crime of passion in the heat of the moment, it was a planned torture/killing of prey. I agree that she's lucky she's alive. John Waters loses all my respect for exploiting her. She's glamourous and notorious and that's why he cares about her.

by Anonymousreply 5503/24/2012

r55, you're misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not arguing at all that the other Manson Family members in jail should be released. I'm arguing that Manson himself is every bit as guilty as they are and that he did not get "a raw deal" and should be paroled, as was insanely claimed elsewhere. He presents the most legitimate threat to society of any of them.

by Anonymousreply 5603/24/2012

r45, are you ignorant or what? In the U.S., nobody can be tried TWICE for the same crime. It's called "double jeopardy," and it is NOT DONE.

You are hallucinating.

by Anonymousreply 5703/24/2012

For r57:

"Van Houten won a retrial in 1977 on the grounds that her counsel had not effectively represented her at the original trial. The lawyer at her first trial, Ronald Hughes, had disappeared during the trial and was later found dead. It was alleged that members of the Manson Family killed Hughes, but this has never been proven. Van Houten's second trial ended in a hung jury. She was tried a third time, during which she was free on bond. She was found guilty of felony robbery, murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. Once again, she was sentenced to life in prison."

by Anonymousreply 5803/24/2012

Mea culpa. My thought, of course, was that the prosecution won a new trial.

by Anonymousreply 5903/24/2012

Karla Faye Tucker. Convicted of two brutal murders. Found religion in prison, did ministry in prison, was totally rehabilitated.

Fried. Texas. Though she had a rough life, the change matters only in the afterlife, if there is one. The man and woman she murdered are still dead. She beat the woman with an axe so brutally the woman begged to die

That she found good on earth is commendable. Doesn't exonerate her crimes. The good she did for others means she did some good on her last days on earth.

by Anonymousreply 6003/24/2012

[quote] sadists who should rot.

Sure R21. As opposed to those who love to post sadistic pictures?

by Anonymousreply 6103/24/2012

If you go online, and see the actual crime / autopsy photos , of what was done to Tate, and all the poor people in that house that night, and the next night to the LaBiancas, I guarantee you'll never want any of the perps out. So savage, so horrific - view the pics first, and see what you think. That fork in the stomach shot will stay with you.

by Anonymousreply 6203/24/2012

I agree, R62. these sadistic murderers don't even deserve to be alive.

by Anonymousreply 6303/24/2012

All the people angelicizing Linda Kasabian are dead wrong and have bought Vincent Bugliosi's blatant lies hook, line and sinker. She is as guilty as the others for not only being present on both nights of murder, but for doing absolutely nothing to help stop the carnage or to seek help. Hell, at least Susan Atkins admitted culpability before her, blowing the lid off the mystery.

She also stole a dying Steven Parent's wallet from the car, and she began admitting as such on a recent interview, before good 'ol Vince B. quietly shut her down. Her extensive run ins with the law post TLB speak to her sociopathic qualities.

Frankly, she deserves to rot with the rest of them and it is chilling to think that she walks free amongst us.

by Anonymousreply 6403/24/2012

Every time these threads pop up I get distracted into learning more about the manson people. Leslie van Houten's interviews over the years are chilling. She still has that vacant look and weird fake smiliness.

I cannot believe Waters was so enamored of them that he dedicated his films to them. Why?

I'm convinced he is here posting these threads (as well as the ones about what a genius he is).

by Anonymousreply 6503/25/2012

John Waters is one of the most overrated "artistes" around.

by Anonymousreply 6603/25/2012

SOMEbody was going to be given immunity to solve this case, r64, and if it hadn't been LK, Bugliosi was stuck with ATKINS.

So get off your high horse and contemplate THAT scenario: Soulless Susan Sadie Mae Glutz Atkins being the star witness for the prosecution.

People all over the canyon near Cielo Drive heard the screams and gunshots (the police tested for the sounds); none of them called the police.

by Anonymousreply 6703/25/2012

R66 = Greg Araki

by Anonymousreply 6803/25/2012

Uhhh, get your very facts straight before speaking about something you know very little about, R67. Many people within the canyon heard gunshots and more than just a few called the police. Read the Homicide Report. Also, for the record, Atkins was never offered IMMUNITY. She was offered her testimony in exchange for the death penalty charges being dropped, which all would have ended up moot anyway as the death penalty was temporarily overturned in the early 70's.

R67 must be either Linda Kasabian or Vince Bugliosi!

For the record, I am glad that Vince got guilty verdicts on all of the accused. However, it is because of him and his ridiculous "Helter Skelter" motive mumbo jumbo, that the real truth of this case has never been exposed.

"Helter Skelter" is smoke and mirrors to hide the real motives of the case. Neither the Tate nor Labianca households were "chosen at random." Tate was drugs. Labianca is what remains more of a mystery, and is the real key to unsolving this thing once and for all.

by Anonymousreply 6903/26/2012

Manson had a very long list of famous people he was planing on murdering. Had they not caught the Manson famliy, Elizabeth Taylor was going to be next on his list. He wanted to behead Elizabeth Taylor and pluck her eyes out. The same for Richard Burton.

The murderers wanted to take the baby out of Sharon Tate's body ,but they ran out of time. When they ran after Abigail Folger and repeatedly stabbed her she said,You can stop now; I'm already dead.

When the maid came into the Tate house a day after the murders, she ran out screaming and she was so horrified ,and in such a state that she had mental issues after seeing all of the bodies.

I have heard that supposedly that Abigail Folger and her boyfriend Fortensky, told the mafia that they were going to be the biggest drug dealers of LSD and other drugs,and they were going to put the mafia out of business. Abigail threaten them and the mafia paid Charles Manson to murder Abigail and her boyfriend. However, that account is up in the air.

by Anonymousreply 7003/26/2012

Why did they pick Sharon Tate as the first victim?

by Anonymousreply 7103/26/2012

I had no idea that there were conspiracy theories bouncing around about the "real" motives for the killings. Interesting.

Sharon and her friends were in the wrong house at the wrong time. Charles had no idea she was there. He thought Terry Melcher was still living there and Terry had done him wrong by not making him a rock star.

The LoBianco's house was next door to a drug house that Charles had visited at one time and he simply chose the wrong house for the night after the Tate murders.

Charles told the killers to make the killings as gruesome as possible so that authorities would never suspect that white people did them. He thought that the killers would be thought of as black people and that would be the impetus for his planned race war. After millions were dead, he would be chosen the new leader of the world and rule all the white people left. (or something.)

There were dozens of murders committed with Charles in charge. A lot of the victims were buried in the desert and never found.

by Anonymousreply 7203/26/2012

R72, didn't they find some bodies recently? I thought that was reported on the news not too long ago?

by Anonymousreply 7303/26/2012

r70, if it were drug hits, they would have just offed them without the extra gruesomeness and torture. Why would abigail folger, an heiress, aspire to be a major drug dealer?

That whole angle makes no sense.

by Anonymousreply 7403/26/2012

[quote]There were dozens of murders committed with Charles in charge.


by Anonymousreply 7503/26/2012

I'm trying to get her a gig on my show so that parole will be easier for her to get. Our whole family misses her terribly.

by Anonymousreply 7603/26/2012

If you've read Helter Skelter, you know Charlie Manson had visited the Tate residence prior to the murders. Apparently he had a bad experience there when he was accused of trespassing by the current owners, whom he felt snubbed him. And the beautiful Sharon Tate came out of her home and stared at Charlie, probably with mild distaste. This evil little fucker probably planned her death from that moment.

by Anonymousreply 7703/26/2012

California has pretty much violated its own regs regarding release to parole as far as van Houten is concerned. She should have been released long ago.

People need to stop imagining and insisting that this was the worst crime ever committed. There are many, many worse than this. Certainly most murders are as bad. You can use the same dramatic descriptions for any number of murders I have seen. This was considered so bad because the victims were rich, pretty and white. Other murderers are released to parole.

There is nothing that can be done to change what happened. All a prisoner can do is follow the requirements of prison and rehabilitation. There is almost nothing that van Houten hasn't done appropriately and beyond to further her case for parole. It would be hard, if not impossible, to keep up such an act for 40 years. I do think that in any other case an inmate would have been released way before this. The board's refusal to release is political and, in my view, that makes it illegal.

Charlie knew that Melcher no longer lived at Cielo. I have never completely bought Kasabian's innocent act. Bugliosi needed an innocent looking snitch and he groomed her to be that. Happens all the time in trials with snitches. Almost all her versions of her actions at the scene are simply self serving and suspect to me.

There are people from that era who committed crimes such as robbing banks and left dead people in their wake in the name of political activism and their guilt is just as bad as that of the Manson crew - maybe worse because their judgments were not clouded by drugs.

by Anonymousreply 7803/26/2012

I disagree r78. Most murders -- the vast majority -- are either crimes of passion or for retribution (bad drug deal, etc.). Most murders are committed by individuals. Many in the heat of the moment, ie husband loses temper, sees gun nearby, and kills wife.

It's VERY rare and unusual for several people to get together in a group, plan a killing spree, then carry it out, with some added torture and depravity (e.g. writing in blood, etc.) for sport. And then make a public mockery of their victims at trial.

When you say "there are many, many worse than this" -- where?

by Anonymousreply 7903/26/2012

r78 also: the law makes a distinction between first and second degree murder. A bank robbery where someone is killed accidentally is different from a murder that was planned. The victim is just as dead, but the sentences for the murderer are, and should be, harsher.

by Anonymousreply 8003/26/2012

R79/80, I can't go into all this now. Suffice it to say that as a criminal defense attorney I have seen murders you have never and will never read about over the past 2 decades that were unnecessarily cruel and also disturbing in other ways. Murders are often ugly business. But nobody cares about those anonymous crimes.

I'm not sure what you disagree with me about. I am not disputing that the Manson murders were terrible crimes but murders usually are. They aren't the simple little "oops" crimes you want to label them as.

Yes, groups (or gangs or "families" or whatever you want to call them) plan and carry out murders. Incredibly vicious murders. They also commit stupid and message-sending acts in the process. They rarely display respect for their victims at trial or elsewhere. The Mansons are not all that unique. They were made to seem unique by the media and those who benefitted by that portrayal inlcuding the prosecution.

Only in some jurisdictions is a felony murder treated differently than a murder by the actual killer. They usually face the same penalty though they may not qualify for the the death penalty in some jurisdictions.

This can be a terribly violent and senseless world. I think it is probably a good thing that you and many others have not been exposed to the worst of it.

by Anonymousreply 8103/26/2012

I disagree too, r78. Those killers went to those homes with the intent to shock the world and rock LA off it's axis. They certainly succeeded. Unfortunately for them, nobody has forgotten this, even pushing 45 years after the fact. They are still paying for instilling fear in the residents of southern California, probably as much as they are for the heinous murders themselves.

by Anonymousreply 8203/26/2012

I liked ROLE MODELS a lot - except for the Van Houten chapter, which was endless and preachy. The rest of the book was fun.

I've never understood the fascination with the Manson cult; he just seemed like a hillbilly-biker type hippie. So boring, and I don't care about anyone who fell for his inexplicable charms.

As for Leslie van Houton, I'll just quote Jennifer North: Oh, to hell with it. Let her droop!

by Anonymousreply 8303/26/2012

R82, what's your point?

This is about denying parole 43 years after the crime to a convict who has done all that has been asked of her to make parole. She is eligible for parole. That is the sentence she received. To deny her parole for no reason than the crime itself is to make her parole eligible sentence a "life without parole" sentence.

It sets a terrible and dangerous precedent for those parole eligible if they cannot count on their efforts being acknowledged as paving the way to eventual release. There is a valid and vital role that parole plays in the corrections system.

by Anonymousreply 8403/26/2012

I can't think of a better reason than the crime itself to deny someone parole.

by Anonymousreply 8503/26/2012

Thanks for clarifying r78. I see your point. I guess i am unaware of all these violent crimes that are as depraved and sociopathic as what the Mansons did.

I'm not convinced that Leslie should go free because all these other people who are equally sadistic and barbaric have, just because their crimes weren't as public or sensational. Your argument about parole is a sound one, but to me, it's an argument in favor of sentencing more people to life without parole.

Could you provide examples of people who got out on parole after doing something as heinous as Leslie?

by Anonymousreply 8603/26/2012

r84, fine; she has "done everything" the system has asked. LVH is rehabilitated.

Now we can add the punishment part.

by Anonymousreply 8703/26/2012

History Channel NOW!

8-10 A.M. EST.

by Anonymousreply 8803/31/2012

She deserves to be paroled. As does Krenwinkel.

by Anonymousreply 8907/09/2012

I would like to see Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkle paroled.

I think if for nothing else, their families.

I was 14 when this happened. I thought it was horrible and I still do.

I think both of them got caught up in the Manson thing. I don't think either one of these woman are a threat to society. I do not think that either one of them are evil.

I feel sorry for that Tate and LaBianca murders.

by Anonymousreply 9007/09/2012

I see that Susan Atkins grieving husband James Whitehouse has shown up [r78]. Some of you may remember him from his previous post on Datalounge "Leslie van Houten is a Political Prisoner".

I thought after his lovely wife finally died he'd given up on this shit but, for all I know the crazy fucker is married to Leslie. Don't expect an answer to your question r86 James likes to throw out "facts" but, not provide proof.

He's as looney as any Manson follower just not as psychotic so, he probably won't stab you to death.

by Anonymousreply 9107/09/2012

What brought this back up?

I just wanted to clarify this error

[quote] The death penalty was abolished by a fucking overly liberål Supreme Court and was subsequently reinstated because of the overwhelming outrage of the American people.

Why do people insist on talking out of their asses? Not one aspect of your quote is accurate.

The death penalty was overturned because of a number of cases that hit the Court around the same time which highlighted how the death penalty was being imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This started an examination of the death penalty statutes in each of the states which either ended with the death penalty being abolished in some states or death penalty laws being rewritten (and sometimes rewritten a number of times) until they passed constitutional muster. Some of the states even unconstitutionally essentially shifted the burden to the defendants in certain ways in the penalty phase. For instance, a tie in the mitigating versus the aggravating factors resulted in the death penalty - a huge no no.

The issues concerning the death penalty at the time were also concerned with the huge imbalance in the imposition of the death penalty on minority defendants primarily when their victims were white versus white defendants and/or minority victims. There were many things wrong with the death penalty laws apart from the issue of the constitutionality of death as a penalty.

And, yes, van Houten should be paroled. The refusal to grant parole to someone when the parole board cannot cite to even one reason for its denial has turned her "life with the possibility of parole" into a "life without parole" sentence.

And you cannot cite the sentencing offenses as the reason since they were known and considered at the time she was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.

by Anonymousreply 9207/09/2012

Agreed R14.

by Anonymousreply 9307/09/2012

I also liked Role Models but the whole rant about LVH was pointless and just shows how little Waters actually knows about criminals, psychopaths/sociopaths, or the Manson "family".

by Anonymousreply 9407/09/2012

[quote]The refusal to grant parole to someone when the parole board cannot cite to even one reason for its denial

I think the reasons are the heinous, gratuituous, sociopathic nature of the crimes she was involved in, and the consideration of whether someone who's crossed that line should be trusted that it won't happen again. Parole is not a guarantee. It's a chance to be reheard, every so often.

I'm glad she's a model prisoner. She can do a lot of good in prison.

There are a lot of people unjustly imprisoned who have committed much lesser crimes and deserve more attention and sympathy.

But Leslie has the glamour/notoriety angle, which is why idiot trustafarians like John Waters were so drawn to her in the first place.

by Anonymousreply 9507/09/2012

I don't think she should ever be paroled. The families of the murdered don't want her paroled and I believe they very much have a right to steer her fate in this matter. Waters is a douchebag who knows nothing of what these families have lived with all these years. They want her in jail, so let her rot the rest of her life there. She's lucky to be alive. With all those bodies in the ground, how cruel of her to think otherwise.

by Anonymousreply 9607/09/2012

I love what Sharon Tate's mother said to them,"When do I get my Parole?" That was spot on because when you are the victim's famliy, you have to live with that everyday of your life.

BTW, Sharon Tate's mother was an amazing tough woman. I really admired her in your face strength she had whenever she went face to face with the murders.

BTW,it astounds me that they allowed Tex Watson to get married ,and have children in prison. Yet Sharon Tate never had her baby because these demons took that right away from her and her baby!

by Anonymousreply 9707/09/2012

R95, did you even read what I wrote? Did you comprehend it? Clearly not.

With full knowledge of the heinous nature of the offense at the time she was sentenced, she was still sentenced to LIFE WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. That means you cannot use the offense as the only reason to deny parole. That means her actions and behavior DURING incarceration ARE the factors that determine parole - because once you are incarcerated that is the only thing you can control.

I cannot even understand how stupid you have to be to fall under the spell of a Manson or how you can participate in such crimes so I am not her cheerleader. What I believe in and cheer for is a fair system and that all prisoners can rely on that fairness. I don't see anything praiseworthy about van Houten-she has done what she should have done while in jail. But she is due her parole and she should get it. This has become nothing but vindictive and there is no room for that in the justice system.

And, no, victims and/or their families should not determine penalties or sentences. That is exactly why we have a criminal justice and corrections system that is independent and why justice is supposed to be blind. Next you'll be saying we should allow relatives to sit on the juries.

by Anonymousreply 9807/10/2012

[quote]This can be a terribly violent and senseless world. I think it is probably a good thing that you and many others have not been exposed to the worst of it.

Isn't that an argument in favor of keeping the manson followers safely behind bars?

by Anonymousreply 9907/10/2012

"She deserves to be paroled. As does Krenwinkel."

No she doesn't, you idiot. Neither does Krenwinkel. I get the feeling you don't know a damn thing about these two murderesses. I'll enlighten you: Van Houten and Krenwinkle subdued the frantic Mrs. LaBianca as she fought to escape and help her husband who was being murdered by Tex Watson (she could hear her husband's death agonies: "stop stabbing me!", he pleaded). Van Houten really got into stabbing Mrs. LaBianca; she kept stabbing her even after she was dead. Krenwinkle carved "war" into Leno LaBianca's stomach, stuck a fork in his stomach, to see if he was "done", I guess. She pinged the fork's handle and said it was hypnotizing, the way the fork wobbled back and forth. She wrote on the walls using the both of the victims. After the carnage Krenwinkle, Van Houten and Watson fixed themselves a snack with food from the LaBiana's fridge, tided themselves up (Leslie picked out an outfit from Mrs. LaBianca's closet to wear instead of her bloodied clothing), played with the LaBianca's dogs and skipped out.

Krenwinkle also participated in the Sharon Tate murders. She butchered Abigail Folger; stabbed her dozens of times and slashed a big chunk of flesh out of her face. Folger, in agony, screamed "stop, stop, I'm already dead!" Her stab wounds were deep and ferocious; the knife had gone in with such savagery that it hit her bones. Later Krenwinkle complained about how her hand hurt from all that frenzied stabbing (poor baby).

by Anonymousreply 10007/10/2012

"I would like to see Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkle paroled.

I think if for nothing else, their families."

What about the families of the victims, you dumbass? They're the only ones who matter, not the families of these monsters.

There is such a thing as "justice", you know. For their henious crimes, these two cunts should spend the rest of their natural lives in prison. Nothing they can do or say could atone for what they did. NOTHING.

by Anonymousreply 10107/10/2012

I'm actually surprised that any of these people are still alive. I would have thought that at least one of them would have been killed in prison, as Dahmer was.

Insofar as sympathy and/or leniency for any of them, come back to me if, God forbid, a member of your family is victim of such a brutal crime.

by Anonymousreply 10207/10/2012

The people arguing for her release are cynical bullshitters, and/or just sick fucks themselves.

If you murder another human being in the most gruesome fashion, you forfeit your right to freedom right then and there.


It's that simple.

NO prisoner who's committed murder must ever be released again. Their just punishment is life behind bars - until they die, behind bars.

by Anonymousreply 10307/10/2012


What if I murder someone, but not in a gruesome fashion? Or if I bring about someone's murder through neglect rather than action?

What if I didn't commit the murder, but caused someone else to? If I hire someone to murder my wife, am I as guilty as the person I hired?

What if the color of my skin is directed related to the treatment I receive in the justice system?

America has one of the highest incarceration rates, and most citizens executed, of any civilized country in the world ... and yet we still feel the least safe.

Maybe we need another approach.

by Anonymousreply 10407/10/2012

John Waters also thinks it's kitschy fun to collect the paintings of John Wayne Gacy.

Sorry, but he's the last person I'd listen to on this subject. He has a hard-on for high profile murderers.

She belongs in jail. Period.

by Anonymousreply 10507/10/2012

R104= moron.

Highest incarceration rate, hon, is not a justification for releasing brutal killers. Straw man argument.

Incarcerating people for owning small amounts of pot...yeah, that's ridiculous. But not for brutally stabbing two people to death with knives while they plead for mercy. people like you always think they're being "compassionate", but I really think your sympathies betray a peculiar weirdness in your own psyche. Compassion should really be for those two people who were stabbed to death as they begged for their lives.

by Anonymousreply 10607/10/2012

I wonder how the parole proponents would feel if it were one of their family members who had been butchered.

by Anonymousreply 10707/10/2012

r104, you can't be serious. You don't see the differences between the examples you cite, especially with regard to parole eligibility? Also, you can't, by definition, murder by 'neglect'.

Still waiting to hear from r81 about crimes that are as depraved as the manson people's. These are unusual crimes.

by Anonymousreply 10807/10/2012

I've always thought these "compassionate" people who want to parole are a form of psychopath. They can only validate the suffering of the incarcerated murderers and discount the suffering of the dead and family survivors of these crimes. The issue is the murderers chose to kill, maximizing suffering and without mercy also, and it's a choice they must live out the lifetime consequences of. I'm sorry the murderers families are also hurt but that is not our responsibility to modify nor should it ever be. That issue is between the murderer and their family.

However, should they ever be released, I think their advocates should be required to house them in their vicinity, preferably under their own roof. If you want them out, you should be responsible for them. I would be interested to see really how many would be willing to do this. Especially Waters.

I could care less about the life term with the possibility of parole. This sentence doesn't state parole is guaranteed and must be given in order to prove it was possible.

I do wonder why Van Houton truly believes she should be given parole when she knows the families of those she murdered don't agree.

by Anonymousreply 10907/10/2012

Good post, r109.

by Anonymousreply 11007/10/2012

[quote] This sentence doesn't state parole is guaranteed and must be given in order to prove it was possible.

Is that some kind of Martian logic? LOL!

by Anonymousreply 11107/10/2012

R109; Not "psychopathic," technically, but I get what you mean.

I think they're just really good at compartmentalizing.

by Anonymousreply 11207/11/2012

Charlie Manson was locked up for all these years and no one ever was thinking what did he really do? And what did they do to him? He was refused all rights that since then and before every f@ing criminal gets straight away! He was refused when he asked the change of venue due to bad publicity, he was refused to defend himself, he was refused to call one single witness and he was refused to talk to the jury (as the prosecutor said its highly possible Manson will brainwash the jury) so he had to go to talk to a recording machine in another room... so what the hell you talking about people? You dont seem to be normal in my eyes if you dont see what was happening there? And yeah just make it more bizarr the celebrity prosecutor wrote a book about it and became a best seller just in the next year! Its not only injustice its not even moral! Even if they guy was guilty YOU have to give a fair trial to everyone and that is sure Charles Manson got nothing but fair trial! Congratulation for all of you americans if you call this justice! You deserve it thats your system! Live with it!

by Anonymousreply 11310/31/2012

I have no tears for Charles Manson.

by Anonymousreply 11410/31/2012

She was 19 when she commited the crimes and she was the youngest member of the group. She was not an instigator of the crime, and if she had never been born her victims would have been murdered none-the-less.

While I agree that she deserved to go to jail in 1969, and she is very much guilty of double murder, fourty-two years is long enough.

She has spent the best years of her life behind bars. She was an extremely attractive young lady who never had the opportunity to have a career, or a family of her own because of something stupid she did when she was 19. She is not a threat to anyone. Let her enjoy the golden years of her life out of jail.

Her Father is in his 90s - she appears quite healthy to me - does anyone really think there is anything to be gained by keeping her locked up for another 30 odd years?

Charlie Manson is the reason her victims lost their life that night. Is she a double murderer? Absolutely. Is fourty two years enough? You better believe it.

by Anonymousreply 11512/06/2012

I thought this thread would be a discussion of Luann Van Houten. Carry on

by Anonymousreply 11612/06/2012

No, Jason, we don't "better believe" 42 years are enough.

19 years old is not 9 years old. She knew full well what she was doing.

If her victims come back to life after 42 years, she can leave jail. Until then, she stays where she belongs.

You better believe that, psycho.

by Anonymousreply 11712/06/2012

[quote]Let her enjoy the golden years of her life out of jail.

Why? Because it would be nice? She 'spent the best years of her life behind bars' because she participated in a depraved, horrific crime.

by Anonymousreply 11812/06/2012

It's hilarious how Jason (r115) thinks LVH is owed something because she was 'an extremely attractive young lady'.

Society owes her, because she never got to make babies or have a career! Riiight.

What a freak.

by Anonymousreply 11912/06/2012

The only reason people (the Parole Board, the powers that be, the community) care to keep any of the Manson murderers locked up is because of WHO they murdered: a beautiful Hollywood screen actress, Sharon Tate. More heinous murderers have been paroled for far worse crimes in a far shorter amount of time, but there is no outcry about that.

Take away Sharon Tate (and Abigail Folgers w/ her family's connection$), and Leslie Van Houten, Bobby Beausoleil and Bruce Davis have been paroled 20 years ago. Susan Atkins (who was less involved in the actual killer than people remember) would've been paroled in the '80s, too. Even Manson himself (who didn't actually kill anyone) would've been out, but with his high recidivism, would've likely ended up in prison anyhow. I'm not saying this is fair or what I would want, but it's the truth.

Only Tex Watson and Patricia Krenwinkel might still be locked up, because they were the true killers and most violently involved. The Manson murders were really the Tex Watson/Pat Krenwinkel murders TBH.

by Anonymousreply 12012/06/2012

If van Houten had done the same crime, with the same level of culpability, and the same everything else, but in a less notorious case, she would have been released years ago.

She is a victim of her own fame.

Not unlike many Hollywood types.

by Anonymousreply 12112/06/2012

Bullshit post from beginning to end, r120. And Susan Atkins was just as involved in the murders as the other two. Linda Kasabian wasn't involved to the same degree; Atkins was.

The people arguing for the release of these animals come off as psychotic, and you make no exception.

You bend over backwards to find some specious reason why they should be let out. They received the death penalty in the 70s, and would have been put to death had it not been for the law changing.

They're lucky to be alive, and there shouldn't even been a discussion about their potential release. They are where EVERY murderer belongs - in prison. For as long as their victims remain dead.

by Anonymousreply 12212/06/2012

r121: tough shit for her!

Your argument is specious and dumb. If you murder somebody in the most gruesome and depraved manner, you deserve to be in prison FOR LIFE.

NOBODY should be let out, ever again. Regardless of fame and notoriety, or lack thereof.

They need to make space in prisons to hold these kind of murderers until they pass away.

Everybody else can get out after while. But not their kind.

End of story.

by Anonymousreply 12312/06/2012

[quote]The people arguing for the release of these animals come off as psychotic, and you make no exception.

And your argument come off as drama queen antics.

She was not sentenced to life without parole. Her sentence presumes the possibility of parole. Period. What her previous sentence was is irrelevant to the argument.

There are absolutely no factors that are preventing her release to parole. The only factor the Board can cite is the nature of the offense and that is not worse than other murders and that should no longer be a bar to parole. Her failure to be paroled is a political decision pure and simple.

Those who believe in proportional sentences and that the parole board administers parole fairly are not sick or psychopaths. You, on the other hand, are too emotional to even be part of any serious discussion of the issue.

by Anonymousreply 12412/06/2012

Dear deranged, illiterate R122/R123, re-read my post to see where I champion for their release. Never did I say that they SHOULD be free. I'm only stating the facts that had they murdered anyone other than a Hollywood film actress, they WOULD'VE been let out.

You also prove how LITTLE you know about the case if you think that Atkins was as involved as Watson/Krenwinkel. Despite her showboating Grand Jury Testimony, Atkins never stabbed Sharon Tate. The only stabbing she did was against Voytek Frykowski in the legs. Krenwinkel and Watson actually killed the victims.

If you're going to make a case against Atkins for involvement, then Linda Kasabian is equally as guilty for driving the vehicle, acting as a lookout, and robbing Steven Parent's wallet from his dead body.

Again, I think all of these Manson members were despicable, but the public makes such an outcry against their release and don't seem to care that 1,000s of other murderers are let free for parole, too.

by Anonymousreply 12512/06/2012

[quote] The people arguing for the release of these animals come off as psychotic,

Please don't call them animals. It isn't fair to animals.

by Anonymousreply 12612/06/2012

Meh Id rather read about Milhouse van Houten.

by Anonymousreply 12712/06/2012

[quote]More heinous murderers have been paroled for far worse crimes in a far shorter amount of time, but there is no outcry about that.

Name a single one. One that involved something akin to breaking into the homes of innocent strangers and butchering them for fun, in order to start a race war. These are not common crimes. Murder is, but not this type of murder.

by Anonymousreply 12812/06/2012

Finally someone with less chance of winning parole than I had.

by Anonymousreply 12912/06/2012

People including Bugliosi have pointed out there was a house where the Mansons had partied on the same block as the LaBiancas.

Suzan Struthers, daughter of Rosemary LaBianca, lived in the same neighborhood as her parents. She'd been arrested for stealing a credit card but was allowed to make restitution, so charges were dropped. Rosemary LaBianca did not like her daughter Suzan's bf because he'd been arrested for drug possession and grand theft auto. It is said that he was a member of the Straight Satan's motorcycle club, but he has denied it. He was involved in the credit card theft with Suzan.

Rosemary laBianca's son Frank Struthers, Jr had been arrested for being a passenger in a stolen car. Three of Frank's friends had to be eliminated as suspects because they had "expressed great animosity towards the LaBianca victims." Two of them were eliminated because they were under arrest and in jail at the time of the murders. Frank was only 15 years old.

Rosemary "started a small clothing business from a truck" and made a million dollar. More like the women's clothes "fell off the back of the truck." Leno was being sued by family members for embezzling $250,000 from the family grocery business.

I'm not saying Leslie van Houten didn't do the killings, but something is too coincidental here. There was a drug house in the neighborhood. Did Suzan Struthers and Joe Dorgan party there? Had they met members of the Manson family? What's with everyone in the LaBianca household being some kind of a thief?

These are all things Bugliosi failed to address in his crazy "the Beatles made them do it because the Mansons were racist" book. I will always believe it was drugs. Jay Sebring and Voytek Frykowski were dealers. Joe Dorgan was probably a dealer. There was some kind of drug thing going on in the LaBianca neighborhood. Had members of the Manson family already been in the LaBianca house, maybe with Suzan or Joe or even Frank? They may have known the layout and brought some treats for the dogs. Why didn't the LaBiancas three dogs bark?

by Anonymousreply 13012/06/2012

If you're given Life with the possibility of parole denying parole because the crimes were horrible makes no sense.

by Anonymousreply 13112/06/2012

"Atkins never stabbed Sharon Tate."

what are you talking about? she testified herself that she did. she and Tex took turns stabbing her.

by Anonymousreply 13212/06/2012

R132 - Untrue. Atkins bragged that she did at first, but it came out later that Tex Watson did all of the stabbing to Sharon, while Atkins held her down. Both Susan Atkins and Tex Watson admit this in their books. I see no reason for psychopath Tex to lie about this.

by Anonymousreply 13312/06/2012

"She has spent the best years of her life behind bars."

Sharon Tate spent hers in the ground, r115.

by Anonymousreply 13412/06/2012

Everyone involved should be tortured to death. Sick fucks for life.

by Anonymousreply 13512/06/2012

But is "Possibility of Parole" only contingent on the behavior of the prisoner? I can see them thinking at the time of sentencing--maybe in 40 years the "community"--including the family of the victims--might be able to forgive her. That hasn't happened and probably never will. Isn't that a valid reason for denying parole?

by Anonymousreply 13612/06/2012

[quote]Never did I say that they SHOULD be free. I'm only stating the facts that had they murdered anyone other than a Hollywood film actress, they WOULD'VE been let out.

But they did, Blanche, they did.

by Anonymousreply 13712/06/2012

Susan Atkins told several different versions of what happened that night. In the earlier ones, she claimed to have stabbed Tate to death ("I just kept stabbing her until she stopped screaming") and told her "look bitch, I have no mercy for you." Later, when she was trying for parole, she said Tex killed Tate.

The Manson killers are liars. You can't believe anything they say; they just want to get out of prison and will say anything they think will make the parole board see them in a different light.

As for Leslie Van Houten, she was a very active and eager participant in the butchering of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. She should spend the rest of her life in prison for the torture and murder of two people who were just spending a quiet evening at home when they were set upon by a group of maniacs.

by Anonymousreply 13812/06/2012

R138, but if Susan Atkins did stab Sharon Tate, why does Tex Watson go along and lie and take blame for something he didn't do? Tex himself admits that he did all of the stabbing.

by Anonymousreply 13912/06/2012

r139, none of these people are trustworthy. Get that through your thick skull. Tex may lie, just so that ONE of the gang gets out - there's reason number one for you.

He knows he himself will never get out, but Atkins may, if he goes along with it. So he does.

Why is that so difficult to comprehend? They were capable of much more than lying.

In any case, they're all guilty as sin, and that is why they are behind bars, where they belong.

by Anonymousreply 14012/06/2012

"but if Susan Atkins did stab Sharon Tate, why does Tex Watson go along and lie and take blame for something he didn't do? Tex himself admits that he did all of the stabbing."

I think he believes that by confessing to it all the parole board will be impressed by his honesty and his willingness to take responsibility for his crimes and let him go. I know he did some of it, but he definitely did not do ALL of it. His saying he did is just manipulation on his part; Tex Watson cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything. All the Manson family killers are like that.

by Anonymousreply 14112/06/2012

And I love the sleuth at r130.

Hello, Jessica Fletcher!

Why is it so hard to accept a pack of psychopaths did what they did because they were murderous freaks, and needed no other motivation than that?

Even if Sebring and the other guy were drug dealers, they stabbed to death a pregnant woman and two more innocent people. Only a fully depraved, pyschopatic lunatic would do this.

And people like r130, who are grasping for alternative explanations to soothe their minds, come off as exstremely instable themselves.

No alternative motive will ever humanize the crimes committed by these monsters.

Deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 14212/06/2012

Only the young and deluded believe that, because these crimes have become smoothed down to just an interesting memory to THEM, that therefore the perpetrators are somehow also just harmless old bits of nostalgia.

The surviving murderers are all psychopaths who will say anything, behave in any way, to get what they want: FREEDOM.

If LVH or PK have been "model prisoners," it is because they are savvy and shrewd enough to play THE GAME.

So far, though, they have not been able to play The Man.

by Anonymousreply 14312/06/2012

Is this where you got your info from?

by Anonymousreply 14412/06/2012

[quote] woman and two more innocent people. Only a fully depraved, pyschopatic lunatic would do this.

Or someone high on drugs.

Or a gang. Gangs do this kind of shit all the time. Especially gangs of drug dealers. They kill entire families. They kill federal agents, they kill Mexican police, they will kill anyone who gets in their way. It's how they do business.

by Anonymousreply 14512/06/2012

I think it's great Leslie is a model prisoner. Releasing her would deprive the other inmates of the presence of a model prisoner.

by Anonymousreply 14612/06/2012

Jay Sebring was born Thomas John Kummer.

by Anonymousreply 14712/06/2012

anyone else think Tex Watson would have become a serial killer even if he hadn't met Manson? Have always wondered if he began killing even before he hooked up with the family.

by Anonymousreply 14812/06/2012

R140, I'm laughing at the thought of Tex Watson taking one for the team. That man is and has always been a self-serving psychopath looking out only for himself. And for over 30 years, he very much thought it was a possibility that he would be paroled - they all did. Between Van Houten actually being bailed out of court (and enjoying freedom in L.A. for six months in 1978), and Steve "Clem" Grogan being paroled back in the '80s, they all had glimmers of hope of getting out. In fact, they all had very detailed outlines of where they would relocate, what they would do for a living, etc.

Parole for the Manson family seemed a very real possibility in the early '80s, until Doris Tate (Sharon's mother) became a tireless champion of victim's family rights. Only recently, with Susan Atkins being denied compassionate release for brain cancer, has it appeared that Tex and Pat at least have given up. I don't think Leslie or Bobby will ever give up, though. And who knows, with Bruce Davis on the verge of parole himself, and Jerry Brown (the California governor under whom the death penalty was temporarily abolished) being active governor, there might be some surprises?

And whoever was bashing R130 for his very insightful post needs to stop drinking Vincent Bugliosi's Kool-Aid! This case is closed in that all the right perpetrators are rightfully in jail, but there are many truths left unexposed. "Helter-Skelter" was kind of a bullshit cop-out; the real motives for these crimes are for more elusive and interesting.

by Anonymousreply 14912/07/2012

These evil sub humans were originally sentenced to death. They should have been gassed then. You sick fucks clamoring for their parole are just as sick and evil as they are.

by Anonymousreply 15012/07/2012

R151, to be honest, I'm neutral on the subject of release for certain ones.

Tex and Pat are right where they belong (forever). And Leslie -- well, you won't ever find me advocating for her release (stabbing a dead woman 16 times will always be brutal and deranged), but at the same time I won't froth at the mouth if the powers that be decide she has paid her debt and is no longer harmful to society.

I definitely understand people wanting all of them in prison until death, though. Mention the word "Manson" to people of a certain age in L.A., and that is the closest thing to voodoo that this city has. Very taboo and chill-inducing to the many people who still remember '69 and how they killed the sun-kissed beauty and freedom of an entire era.

by Anonymousreply 15112/07/2012

[quote] Everyone involved should be tortured to death. Sick fucks for life.

And who would do the torturing, whilst not becoming a 'sick fuck' themselves?

When killing someone is framed as 'war' why don't we have any similar concerns? Vietnam sent back a lot of crazies. Killing is killing. Some of the fraus on this board think the Manson murders are way worse than anything else because it's the one that has the most space in the True Crime section at their library.

by Anonymousreply 15212/07/2012

Waters should be more picky about the women he wants to fuck.

by Anonymousreply 15312/07/2012

r153 = cynical fuck.

It's possible to be grossed out by these subhumans and not be a frau, fuckcake.

As someone else mentioned upthread: name a single murder that was as depraved as this one. You can't! When drug gangs go on a killing spree, they shoot people or slit their throats.

But this is not what happened with the Manson murders - they butchered their victims in the most depraved way possible. Smearing 'Pigs' and 'Helter Skelter' on the wall, telling Tate they had no mercy for her child, Krenwinkel stabbing Folger so hard the knife almost broke in two, her victim screaming: "You can stop, I'm already dead"

It's the work of true blue psychopaths, not a few addicts high on drugs.

The conspiracy / drug deal theorists conveniently forget the 'family' had a THIRD ACT planned for their murder spree: a random guy Charles Manson had met on the beach a few days before.

He sent Atkins, Kasabian et al. to his house, and he was supposed to be killed (Kasabian thwarted the whole thing, at the very last minute).

The randomness of this intended victim is full proof of their psychopathy.

And people like r153 trying to downplay their crimes are sick fucks indeed.

by Anonymousreply 15412/07/2012

[quote]Vietnam sent back a lot of crazies. Killing is killing.

ALL wars fuck up soldiers, except the ones who went in as sociopaths. That's why so many have PTSD. Killing is killing, as far as the victim is concerned. But not as far as the law is concerned. If you hit someone with a car and they die, it's different from plotting to poison your spouse.

For the rest of us the question is: what to do with people who've crossed that line? I think in the manson case it's clear, they need to be segregated and removed from the rest of us.

by Anonymousreply 15512/07/2012

To his credit, in his inteview in the old "Hollywood Kids" rag, Waters admitted that if it had been his family who had been killed by the Manson Family, he could never have reacted to them in this fashion.

by Anonymousreply 15612/07/2012

[quote] name a single murder that was as depraved as this one. . . When drug gangs go on a killing spree, they shoot people or slit their throats. . . But this is not what happened with the Manson murders - they butchered their victims in the most depraved way possible. Smearing 'Pigs' and 'Helter Skelter' on the wall

Um Dr. Jeffrey McDonald did these things.

This claim is way off base. There is nothing in particular they did to the victims in the Tate-LaBianca killings that is that unusual. They stabbed these people. Yes many times but that's not some unique murder at all. They stabbed them until they were dead and there was a lot of stabbing because some of the victims really fought back. Even the carving in poor Leno's stomach I've seen in other murders or assaults.

Why does the smearing of blood make the actual killings worse? You forgot to add they took some food out of the frdige at the LaBiancas for added affect.

Drug and/or gang killings can be particularly sadistic and much more "imaginative" than the Manson murders because they often want to send a message and terrify people.

Sme of you need to read more if you think these killings were the most gruesome in history. No they were some of the most sensational murders because of the circumstances surrounding them - famous, wealthy white people in a storied world of Hollywood and privilege. Hell you cna find worse murders discussed right here at DL.

Stop asking people to provide proof to negate your claims when you haven't provided any proof of your proffer besides emotional posts saying the same thing over and over again.

There is a lot of sadism and evil out there it just doesn't get the publcity these murders got.

by Anonymousreply 15712/07/2012

How noble of him, r157.

But since it wasn't his family, he thought it was cool to dedicate films to "The Manson Girls".

He should also admit that if Leslie van Houten had been overweight and non-glamorous he wouldn't have thought twice about her.

by Anonymousreply 15812/07/2012

The MacDonald crime was a crime of passion. Crimes of passion are often brutal, but they are common. There is probably not much of a likelihood that the people who commit them are likely to inflict the same behavior on strangers.

The Manson sprees were for sport. They had no personal ties to nor vendettas against the victims. Nobody is saying they are the most gruesome in history. The point is the level of depravity justifies the repeated parole denials.

by Anonymousreply 15912/07/2012

What r160 said.

r158 is yet another cynic happy to downplay these crimes, using the tired meme of "only because they killed a famous white person" etc. etc.

Funny how you accuse other people of 'saying the same thing over and over again', when you yourself employ the most overused - and facile - argument yourself.

The fact that Sharon Tate was well-known (not that much, anyway) was but one factor of MANY why this case became so notorious.

The utterly depraved behavior of the murderes in court would be another factor. Their use of a Beatles song yet another. The disappearance (probably killing) of their *own lawyer* still another factor.

But the key reason is the very UNIQUE depravity of the crimes. As r160 has pointed out, your comparison with Jeffrey MacDonald doesn't hold water.

The Manson family committed no crimes of passion. They were cold-blooded psychopaths. And crazy. Squeaky Fromme trying to assassinate Gerald Ford? .... crazy!

Yes, there are other crimes of extreme depravity, but not many.

If a random housewife, about to deliver a baby (a fact you conveniently omitted in your summary of the case), had been BUTCHERED by a gang of crazies (who would carve swastikas into their foreheads when in court), the case would have caused just as much furore and notoriety in the press.

Stop being repetitive, r158, by waffling about Tate's celebrity. It wasn't the key factor.

by Anonymousreply 16012/07/2012

Wrong. Jeffrey McDonald may have initially hit Colette out of passion and possibly have struck his daughter by accident but he murdered his wife and daughters in cold blood to provide a defense for himself. Way worse to me than the Manson murders.

R161, no matter how many times you repeat that this is NOT about the type of victims and the environment in which they were killed (white, wealthy, privileged world assumed to be safe from that type of sordid event, etc) THAT is exactly why it is such a notorious crime.

Sharon's LEVEL of success and fame was immaterial - the fact remains she was still a well known actress married to a famous director killed with a noted hair stylist to the "stars" and an heiress of a famous family and that other guy.

There is nothing UNIQUE about the depravity of these crimes.

I do this for a living. I have had to deal with physically assaultive crimes including and murders continually for decades now - knowing and understanding the details of these crimes - being briefed by experts on the details - and you are just stubbornly foolish if you think the Tate-LaBianca crimes are an example of the worst of murders that have occurred in the US.

None of the factors you list make these crimes "the worst." The music? Seriously? They killed a lawyer? You think that hasn't happened in other cases? Like I said upthread you seriously need to educate yourself about the crimes in this country - if you can even find information about them since the media and most people don't give a damn about them or their victims.

And no one is trying to downplay that these crimes were horrible or diminish the victims by pointing out that reality does not bear out your hysterical need to place these crimes way out of proportion to other crimes. Your refusal to see why they have become so notorious seems a byproduct of you buying into the media hype about it.

We've been down this road here before. No one is going to provide you a rundown of cases. They are plenty of sites out there to find some of them if you are really interested.

The gist of this thread is justice. What you and many others fail to recognize is that the failure of a criminal system to operate in a just and even handed manner hurts everyone in the end - the guilty, the innocent, and, yes, even the victims and their families - though I imagine that concept is beyond your grasp.

What you describe as cynicism is simply emotional maturity which your posts are lacking.

by Anonymousreply 16112/07/2012

[quote]We've been down this road here before. No one is going to provide you a rundown of cases.

Since you are privy to insider knowledge, why not enlighten the rest of us with examples?

It would be better all around if other people knew about them, especially if, as you suggest, there are Manson-level sociopaths that *do* get paroled.

by Anonymousreply 16212/07/2012

R160, admit you're just a lazy ass who thinks if I don't play law clerk to your ass you somehow "win" this argument. There are hundreds of true crime websites for you to check out and enlighten yourself. There are also many sites that allow you to search for case law. Practically none of this is "insider" information.

Something tells me that no matter what facts you're confronted with you will still be wailing that the Tate-LaBianca crimes are the most unique and worst crimes ever committed.

by Anonymousreply 16312/07/2012

r158 your reluctance to provide even a single example to back up your argument -- and your puerile ad hominem remarks -- are telling.

by Anonymousreply 16412/07/2012

R158 is correct in many respects. But I'm not entirely surprised that so many have bought into Vincent Bugliosi's very distorted, inaccurate, self-serving versions of events hook, line and sinker.

These murders were NOT about some hallucinogenic "Helter Skelter" race war. The Tate and Labianca households were not chosen at random. The victims at both households were into some very shady shit; to the point that many people were not surprised they met their ends in such violent ways --- sans poor 18-year-old Steven Parent, who I've always felt the saddest for. (He was the very definition of being at the wrong place at the wrong time - a closeted teenage boy looking to score some quickie gay sex with Cielo Dr. houseboy William Garretson. All of this in un-gay-friendly 1969).

The Manson family had partied at the Cielo Drive house many times before; they had partied at Harold True's house countless times as well - he was the next-door neighbor to the Labiancas. This was NOT random!

Cielo Dr. was targeted over drug-deals and drug-burns.

But why the Labiancas were targeted, however, is the missing clue. They were not the average middle-aged couple of the '60s; what with being up to their necks in mob ties, embezzlement and a vengeful daughter (Suzanne Laberge) who knows more than she is saying.

by Anonymousreply 16512/08/2012

Jeffrey MacDonald didn't kill a pregnant woman, who was about to give birth.

Therefore his crime is less psychopathic than the Manson family's murders.

r158 and r162 is wrong. And he is grandstanding.

by Anonymousreply 16612/08/2012

Leslie Van Houton should have been paroled in 1996 and at every hearing after.

American Justice is nothing of the sort, with an elected judiciary.

Such a flawed democracy.


by Anonymousreply 16712/08/2012

Splitting hairs about Colette MacDonald, r167, even though I am on your side of this argument in general.

Not only was Colette five months pregnant; it was the murderer's child.

by Anonymousreply 16812/08/2012

what's up with defending these dirtbags, anyway? MacDonald and Van Houten are cut from the same cloth. they don't care about the victims. they just play everyone, all of the time.

neither deserve to be alive.

by Anonymousreply 16912/08/2012

MacDonald killed his loved ones

by Anonymousreply 17012/08/2012

"Leslie Van Houton should have been paroled in 1996 and at every hearing after.

American Justice is nothing of the sort, with an elected judiciary.

Such a flawed democracy.


You're the despicable one, cunt. It's too bad Leslie and her friends didn't pay a visit to you instead of the LaBiancas.

by Anonymousreply 17112/08/2012

Sounds dangerously close to a death threat, R172. I hope you never get mad at me.

by Anonymousreply 17212/08/2012

If John Waters is too stpid to understand that he is being played by a sociopath then I have zero regard for him, and I didn't have much of any to start with.

by Anonymousreply 17312/08/2012

I agree they should have been released a very long time ago. They paid their dues and then some. They let susan die in jail let the rest go. Read the transcripts and you will see. If anyone is to be left it would be Tex who actually did the majority of the killings, and for this Debra Tate GET A LIFE!

by Anonymousreply 17412/30/2012

"The victims at both households were into some very shady shit; to the point that many people were not surprised they met their ends in such violent ways"

You're a sick, lying fucktard. Here's the extent of the "shady shit":

Folger and Frykowski and Sebring did drugs (who the fuck didn't back then?) but none of them were addicts. Contrary to rumor, Frykowski was not a big time drug dealer with lots of criminal contacts; he was just a lazy ne'er do well who was supported by Folger. Folger had been a social worker (wow, what a shady profession!) but became disillusioned with how little could be accomplished despite her efforts. She was on the verge of leaving the loser Frykowsky when she was killed.

Poor Jay Sebring, who was still pining for Sharon Tate, sometimes engaged in half-hearted attempts at "kinky" sex (he wanted people to think he was a real stud) by tying up his conquest but was never accused by anyone of any abuse. His drug use was recreational, like Folger's and Frykowski's.

Sharon Tate did drugs recreationally but not often. And while pregnant she wouldn't touch drugs or alcohol. She and Polanski didn't indulge in orgies with stangers, but they did make a sex tape together that Roman Polanski assumed they'd look at when they were old for amusement.

Leno LaBianca liked to gamble and he ran up a lot of debts, but his wife Rosemary had more than enough to pay them off. He didn't have a criminal record (his wife one traffic citation) and there was never any evidence to link him to "the mob" or "embezzlement."

And Stephen Parent was a "closeted teenage boy looking to score some quickie gay sex with Cielo Dr. houseboy William Garretson?!" I assume that's just a product of your sick-minded imagination because nowhere has it ever even been suggested that Parent went to see Garretson for "quickie gay sex." He went there to see if he could sell Garretson a clock-radio; he had a part-time job as a salesman for a stereo shop, and was trying to save money (he was working two jobs) to go to college.

by Anonymousreply 17512/30/2012

"I agree they should have been released a very long time ago. They paid their dues and then some. They let susan die in jail let the rest go. Read the transcripts and you will see. If anyone is to be left it would be Tex who actually did the majority of the killings, and for this Debra Tate GET A LIFE!"

Execution would have been the only way for the cunts from hell Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie Van Houten to "pay their dues."

Debra Tate DOES a life; a life she's spent advocating for victim's rights.

Eat shit and die, you moronic asshole.

by Anonymousreply 17612/30/2012

I agree with r177.

r175 sounds deranged, and like a cheap wanna-be member of the Family.

None of those freaks will ever get out, and they only have themselves to blame, r175.

by Anonymousreply 17712/30/2012

If you have read anything about these killings, it was Tex, Pat and Susan who did the killings. LVH was peripheral, and I believe what she did was stab Rosemary LaBianca after she was dead. Seems pointless to waste taxpayer money keeping her in jail.

by Anonymousreply 17810/23/2013

R161, the bizarre depravity of the Tate-Labianca murders and the subsequent fire-storm of news publicity that they received were certainly unique for 1969.

by Anonymousreply 17910/23/2013

Not to mention the Manson trial (Manson and the three girls). The girls shaving their heads, carving X's onto their foreheads, laughing and singing on their way to and from the courtroom; the non-arrested Manson followers crawling on their hands and knees like serpents down Los Angeles streets. That shit would be sensationalistic for even today.

by Anonymousreply 18010/23/2013

Bizarre (at link). Especially for 1969-70.

by Anonymousreply 18110/23/2013

A few misconceptions...

LVH technically didn't murder anyone. She stabbed rosemary labianca's body after she was dead. coroner's testimony is of course public record on this. Doesn't make her an less guilty of an awful crime. But still.

LVH was also offered immunity which she turned down due to her fealty to charlie. You dont get offered immunity if your crimes are so categorically beyond the pale. Even bugliosi said at the time she'd be the one who would see leniency. The real reason she is in jail today in the end is because of her behavior during the trial. The singing and giggling turned the jury against her.

As for all of them who did this. Yes, they *were* monsters. But they were also completely brainwashed and in cult mode. Expert witness psychologists for both sides have said as much. over and over and over. A couple expressed shock that none of them were able to cop some form of an insanity plea.

personally I think she should be paroled.

by Anonymousreply 18210/23/2013

she should have been paroled years ago. America is a sick country I am glad I am British and live in a civilised society where people believe in forgiveness.

by Anonymousreply 18311/11/2013

Parol her and have her move in with her supporters, r182, r183 and let them fund the rest of het life.

by Anonymousreply 18411/11/2013

Perfect, r184! So tired of these bleeding hearts caring more for the perps than the victims and their families.

by Anonymousreply 18511/11/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!