Saturday, May 01, 2010

Like Clockwork

Cooley says ex-Manson follower shouldn’t be released from prison
L.A. County’s district attorney says Bruce Davis, 67, who has served 38 years in prison for the 1969 killings of a musician and a ranch hand, continues to ‘offer excuses’ for his role in the slayings.

By Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times

May 1, 2010

A convicted killer who has been described as mass murderer Charles Manson's "right-hand man" should not be released from prison, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley told Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday.

Bruce Davis, 67, who has served 38 years in prison for the 1969 killings of musician Gary Hinman and ranch hand Donald "Shorty" Shea, was recommended for release by a two-member Board of Prison Terms panel in January.

In a letter to the governor, who has the power to reverse parole recommendations, Cooley wrote that he believes that Davis "continues to minimize, rationalize and offer excuses" for his role in the killings.

"The viciousness of the Gary Hinman and Shorty Shea murders, the relationship of those murders to an effort to incite a race war ... and Bruce Davis' attempts to minimize his criminal responsibility make him an unreasonable risk of danger to society," the letter reads.

Michael Beckman, Davis' attorney, said his client has taken responsibility for the crimes and has changed since entering prison.

Davis has a sterling disciplinary record, Beckman said, has become an ordained minister and has earned his master's and doctorate degrees in philosophy and religion via correspondence school.

"If the goal of prison is to rehabilitate and get prisoners back into society, he's a textbook example," Beckman said. "He's not going to bother anybody. He's just going to go home to his wife."

Davis was not involved in the 1969 Manson family murders of actress Sharon Tate and six others. But, according to Cooley, he "occupied a major role in the Manson family hierarchy."

He was convicted in the killings of Hinman, an aspiring musician, and Shea, a stuntman and a ranch hand at the Chatsworth ranch where Manson and his followers lived. Police found a Black Panther symbol at the Hinman murder scene, which prosecutors later said was an attempt to incite a race war, which the Manson family called "Helter Skelter."

Manson and most of his co-defendants have repeatedly been denied parole. Susan Atkins died in September, shortly after a state parole board panel rejected her plea for a "compassionate release" because of brain cancer.

Davis had been denied parole 25 times before. At his 26th parole hearing, a two-person panel recommended he be freed. The governor can allow the decision to stand, reverse it or send it back for further reconsideration by the entire parole board.


Anonymous said...

What a perfect dilemma - if you admit too much participation, then you run the risk of inciting emotions from board members.However, if you try to distance yourself at all from the heinous details of the commit offense- well, then you are not "willing to admit to full participation" - " Hasn't accepted full responsibility" Oh well Bruce.. You should have talked when you had the chance. He should not walk until he comes clean in full to the full satisfaction of every investigation he was named in, and that will never happen. So, he should never walk.

Marliese said...

Any idea when this will cross Arnold's desk? And didn't the initial reports of this story say that it was a preliminary recommendation of only two parole board have the other parties agreed?

Lame duck completely aside, I think Arnold will stop it.

Thanks for your reply on the previous post, St. Circumstance. Great read.


A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Anyone else see the film where another victim of Polanski's sex crimes came forward?

Marliese said...

Shouldn't that be alleged victim?

She said that she met with him at his apt in Paris about the part in Pirates and made an excuse and left when he said he gets to know the women in his movies by having sex with them, but eventually went back and met with him again because she "needed the money."

She was considered of age in France, admits she consented, explains she very much wanted the part in the movie, that the money was really good and she really needed it because she was living with her mother in public housing etc etc etc. So...without knowing the details of what happened between them, how can we say he 'abused' her or committed 'sex crimes' against her? Because she says so twenty five years later in another country with Gloria Allred by her side?

Anonymous said...

Polanski was and is an arrogant jackass. The new accuser was the woman who starred with Eddie Murphy in the Golden Child- his post Bev Hills Cop flop. Gloria Allred isn't much different from Al Sharpton- she loves to show up and get her face in front of any camera covering a bad situation. If they bring Polanski back- and put him where he belongs- maybe he can sit in a cell near Charlie, and they can both discuss how wonderfully they treated women.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Charles never had sex with anyone against her will.

Matt said...

A.C., what about this one? His biological mother maintains that he is the result of a rape by CM:

Anonymous said...

A.C. I admire your conviction with regards to defending Charlie. Giving you the benefit of the fact that there may be no official arrest records to verify actual charges of forced rape against him. I wont argue with second hand accounts or stories I have read in books. But I was merely pointing out that they both had a very similar interest in much younger women, and neither of them were the type of guys, as so far as they way they treated these younger women, I would want dating my sister :) or You!!

starship said...

AC, ask the boys Charlie sodomized in reform school and in prison whether or not they were raped...

Anonymous said...

I also see now Woody Allen is sticking up for Polanski as well over at the Cannes film festival- another one who cant keep his hands off young girls- how nice they all stick together lol.

Against there will or not- it is very obvious Charlie had sex with underage girls, and that still counts as rape- Charlie may have had consent from one or two of them, and he may not have gotten it from others . Polanski was with Natasha Kinski when she was underage, but she was " dating" him lol so I guess she was consenting , but we know he also had at least one underage girl without consent. Woody Allen was with his young gun for who knows how long before it became public. In all 3 cases with or without consent- these are older guys taking advantage of younger , more naive children/teenagers . That makes them all criminals in my book.
A.C.- Im with you that he is not on the evil level that most people put him on- but lets not make excuses either, Charles was not a very good guy. Interesting, and with some very unusual charm- but not a very good guy at all.

Marliese said...

He had no problem pimping, beating and degrading young women.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

The young women of Charles's acquaintence were not beaten. Gypsy stated that, but she's lied about other things, as well. Other ladies of his acquaintence say that the rumors of beatings are untrue.

They may have chosen prostitution as a lifestyle, which I don't agree with, but it's not up to me. Were it my choice, all the topless bars, strip clubs, houses of prostitution etc. in the nation would be closed. Or staffed exclusively by men, hahaha!

If anyone was dissatisfied with the Ranch lifestyle, they were free to go. They weren't tied up, their legs weren't broken. Women left all the time to go on store runs... and they came right back. All of them had access to weapons, with which they could've defended themselves.

I'm told that Charles was repeatedly attacked in reform schools, and that the ONE incident was revenge... gotta wonder where the monitors were when Charles was being sexually abused? Oh yeah, they were doing it too...

If you're talking about Matthew Roberts, he's told me personally that his mother said that the sex was vigorous, but it wasn't rape... and she also had sex with two other men at the same time. But he didn't wanna change his song lyrics. Anyhow, there's still quite a bit of debate over whether or not Roberts's story is true. I've offered him hair for a DNA test.

Polanski drugged and anally raped two children. NOOOOooo comparison. He got away with it because he is rich and powerful.

Anonymous said...

A.C. Again- I respect your opinion. you feel strongly about this, and although I do not agree with you, I wont belittle your right to have your opinion. I also agree that he probably had the type of childhood that you wouldn't wish on anyone. God knows what he must have seen and endured. Hard lonely life as the son of a worthless tramp no doubt. But even giving you the benefit of the doubt on all these issues of beatings and rape- lets look at what we all agree is fact.

He slept with woman as young as 15, 16 ( Diane Lake) in his 30's.

He gave drugs to underage children ,and used drugs with underage children.

He stole regularly and encouraged younger kids to do the same.

He used women as prostitutes to get money for himself

he shot bernard crowe and left him for dead.

these are all undeniable facts. So I ask again- is this the type of guy you want to be defending?

Charles isn't and wasn't the most dangerous person on the planet. He is not the most evil man alive, and he didn't kill those people at Cielo or Waverly. However, he was the catalyst without whom alot of very bad things could have been averted. We need to get to the bottom of who was behind him and why- that is the real mystery of this.

Is drugging and having sex with an underage girl more acceptable in your book if she consents? because we can argue forever if there was consent or not- but cant argue at all that in both cases it happened.

Anonymous said...

A.C. is having sex with and drugging a minor better if there is consent?

Because in both cases we can argue forever weather or not the underage girls were forced, but in both cases we have to agree that they were both given drugs and engaged in sex. These were both men in there 30's with girls in there teens.

Lets not argue about what we cant prove beyond 100% of a doubt...

Charles had sex with girls as young as 14, 15. ( Diane Lake)

Charles gave drugs to underage girls.

Charles stole cars, and credit cards.

Charles had girls prostituting for him and his personal gain.

Charles shot a man and left him for dead.

Are you sure this the guy you want to be defending so fiercely?

I agree he probably had the childhood from hell. Being the only unwanted son of the town whore must have caused some very lonely and confused times. for sure, he had it rough growing up in and out institutions. There are alot of reasons for him to turn out exactly the way he did. But what you cant loose sight of is that - he turned out the way he did :) He was a very bad guy. Not the " most evil man on earth"

starship said...

Well said, St. Circumstance, I agree wholeheartedly with you, both about AC and about Charlie.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Not arguing that it happened.

Then again, I come from a culture where young ladies regularly are married by age 14, and often have children before they can drive. Charles came from that culture, as well. (Poor white miners and lumberjacks.) Although it may seem apalling to educated wealthy people, it's what working class hill folk do, and it's functional for them.

Which, in my opinion, is better than our current culture, where young women have kids out of wedlock at age 13, and I am forced to support them with my tax dollars.

In the sixties, people drugged themselves. They didn't need Charles to supply it. Either they were receiving it from every other hippie on the street, or their physicians. Vallium was handed out like candy. Watch "Valley of the Dolls" or better yet, read the book. It's accurate.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

I guess my annoyance is that Polanski, a rich white man, gets away with drugging someone, raping them, and buying off the authorities. Whether the woman is underage or not -- it was rape.

Speaking of underage, where the heck were the parents?

Anonymous said...

There is nothing in the world that personally annoys me than people like Polanski either. A great question. Where were the parents? Kind of like a Charlie Brown special- the whole story seems void of any adults. I do know a little about the Appalachia culture- in addition to Valley of the dolls- I also saw Coal Miners Daughter :)

You fight the good fight A.C. good for you!!

Anonymous said...

Hey- read a great article today! Since I was just comparing Chuckie to Polanski- I thought it added some more perspective It comes from a newspaper in Buffalo New York

What Charlotte Lewis’ story now confirms for us (if you believe it, which I do) is what we already knew from Polanski, famously beginning a public relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15 and he was 43: That sexual power over young girls was Polanski’s “thing” and that the 13-year-old victim was the one case that, finally, just could not be explained away or covered up.

Long ago? For sure. Justice delayed has been justice denied.

He will never be anything less than great as a filmmaker—as well as being the most famous “victim” of Charles Manson. It’s his actions as a human being, though, that need a final accounting.

Andromeda74 said...

I'd like to point out a big difference between the young girls that Charlie slept with and the ones Polanski slept with. The ones that slept with Charlie stuck around, for months and years. I guess that speaks to the fact that there were different types of relationships there. For what its worth.

Anonymous said...

They definitely were different relationships. No doubt. Again- it seems just as bad to me in either case, but really I just wanted to point out that they both seemed to have a thing about power over younger woman. I wouldn't disagree that, at least the physical sex part of it, it was probably a lot scarier for Polanski's victims than Charlies "young loves" because in MOST cases- right or wrong- the majority of Charlies girls were willing.

Anonymous said...

Polanski scarier than Charlie????

Anonymous said...

Where is everyone? I want to talk about Leslie :) She is up next! Arnold has until the end of this month to overturn Bruce, and then its Leslie's turn. Leslie is my personal favorite. Unlike almost anyone else of the major ( indicted/arrested/convicted) players... I beilieve with all my heart Leslie has no idea on Earth what the truth was, or is lol She may be the one person of all of them who really was just " young and caught up" Not that I think it is an excuse, or is she any less responsible. But if everything I believe is true- then there really had to be a few naive suckers who just got stuck trying to impress and fit in with a group of much bigger fish who had much darker intentions. Regardless, She is going through some serious changes, I am sure, realizing that getting back to civilization is going to rely on alot more than a Matrix of average time served ( Rememeber when she was predicting her release date to reporters?) . You wonder how many more of these she can get her hopes up for , before realizing it just no longer matters. I think Patty got it a long time ago. Did Sadie ever get it? John Waters wrote a very nice piece which I have read several times... I am for letting this one go. She was a very small fish in this, and within the laws by which we live- she has paid the going price for what she did. I dont think she is a danger, or threat, and California needs to save every penny they can. If Clem has been roaming free and society is still o.k. - I feel Leslie wouldn't create too much panic... It will be fun to see what the parole board does now with the one that was suppossed to be the first to get out the door, now that it has been slightly cracked by another in front of her....

starship said...

Yes, good points. Our society is more interested in vengeance and retribution than in rehabilitation. Unfortunate. But SA, a one legged terminal cancer patient, with a family with the ability to take care of her, couldn't get released by the state of California. Doesn't look good.

If BD gets paroled, however, anything may happen.

Oh and did anyone catch the video of the porn guy falling off the ledge in Chatsworth? Dead.

angeLos said...

vengeance ?...probably not !
California and the system does not want to hear again about people sneaking up Waverly drive.

Matt said...

What are they going to sneak up with, canes and walkers?

Anonymous said...

I am not saying any of them should get out, but if none of them do- it will be for different reasons. I am sure no one thinks LuLu is walking up anywhere near Waverly....That isn't what has been keeping her where she is... I wonder honestly- just for arguments sake-

Does anyone think Grogan in the 80"s was less dangerous potentially when they released him than Leslie would be if they released her today?

If she told the authorities where to find a missing clue to a still unsolved crime would that make her more desirable to be your possible neighbor- like they ruled Clem would?

When all the D.A.s and counselors ruled Clem was totally rehabilitated, and co-sponsored the same line that he was a new person- and amazingly transformed- in such a short time relative to what they are saying to 60 year old women who have been in twice as long- it makes you really wonder about the whole process...

But is still dont care if any of them get out. And- I still wouldn't worry over on Waverly if any of them do...