Friday, January 21, 2011

Talking Turkey


Look, it's obvious, they AIN'T GETTING OUT ever. The Bug wrote in the back of the novel that the girls would get out in 25 years. But even with the BUG approving of Susan's release, hopping out the door on one leg like some sort of refugee from Watership Down, it didn't happen. And you know why, really? Because nobody CARES anymore. Does that sound oxymoronic? It actually isn't. Follow the bouncing Colonel.

The Family started 44 fucking years ago. The murders were 41 years ago, the trials were 40 years ago. That's 179 in Panda Years. I mean it was forever ago. These killers were YOUNG ass back there and they are living forever. But it was also a different world. If you got in your DeLorean and went back there you wouldn't last a day. Might as well go back to 1066. Kids today don't remember Reagan. Palin shows up and you compare her to McCarthy and people are like "ummm what?" It's like the guy who was in the Tower of London dungeon for decades (I'm making this up but you'll follow it.) because the King put him there for jaywalking. It's like three Kings later, no one knows why he's there, but they ain't gonna be the ones to let him out just in case THEY catch shit. They don't CARE enough to even deal with it.

According to the law they all should be out. No, idiot about to yell at me, that doesn't mean they belong out or I want them out. The law says they are entitled to Parole. The brilliant Catch 22 that has sprung up is "You want out, which means you aren't sorry so we won't let you out. Only by agreeing to stay here to we believe you are sorry." Like in Life of Brian - "I'm not the Messiah...only the true Messiah denies his divinity." They can't win. One does wonder why they show up.

But if Sadie didn't get out, what chance do the rest of them have? Katie killed more people and though she didn't dance in a pregnant woman's blood volume doesn't get you a discount. Leslie had a meeting with JimNY which is enough to keep her locked up for life, with daily horsewhippings. Charlie's happy being the bad man. Bobby would like to be out but that whole story is so confused who knows. Bruce is the Zodiac Killer and probably killed John Lennon psychically....

Sorry I came undone. They are never getting out NOT because of who they killed but because whoever lets them out lets out a Mansonite. And this will never do. So aside from some special face time in which Debra can weep and rewrite history, the hearings are a parade.

What I would LOVE is for one of them to say next time, "You are right I don't deserve to be out, I skip the hearing" and then for their lawyer to say- "Aha, they are sorry, let them out." But that would be too easy....

-----------------
How do you become a member and get to post comments here? Ask.

-----------------

One commenter recently asked me what I meant by the BUG perjury. That person should go read the rest of the blog going back years now.

1- The BUG didn't need to present a motive to win the case. He had the actual killers cold with real evidence. He didn't have Charlie because, well he didn't kill anybody. So he concocted a motive and sold it to the jury. Any person with a brain can see that today. It's obvious. And Aaron Stovitz told me himself.
2- The BUG testified under oath that he didn't bring the LA TIMES with the Nixon headline into the courtroom. He did.
3- The BUG wrote a book which is self-serving and full of clear lies.

He also stalked his milkman for allegedly fucking his wife and beat up his mistress.

Fuck the Bug.

----------------------

I will review the MANSON NOW book. Suffice it to say it has nothing new to add.

15 comments:

Pristash said...

The reason Bugliosi thought they would be out in 20 or 25 years is because back then there was an actual culture of rehabilitation, where the penal system allowed for those deemed sufficently so to re-enter society at large. Those convicted of such crimes which were especially heinous were given the death penalty. Once that option was taken away...

We now live in a culture of retribution. Revenge. Vengeance...It's the only thing left us...victims rights and such...Doris Tate has alot to do with this.

St. Circumstance said...

Col- isnt that sort of what Morgan Freeman did at the end of Shawshank redemption lol ???

Very interested to hear what you think of the book...

Matt said...

I agree, Pristash. In a sense, they really are political prisoners. Current politics dictates retribution so they are denied parole on false pretenses because there is no real oversight to make sure the CA parole board follows the law. No one wants to be "the one" who let them out. So, they hide behind "she's not remorseful enough".

If Bruce's parole hearing dragged into Jerry Brown's administration I bet he'd be out.

Brian Davis said...

Hello to Everyone !

Great post Col !

Great analogies !

Catch-22 is right on.

DA Sequeira said if PK had any remorse she wouldn't come to the hearings.

Loved your reference to the Monkey Boy ! As funny as that was that probably did or does hurt Van Houten. In addition, How about LVH's marriage or engagement to that ex con guy they found with items they thought to help LVH escape. I know LVH was supposedly not knowing of this, but I wonder if they look at that too. ?

Col, a couple of questions for you regarding this post if you get the time and don't mind, thanks,

- "The BUG testified under oath that he didn't bring the LA TIMES with the Nixon headline into the courtroom. He did."

Col, why do you think Bugs would do this ? I would think that would possibly work in Manson's favor.
And it almost did.

-Bobby would like to be out but that whole story is so confused who knows.

Col, Have you changed your viewpoint or opinion about BB ?
If so, please elaborate in a future post.

Thanks again Col !

Marliese said...

Matt, false pretenses?

So yeah, I can google and find out about appeals rulings...

When Leslie Van Houten sued with the argument that the parole board "failed to balance the heinousness of the crimes with her efforts at rehabilitation" the ruling stated that as long as there is "some evidence" to support cruel and callous multiple felony murder with inexplicable motive and mutilated victims, denial can come "solely from a review of the circumstances of the crime."

The idea that Pat Krenwinkel is being held on 'false pretenses' I think is insulting to the suffering of her victims, and insulting to people in the world being held without a fair trial (let alone three for LVH, and a reprieve from the death sentences handed down to the rest of them) that haven't stabbed other human beings til the victim soaked in her own blood says 'i'm already dead' or abusing and cutting up people in their own homes with knives and carving forks for no truthful motive...even 40 years later there isn't clear truth.

There is horrifying injustice in the world, but I don't believe it's being suffered by Pat Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, or that they're being held, so to speak, on false pretenses. What is false? If not their crimes, then parole suitability criteria?

Maybe I'm naive for believing that appeals court have ruled fairly in these instances...regarding LVH.


~Marliese

Marliese said...

Hi Brian. :)

St. Circumstance said...

Marliese- that is the first time I have ever heard that there IS legal precedent to keep them in solely based on the actual crime itself....

In my opinion- that puts an end to any personal dilemma about letting them out..

I always went about my thought process assuming the law said they were eligible, but not guaranteed after a certain amount of time based on post conviction matters- But if commit offense in itself is enough- by law- to allow for them to not ever be paroled...

At least in the case of Tex, and Katie it was enough for me to keep them in...

Most likely for Susan and Leslie as well....

We talked about this once before and I agreed to an extent with Pritash that they were prisoners because of Politically motivated reasons not to let them go- so It was a fair way to put it...

but if there is precedence and legal verbage that it is within the law to keep them in based on the actual commit offense- then Maybe I have to rethink my position???

I mean if these crimes weren't vicious enough to merit them serving the entirety of a life sentence... What crime would be???

St. Circumstance said...

Hey Brian!! Happy belated New Year!!

Marliese said...

Hi St. Circumstance, thanks but I'm finding more that may not support it...

"although the heinousness of the crimes alone may constitute a sufficient basis for denying parole (In re Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 683; In re Dannenberg, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 1094-1095), that is true only in a case where the particularly egregious nature of the commitment offense reasonably suggests that “the prisoner who committed it is presently too dangerous” to be released on parole. (In re Danenberg, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1080) ~ from the Avalos 2006 appeal...where the board found the prisoner suitable, the Governor reversed the board's decision based on the heinous nature of the crime, the appeals court overturned the governor and reinstated the parole board finding of suitability.

I need to research dates into the correct order, and credit sources, but just wanted to quickly let you know...it seems the commitment crimes may be considered but have to connect to the present threat to society.

That must be why the parole decisions always include the facts of why the crimes were especially heinous, and then 'would pose a risk to society.'

I feel sick about the idea that it's vengeance keeping these people from parole, or that Patricia Krenwinkel is a political prisoner. So Tex too?


~Marliese

Marliese said...

St. Circumstance, that's how i feel also...if these crimes are not enough to keep them in prison for life, then what would be?

I don't understand the idea that a vengeful society is keeping them in prison for life...they deserve it...nearly 42 years later, and she's still saying i did it so he would love me.

She's looks ancient. Guess the women prisoners aren't allowed even basic skin care items. An old woman in prison. By the way she's aging, I wonder about her health. Maybe that's what the board meant by if your situation changes you can apply earlier...if she gets sick...?


~Marliese

Matt said...

Hi Marliese,

I'm not a fan of PK. I just feel that a parole board should be accountable and have to follow the law. They aren't and the state of CA turns a blind eye.

In civilized society of you turn a blind eye to "injustice", you could be next.

Also, when she says "I wanted him to love me", she's telling the truth based on what she felt at the time (1969). I didn't read into that that she was trying to justify her actions in any way in today's context.

St. Circumstance said...

Go JETS MATT :) Hope your having a great weekend Marliese...

I guess my own feelings about there eligibility will have to wait until I am sure exactly what the law says regarding the circumstances we have been talking about.

But Col is right- despite what the law says, and what I think lol...

right or wrong- I dont think any of them are ever leaving alive.

It will be for us to debate why, and fair or foul...

Have a great Sunday all... :)

St. Circumstance said...

P.S.- I read in john Waters book that they dont even let Leslie wear her hair the way she wants, so that why there long Grey ponytail at the parole hearings...

But then I have also seen pics of Susan and LULU that look like Glamour shots lol- so I am not sure what the rules are regarding personal grooming..

Marliese said...

Hi Matt, I appreciate your opinion, but just a little research reveals numerous cases in California where it hasn't been true...the idea that the parole board is not held accountable. Denials are overturned on appeal, governor reversals have been overturned, decisions reinstated...

I don't believe these women have suffered injustice...going back to the California Supreme Court overturning Leslie Van Houten's original convictions, she's had plenty of justice. Maybe she'll succeed in Federal Court.
In their (the women's) cases, it seems the 'some evidence to support heinous and callous' always comes back to multiple victims and 'inexplicable' motive.

And honestly, Matt, I'm not trying to be obstinate here, but with PK's 'i wanted him to love me'...i understand she was talking about 1969...my disappointment is in wondering if she says "I got a knife, I was a willing to get in that car, I saw Tex kill that young man and didn't get the hell out of there, I helped tie them up, i heard Tex say you're all gonna die, I hissed 'kill her', I chased Abigail and stabbed her over and over again, I did those things all by myself. No one held a gun to my head. And I did it again the next night too, I stabbed a terrified woman til my knife bent and then I shoved a fork in a dead man's gut just so I could stare at it and watch it move. And THEN...I wrote all over the walls in their blood. She's right she was a monster, but the i did it so he'd love me is such bs, it's not accountability. In fairness though, i'd really love to read the entire transcript of this current hearing.

~Marliese

Marliese said...

Hi St. Circumstance, it's going to be a great afternoon...a house full of boys, good food, and a huge television.

Oh the make up thing. I read women prisoners used to be able to color their hair and use make up, but that changed several years ago. Didn't realize there were also rules about hairstyles. I just wonder about basics though, you know. What would a little moisturizer hurt. PK looks like an old man.