Leslie Van Houten, the one-time Manson follower, who was long seen as one of his followers most likely to win freedom, was denied parole Tuesday for her role in the notorious killings of Leno and Rosemary La Bianca.

After serving 39 years for her participation in this crime (which was committed back on August 10, 1969, and she was sentenced in 1971 at the trial’s conclusion), this was her 19th parole board denial. While the drumbeats of “justice” are prevailing from some of the victim’s family members (and even some mainstream news channels), one can’t help but ponder the following rhetorical situation:

Let’s say you (a male or female residing in the state of California), are convicted of a horrible murder (that you took part in as part of a group). You originally pleaded “Not Guilty” largely based on the defense that you (the killer) were either: 1. Under the influence of psychedelic drugs and/or 2. You were brainwashed by a self-admitted “madman” (both of which are actually true) – and you’re found guilty of this crime, and you’re given a sentence of “Life in Prison.” Now, after this sentencing, you do your best to live the next 40 years in prison as a “model prisoner”, you give very few interviews over the years to the media – (who has always maintained a grim, bizarre fascination with certain OTHER Manson murders – after all, a famous actress (Sharon Tate) was one of the victims), you admit over & over again that you’re ashamed of this horrible crime, and you ask the family for forgiveness for your participation in this heinous crime. All of the above is true in the case of Leslie Van Houten.

The resounding question is, can you legally remain locked-up “forever” – purely at the mercy of a media-coverage-biased prosecution, a media-polluted-parole board, and an angry family member who wants you behind bars for life without any chance of parole? The answer is a resounding “yes” if you reside in the state of California, and this case raises alot of troubling questions about California penal codes.

The Hearing – is Manson’s reputation up for parole or Leslie Van Houten?

For evidence of some obvious media-bias in this case, one need not look further then the Los Angeles DA who addressed the parole board: “It’s been said he turned people into mindless robots,” the DA Patrick Sequeira said of Manson, “but there were people in the commune who did not participate in the murders.” Wait a second – is Charles Manson’s reputation up for parole? Or is this Leslie Van Houten’s parole hearing? Is that a real prosecuting argument? That some members of a drugged-out cult were rumored “not to kill anyone” and it’s based entirely on media hearsay and not a shred of evidence? In an ordinary case, such an argument wouldn’t hold water. Van Houten’s case, like all of the other Manson-related criminal cases, are anything but normal.

The Manson Case background vs the LAPD

Historically, the LAPD has always had a major beef with the Manson case. The Former prosecuting DA’s Vincent Bugliosi’s book Helter Skelter had painted a very unflattering picture of the LAPD’s investigation, and even suggested in one chapter that “in-fighting” and “competition”, in several of the police department’s investigative divisions might have inadvertently bungled the case back in 1969, (and might have had the caustic side-effect of actually giving the Manson “family” more time to commit more murders), by continually over-looking “obvious connections” in the Tate and LaBianca murder scenes. With two separate divisions investigating the Tate crime scene and the LaBianca scenes, and despite having a ton of similar evidence found at both scenes: (the word “Piggie” being written on the walls with victim’s blood, barefoot prints found at both scenes, etc), it was nearly 2 weeks before the LAPD discovered the two cases might be connected when one member of a division happened to stumble across some evidence the other department was investigating. Then there was the LAPD’s troubled relationship with the victim’s families. The author Ed Sanders had noted one episode in his book The Family, about how one LAPD officer, instead of simply telling one of the victim’s parents that their son (Steve Parent) was brutally murdered, recommended that the victim’s father “please call this phone number”, (without any explanation whatsoever). You can imagine the father’s confusion and grief upon his dialing this number, and then hearing a person answer with: “Hello, Los Angeles County Morgue.” So it’s safe to say the Manson case has always been a thorny issue for the LAPD in every possible facet of the case, so the current District Attorney (Sequeira) must have had a serious dose of bitter-history about this case passed down to him.

The Hearing’s Conclusion

At the conclusion of Van Houten’s hearing, the chairman of the parole board, Robert Doyle, said Van Houten was “not yet suitable for parole” because “she had failed to gain complete insight into her crime and its motivation.” This is the Chairman’s way of saying something of “moral value” to the press, but ultimately fails to communicate any message of substantial legal value whatsoever. Van Houten didn’t address the board, since her attorney stated that “her words would only be used against her”, so how could they make the determination that she “failed to gain complete insight into her crime” if she didn’t give a single statement to the board?

While the board commended Van Houten for her “adjustment to prison and her work on behalf of other prisoners”, Doyle and deputy commissioner Carol Bentley said the crimes involved “were so atrocious and heinous that they must be considered in the decision.” It’s easy to agree with the ruling that these crimes are “atrocious and heinous”, with two innocent family members found brutally murdered in cold blood, but that was also determined back in 1969. What we don’t agree with is a blatant violation of the California penal code by depending on polluted, and outdated (and painfully obvious) media-bias and a flimsy prosecution. Sadly after 39 years of research into this case, the parole board and the LAPD has accomplished nothing other then accept Manson’s past media reputation as “credible evidence”, in a largely un-related murder case.

Once you suspend Manson’s name from this case – (after all, he’s not up for parole here), this case suggests that a sentence of “Life in Prison” can be easily commuted to “Life in Prison without possibility of parole” – based on the above shakey justifications (or lackthereof).

Not surprisingly, Van Houten has some supporters that want to see her released after all these years. Just recently in the Huffington Post, the director John Waters, argued “I do believe in rehabilitation. … Leslie has taken responsibility, and she has followed the rules.” As horrible as these crimes were, every citizen of the United States should have access to an un-biased jury, parole board, trial and subsequent sentence. Having Charlie Manson’s name attached to one’s case, shouldn’t exempt a citizen (guilty or not) from basic due process.

More on the case here, more on John Waters’ friendship with Van Houten here…
Books about the case:
Helter Skelter,
The Family