Become a patron of CieloDrive.com. Click here to learn more
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS AVAILABLE FOR
DOWNLOAD IN THE FOLLOWING FORMATS
SUBSEQUENT PAROLE CONSIDERATION HEARING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS
In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration Hearing of:
CDC Number: B-28302
DECEMBER 7, 2005
Mr. Terry Farmer, Presiding Commissioner
Ms. Gretchen Garner-Easter, Deputy Commissioner
Mr. Robert Beausoleil, Inmate (via telephone conference/Oregon)
Mr. Patrick Sequeira, Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County
Correctional Officers Unidentified
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Now we're on record. The time is 11:41. We're here for the parole consideration hearing for Inmate Robert Beausoleil, spelled, B-E-A-U-S-O-L-E-I-L, inmate number B-28302. Today's date is December 7th. We are located at the Sacco Unit, S-A-C-C-O, Sacramento. Beausoleil was received into CDC on June 23, 1970 for a life term that commenced that day, committed out of the County of Los Angeles, their case number, A057452. Convicted of murder in the first-degree in violation of Penal Code 187. The term is seven years to life with a minimum eligible parole date is August 4, 1976. Next, I'd like to identify the persons present here in the room. I'm Terry Farmer, F-A-R-M-E-R, Commissioner.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Gretchen Garner-Easter, G-A-R-N-E-R-E-A-S-T-E-R, Deputy Commissioner.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Patrick Sequeira, S-E-Q-U-E-I-R-A, Deputy District Attorney, County of Los Angeles.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Now you Mr. Beausoleil.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: My name is Robert Beausoleil, B-E-A-U-S-O-L-E-I-L.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Your CDC number.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: B-28302.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Now one of the first things that I want to address is your waiver of counsel. I note that at the last hearing it was postponed so that your counsel could be present and you had previously had the assistance of counsel. On November 9, 2005 I have a form, obsentiably signed by you, where you now indicated that you are waiving your right to counsel.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, sir.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Is that accurate?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yes. I would, if I could, have my attorney present in the room with you for this hearing. Unfortunately she is on maternity leave. She will be having a child next month. It's just the timing. We were hoping that the re-convened hearing might occur a little bit sooner. She was unable to make the hearing as scheduled last summer. So, it just hasn't worked out. I am prepared to go ahead, representing myself. I feel that I'm capable of doing this and certainly familiar with all the factors of my own case.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: I guess I want to reiterate that the choice is yours. You are entitled to counsel and certainly given the fact of your counsel's incapacity – and I don't know if this was explained to you before, but you in essence have two options. If you prefer to go forward with your counsel, I'll postpone it for that date and I would assume they would have done that previously; but also, if you want to proceed without counsel we can do that. So I guess I'm giving you the option. We can proceed today or we'll give you additional time for your counsel to be present, convenient with our schedule. I can't say that as soon as she's released from having her baby that we'd have your hearing the next day, but you understand the delays connected with that.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mr. Farmer, I am prepared to go ahead without an attorney this afternoon.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: And that is your desire?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Okay, very good.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I might just indicate that I was present at the last scheduled hearing for Mr. Beausoleil and his attorney has apparently had some complications with her pregnancy and she ended up going to the hospital. We went through this same discussion with Mr. Beausoleil at the last hearing date and we postponed it in the hopes that his attorney would be available for this date. Is that correct Mr. Beausoleil?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, sir, it is.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And so, again, I have no position one way or the other. If Mr. Beausoleil wants to go ahead and represent himself, that's fine. If he wants to wait for his attorney to be able to represent him, that's fine with me as well.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: We'll we've gone through all that and your desire is to proceed and we can do that too.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm ready to go sir.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Okay, very good. Let's address potential disability issues. I'm looking at BPT form 1073, which you obstenciably signed on October 19, 2005, indicating that you have no disabilities that would prevent you from participating in the hearing. Is that accurate?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, sir, it is.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: So, the only problem I've noted thus far is with the technical equipment. So, if we have a problem, be sure to bring that to our attention. So speak up and I'll do the same thing. Otherwise, you've been able to get the hearing material, you have the ability to read it, understand it and have no questions at all about that. Is that accurate?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, sir, it is. May I make a comment?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Sure.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: This is in regards to – you were talking about the mechanical apparatus and the limitations thereof. I have some reservations about this. While I have no reservations about the composition of the panel, I'm perfectly comfortable with going ahead today. However, I just don't know how possible it is to have a truly fair hearing under these circumstances where we are, at best, dim voices to each other and figures in front of each other. I know that there are video conferencing capabilities in California, although they don't exist at the SACCO office. They are available here as well and we did have some communications – my attorney communicated with Ms. Leon with regards to this early on and I guess it's just not possible. Well, it wasn't possible to schedule this hearing so that it could take place at one of the institutions where the equipment is available for video-conferencing. So, I just wanted to enter that into this discussion because it's just – I feel the inability to look you in the eye, and for you to look me in the eye – I would really like you to see me as I am and not just my voice and not just some papers. So, I did want to just put that out on the table. I'm not entering this as an objection in regards to proceeding with this hearing. I'm certainly prepared to do the best I can under the circumstances and I'm certain that you are as well. I just wanted to – just to bring that to your attention.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: And frankly we share those concerns. We don't have sole control over all of the technical – to get as highly technical as we would like to be, nor over the budget process and I think we all do the best we can with what we can and we'll certainly – your legal remedy would be to file a writ in connection with that, if you have a problem. You indicate you're prepared to proceed and with that understanding we'll do the best we can. Fair enough?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, sir.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Let me go over the recitation of the hearing procedure, which is as follows. The hearing is being conducted pursuant to Penal Code Sections 3041 and 3042 and the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Parole Hearings, which govern parole consideration hearings for life inmates. The purpose of today's hearing is to consider your suitability for parole. In doing so, we will consider the number and nature of the crimes for which you are committed, your prior criminal and social history, and your behavior and programming since your commitment. We've had the opportunity to review your Central File and your prior hearing transcript. You were given the opportunity to correct or clarify the record. We will consider your progress since your commitment and since your last hearing. Your updated counselor's report and psychological report will also be considered. Any change in parole plans should be brought to our attention. We will reach a decision today and inform you whether or not we find you suitable for parole and the reasons for our decisions. If you are found suitable for parole, the length of your confinement will be explained. The hearing will be conducted in two phases. I will discuss with you the crime for which you were committed, you prior criminal and social history, your parole plans, and any letters of support or opposition that may be in the file. Deputy Commissioner Garner-Easter will discuss with you your progress since your commitment, your counselor's report and your psychological evaluation. Once that is concluded, if we have any questions, we'll ask those. The District Attorney will likewise have the opportunity to ask questions. After the question period we'll go to closing statements; first, by the District Attorney, then by yourself. We will adjourn for deliberations and return with a decision. Do you have any questions at all, Mr. Beausoleil, about the hearing procedure?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No I don't, not at this point.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Let me outline the rules which govern our proceedings. The California Code of Regulations state that regardless of time served a life inmate should be found unsuitable for, and denied, parole if in the judgement of the panel the inmate would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. You have certain rights. Those rights include a timely notice of this hearing, the right to review your Central File and the right to present relevant documents? Do you think your rights have been respected in those regards?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: You also have the right to be heard by an impartial panel. Myself and Ms. Garner-Easter have been assigned to hear this case. Do you have any objections to us serving as hearing officers?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, as I said, I'm prepared to proceed.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: You will receive a copy of our tentative, written decision, presumably by mail, as soon as possible. That decision is subject to review by the decision review unit in Sacramento; and potentially by the entire Board of commissioners sitting as a body. That will occur within the next 120 days. After 120 days the decision is final. It is then, however, subject to review by the Governor for thirty days after the 120 days. Do you have any questions regarding the review process?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No I don't.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Finally, with respect to your rights, for appeal. Formally the Board required that you go through an administrative process by which you appeal the decision to the Board. That has been eliminated as of 2004. So if you are looking to appeal the Board decision or the review process you must file a writ with the court – take your case to court. Do you understand that process?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: If you have any further questions about that be sure to consult with your attorney about that.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I will.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Finally, the admonition. You are not required to admit your offense. You are not required to discuss your offense if you do not wish to do so. However, understand that this panel accepts as true, the findings of the court. You are invited to discuss the facts and circumstances of the offense if you so desire. The Board will review and consider any prior statements that you have made regarding the offense in determining your suitability for parole. My first question is, do you understand what I've said?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Given that understanding, do you wish to talk with us about your commitment offense and the other aspects of the hearing process?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I am certainly willing to discuss it.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: I'll next ask the Deputy Commissioner if there is any confidential material in the file, and whether or not we will be utilizing any for the hearing today.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: There is confidential information and in terms of actually using it, I think we can make a decision without this, however we may what to hold off on that information. I don't see anything that would we need to base our information off of, let me put it that way. But it is (indiscernible).
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: It appears that you have an extensive amount of material in the confidential file, Mr. Beausoleil. How we handle that – we will not be considering any of that material for the decision and if we do we will identify the confidential material and make a record of it without disclosing it to you. That insures that it is available for court review and for the review process, so that people will know the material that we used and can make a determination, if such is necessary. Do you understand that process?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Do you have any questions about it?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: So if we use any material, we'll let you know and mark it as I've indicated. Now, did you receive the hearing packet?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes I did.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Including the hearing checklist?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: That has the bulk of the information that we will be talking about. I'm looking at the checklist dated October 24, 2005. Have you received that checklist?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Have you received all the material checked off on it?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Very good. Mr. Sequeria, have you likewise received that information?
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yes I've received it, thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Additional documents that I have received include a letter from your attorney dated December 1, 2005, which includes three letters of recommendation, which I'll discuss during the parole period. Are there any other materials that I should have received?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think that's all. The hearing packet contains all the letters that were received for the hearing when it was – first begun last summer.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Right, and I'll go through those at the appropriate time and if there are any other letters that we should have, that are missing -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't believe so.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: We'll go through those and if there are, bring them to our attention, all right? Are there any preliminary objections?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No,sir.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Thank you. Now, I'll ask, if you raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear, or affirm, that the testimony that you give at this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, sir.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Very good. Now, as indicated, we will start by reciting into the record a description of the commitment offense. What I'm going to utilize is the opinion of the court of appeal, which is in the legal documents section towards the end. It starts on page two. Are you following me?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. May I ask something?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Sure.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I know that this is – we've gone through this with the statement of facts and the disparity with some of the information that is in the earlier records. My attorney prepared for the last hearing a statement of facts, which she gleaned from all the previous hearings and my testimony in those hearings. I know that you must go by what court records that you have, and I understand that, and I have no objection to that. I was wondering if it might be possible for you to also include, at least by reference, that statement of facts and the information that it contains, because it is accurate in terms of what actually happened.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: And certainly, right now, I'm looking – your last hearing was June 11, 2003?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Was it at that hearing that this statement that you are referring to was submitted?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes it was. It was submitted by my attorney. It was to the Board of Prison Terms for the subsequent thirteenth parole consideration hearing. It is entitled 'Statement of Facts.' It's just – It's not very long. I have it here in front of me. It's four pages, three and a half pages.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Well, here's how the process will work. I'll read into the record the statement of the court of appeals and then you have the opportunity to give your version. I can – we're looking for that letter as we speak. I can read it, you can read it. We want to make sure that we get your version of what occurred here also. You can tell it fresh, you can read the letter, however you think it appropriate so we most clearly have an understanding of your version of what occurred and how that may differ from the court's record that I recite. Okay?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Thank you very much.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: I'll go through and read what's in the court record and then give you the opportunity and we'll figure out how we want to best get in your statement.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Are you with me? I'm starting on page two of the Appellate Court record.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Starting where it states, second paragraph – "There is no question as to the sufficiency of the evidence. Some of the testimony will be summarize to indicate the nature of the case. Defendant was an acquaintance of Charles Manson, who lived at the Spahn Ranch, spelled S-P-A-H-N, in Los Angeles County, in the group of persons referred to as "The Family." Mary Brunner, B-R-U-N-N-E-R, Susan Atkins and Danny DeCarlo, were among those that lived at the Ranch. Brunner testified in substance as follows: "On Friday night, July 25, 1969, she and Atkins accompanied defendant to Hinman's house to demand money. The defendant was armed with a gun and with a knife in a leather sheath. When Hinman did not cooperate, defendant beat him with the gun. Hinman did, upon defendant's demand to sign the pinkslips to his two cars. Brunner, defendant and Atkins stayed Hinman's house the next two days. During the first night Manson and Bruce Davis arrived and there was another fight in which Hinman's face was cut and one of his ears was severed. Manson and Davis then left in one of Hinman's automobiles. (Indiscernible) evening, defendant said they were going to kill Hinman. After dinner, while Brunner was in the kitchen and Atkins was in the bathroom, Brunner heard a noise in the living room. She and Atkins rushed in and saw that Hinman had been stabbed. Defendant had a knife in his hand and was near Hinman, who was on the floor. They held a pillow over Hinman's face until his noisy breathing stopped. Before leaving the house Brunner took cash the cash box and Hinman's wallet amounting to about $20.00. They then drove away in Hinman's remaining automobile. Defendant later told Brunner he went back to the house to remove the paw print he had drawn in blood on the wall and the house smelled and Hinman's body was decomposing." Danny Decarlo testified in substance as follows: "Before Hinman's death he overheard an conversation between Manson and the defendant, which Hinman was called a political pig and should die. After Hinman's death, defendant told DeCarlo that he had gone to Gary's house with Brunner and Atkins to demand money and that Gary didn't cooperate and the defendant beat him. Then Manson came over and cut Gary with a sword, the defendant stabbed Gary to death. The defendant told the women to wipe the house for fingerprints. The defendant had never killed anybody before. In another conversation defendant said that he had gone back to the house to take the paw print off of the wall and Gary was still lying there and maggots were eating him. Sherry Cooper overhead conversation between defendant and DeCarlo and some other people at the ranch. Defendant said something about torturing somebody for about seven hours, something about killing somebody for seven hours and we wouldn't give up." On August 8th, defendant was arrested in Hinman's car near San Louis Obispo. In his possession was the ownership certificate for the car, in the name of Gary Hinman and endorsed by him. Defendant told the arresting officer he had purchased the car for $200.00 about a week before. A search of the car uncovered the knife and soft leather sheath. Defendant testified on his own behalf to following affect: at Manson's request he went with Brunner and Atkins to Hinman's house to ask for money for the family. Defendant carried a knife, which Manson had given him, but not a gun. Hinman offered $100.00 or $150.00, which the defendant said was not enough. Defendant then telephoned Manson and asked for someone to give him a ride back. Manson and Davis arrived, armed with a sword and a gun. Manson stabbed him with the sword twice. When the defendant expressed disapproval, Davis menaced him with a gun. Manson said he would kill anybody that tried to cross him. Manson forced Hinman to sign the pink slips for the vehicles. Manson left the gun with Brunner with the instructions to kill Hinman if he tried to leave. Manson then left the house and later returned and stabbed Hinman to death with a knife." That concludes the recitation of the facts as contained in the Appellate Decision. Then my question of you would be either, is that what happened and then recite what you think did happen, or if you would like to recite the letter you can do that, or if you'd like to refer us the letter we'll recite it.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Do you have a copy of it?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: We're still searching and I'll –
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It's like a legal brief and it was a part of the brief packet – the brief that submitted for the hearing in 2003.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Lets pause for a second while we try and locate that. (Indiscernible) can appreciate your hearing is extensive.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It certainly is.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: And I also note in 2003 when you discussed this, Mr. Welch basically said, "Why don't you just go ahead and tell your version for the record."
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And I did. I spent – we spent most of the hearing talking about essentially the same thing that was in the statement of facts, which of course is much shorter. It is more concise. However, if you have reviewed the entire record from last hearing, then you know we spent much of the time – and I answered every question that was put to me.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: That's true, but you're going to have a whole bunch of questions this time too and you'll have to answer them fresh.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That will be fine. I'm prepared to do that.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: You are all new to me.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: And what's taking the time is that you have a voluminous file – two voluminous files that probably should be broken down into four files. So maneuvering through this file takes a bit.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Thirty-seven years of accumulated paperwork it guess.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: All of that.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Do you have your brief in front of you.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do have the document. As I said it's about three and a half pages. I can go ahead and read it. I do hope that you have it there as part of the record, however, because I feel that it's important, it's significant.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Why don't you read it, and as you read it, we'll continue searching for it.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Just to kind of preface this a little bit. In much of the statement that you read – and certainly I want to answer any questions that you have to clarify any questions that you may have. But I have to say, of the information that's in that, much of it is as much crap as my own testimony that you recited. There was so much confusion and individual agendas at work when those statements were made, especially on the part of Danny DeCarlo, that it's really hard to get a clear picture of what happened from the cumulative – I don't know what you would call it – these various versions sort of compiled together to make sense.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: This is your opportunity to tell us –
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: When you use the phrase 'crap' I assume you say that the testimony was not accurate, not that it was not accurately recorded.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Precisely, and when I say crap – the thing that was the most crap was my own testimony at that time. There is no excuse for the fact that I was not forthcoming with the truth at that time, other then I was just scared and trying to get out of trouble and very young and inexperienced. That was as much of an excuse as I'll make for any of that. But I will say it's really hard to come away with any clear understanding of what it is exactly that I did from that stuff that you just read, that was in – these various (indiscernible) statements from different people.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Then – you say that the letter that you refer to does accurately reflect that?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes it does.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: As I say, you can either read the letter or give a narrative of what is the accurate version of what occurred.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well I did that in my last hearing and possibly if we could save some time here by incorporating that by reference, but I prefer to read the statement of facts as my attorney prepared.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Okay, please do so.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: This is a statement of facts prepared by Carolyn M. Hagen, my attorney of record. She writes a brief introduction and it is as follows: "Review of the most recent parole consideration hearing transcript of Robert Beausoleil, dated May 11, 2000, has revealed inaccuracies and confusion regarding the commitment factors. In order to fairly address the (indiscernible) factors of the offense, and by extension Mr. Beausoleil's rehabilitation, Mr. Beausoleil request that the Board incorporate this statement by reference into the current and any and all future proceedings. The commitment case factors as described below are based entirely on previous parole hearing transcripts, Board reports and psychological evaluations. 'Statement of Facts' – on the night of Friday, July 25, 1969, approximately 45 hours prior to the fatal stabbing of the victim, Gary Hinman, Robert Beausoleil went to Hinman's residence to buy drugs. Hinman was, at that time, dealing Mesculine that he made himself. Beausoleil was buying drugs on behalf of members of the Straight Satan's Motorcycle club who had supplied money for the purchase in the amount of $1,000. Danny DeCarlo, who would later testify as a witness to Beausoleil, was a member of the Straight Satan's club and an active participant in the drug transaction. Beausoleil delivered the mesaculine he had purchased from Gary to the Straight Satan's at Spahn Ranch where Danny DeCarlo resided with his girlfriend, Susan Atkins, who would become co-defendant in Beausoleil's case. DeCarlo and other members of the Straight Satans then took the drugs to Venice Beach for a party involving several motorcycle clubs that was to take place the next day. On Saturday, July 26th, DeCarlo and other members of the Straight Satans, accompanied by members of the Satan's Sley and Hell's Angels motorcycle clubs, returned to Spahn Ranch and confronted Beausoleil. They accused Beausoleil of conspiring with Hinman to burn him for the money for selling them bad drugs. The bikers roughed up Beausoleil and threatened him with a knife. Beausoleil told the bikers that he did know the drugs were bad and promised to get their money back from Hinman. DeCarlo and co-defendant, Bruce Davis, told Beausoleil that they would drive him to Hinman's residence to make sure that he did. Two young women, co-defendants Atkins and Mary Brunner, who were initially unaware of the difficulites between Beausoleil and the bikers and Hinman, came along "for the ride." Upon arrival at the Hinman residence, Brunner and Atkins went ahead into the house to visit Hinman with whom they had more then casual relationships. Davis then gave Beausoleil a 9mm pistol. Davis and DeCarlo instructed Beausoleil to keep the gun concealed, but to produce it if Hinman failed to cooperate and return the money. They told Beausoleil to phone them at the Ranch when they obtained the money and they would return to pick him up. Davis and DeCarlo then left with the car. In addition, Beausoleil was carrying a knife in a sheath on his belt. Beausoleil confronted Hinman about the allegedly bad drugs and commanded the return of the $1000.00 he had given him the day before. Hinman claimed that the mesculane was not bad, and in any case that he had already spent the money. Beausoleil became agitated and pulled the gun out and threatened Hinman with it. He struck Hinman with the gun two or three times. Hinman produced his checkbook to prove that he had already spent the money. Convinced that Hinman was telling the truth, Beausoleil handed the gun to Atkins and told her to keep in trained on Hinman and not to let him move, that he was going to go into the other room in search of something of value that he could give to the Straight Satans in lieu of the money. While Beausoleil was out of the room, Hinman lunged at Atkins and took the gun away. Atkins cried out and Beausoleil ran back into the room. He grabbed Hinman's arm and began to fight with Hinman to gain possession of the gun. While the two men were wrestling over the gun, one of the two female co-defendants telephoned Spahn Ranch and apparently and unidentified person that there was trouble, that Hinman had taken the gun and that he and Beausoleil were fighting over it. During the struggle the gun discharged. The bullet pierced the kitchen sink without injuring anyone, but the sudden shock of the gun's loud concussion enabled Beausoleil to regain possession of the gun. Hinman offered to resolve the conflict by signing over the two titles for the two old automobiles that he owned, one of which was a dented volkswagon van that Hinman had recently purchased for $800.00. Beausoleil accepted. When the transfer of the titles was complete Beausoleil and the two females were preparing to leave when co-defendants Davis and Charles Manson appeared at the front door. Hinman, who was no longer being held at gunpoint opened the front door for the two men who he considered to be his friends. Manson immediately slashed Hinman across the check with a long swordlike knife taking Hinman's ear and cutting his cheek. Beausoleil asked Manson why he did that and Manson replied that he was showing Beausoleil, "how to be a man." Davis demanded Hinman give him the gun and Hinman indicated to Davis that Beausoleil had the gun. Beausoleil returned the gun to Davis and Davis expressed annoyance that the gun had been jammed. Manson angrily told Beausoleil that he had made a mess of things and that he needed to get it cleaned up. He told the two females, who were members of his commune, to help Beausoleil take care of Hinman. Manson and Davis then left. Beausoleil spent the rest of the night, and most of the next day, with Hinman, attending to his injury and talking to him in an attempt to convince Hinman that – " There seems to be a typographical error here. "In an attempt to convince Hinman that the wound was not very serious and would heal without the need of going to see his doctor. Beausoleil feared Hinman would inform on him if he went to the hospital for medical treatment. Hinman became increasingly adamant about wanting to get professional treatment for the injury. Beausoleil phoned Spahn Ranch for advice on what to do. Manson came to the phone and told Beausoleil that he was on his own and hung up. Hinman made additional demands to be allowed to go to the hospital. In a state of panic and desperation Beausoleil made the decision to kill Hinman to prevent him from telling what he knew of Beausoleil's involvement of the drug deal and the assault. Beausoleil stabbed Hinman once in the chest and when Hinman did not immediately fall he stabbed him a second time. In court testimony the coroner said that the second stab wound was almost instantly fatal. Beausoleil has stated that neither of the two female co-defendants had any foreknowledge of the fatal assault and were out of the room when it occurred. The females had seemed shocked. Beausoleil asked them to help him remove evidence of their presence and to take measures that might help him evade detection by the authorities. Hinman was known to associate frequently with radical militant (indiscernible) on the USLA campus and Beausoleil decided to try to make it look as though Hinman had been killed by some of these other associates by burning some of Hinman's Marxist newspapers on the floor, and by drawing 'political pig' on the wall in the victim's blood. The three left Hinman's residence at nightfall on Sunday, July 27th. DeCarlo and members of the Straight Satans accepted the old VW van as repayment for the allegedly bad drugs and took it to Venice Beach. It was subsequently found in Santa Monica. Beausoleil was arrested in San Louis Obispo on August 6th. He had been driving Hinman's other vehicle at the time and it had broken down on the freeway. The knife used in the slaying of Hinman was in the vehicle." This is dated May 30, 2003, signed Carolyn M. Hagen, attorney for Robert Beausoleil.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Thank you Mr. Beausoleil. During the time of your recitation we were able to locate the written copy of those statement of facts and it is available to us. I guess first question is, do you adopt that statement of facts, as signed by your attorney, as your statement of what occurred?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Then, without careful side-by-side screening, let me ask you – the bottom line is, I think both versions place you as the stabber.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes absolutely.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Where in the recitation of the court of appeal transcript and your version of what occurred – can you tell us what you think are the relevant differences and the importance of that?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, of course in my testimony in the court statement that you read, Charles Manson did not kill Gary Hinman, I did. He did wound him with the sword as I've said over and over, and as it states in the statement of facts. I am totally responsible for making the decision to kill Gary, although I will say that I was goated into it and made to believe I would not be accepted if I didn't. I'm ashamed to say that that overrode my ethical and moral upbringing in that instance. Gary Hinman was not tortured. I'm not really sure because I don't remember specific testimony as was stated, but I suppose (indiscernible) actually there maybe I just didn't hear it. The District Attorney who prosecuted the case said that the fact that I had hit Gary with the gun and that Manson had slashed his face causing a cut to his face and – actually it was a cut to his ear, it wasn't severed – constituted torture. The fact that I did not let him go to the hospital when he asked would in my opinion constitute some form of pain that might be construed as torture. What I do what to say about that is that I did not deliberately stand over him and inflict any kind of pain as seem to be implied in (indiscernible) Sherry, or someone, said they overheard a conversation between some people. I did want to clarify that point. I don't know what else to say other then to re-iterate the statement of facts and answer as necessary – and answer any questions that you have, if you have any that are specific.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Well the picture that I got when I first read the statement of facts from the court of appeals decision, was that the initial confrontation resulted in the beating of the Mr. Hinman.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I hit him with the gun two or three times, yes. It was because I thought he was lying to me. That was my response and it was the instruction that I had been given by the guys who put the gun in my hand and told me to get the money back, Bruce Davis and Danny DeCarlo, it was Bruce Davis' gun. I didn't want to take a gun with me and I was told that "no, you have to do this and if he doesn't cooperate hit him with the gun." So, I followed that instruction. I hit him with the gun.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What injuries did you observe that he received from the encounter?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I didn't hear the first part of the question sir.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What injuries did you observe, or did he receive as a result of the encounter?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Nothing that was noticeable. He had a couple of bumps on his head. I mean it was under his hair so it wasn't something I noticed, but I did know that it hurt because he said that it had. He exclaimed. I'm not really a violent person. I never did anything like that and I didn't hit him very hard. I did hit him a couple of times and I tried to emphasize to him that I was desperate. I needed to get the money back for the bike club.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: The second encounter where he was assault or violence was enacted on him, would have been when Manson came over?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. You know, just – it's on these misperceptions that so many things like this happen in my experience. I've worked with at-risk youth and I can tell you that things happen that you really don't anticipate. I was leaving his residence and everything to my mind was resolved and I had no idea that someone had called the Ranch and that Charlie was coming over to defend, in my belief what had happened – Charlie was given to believe that Gary had taken the gun from me, which he did. He didn't know that I had gotten it back. Mary Brunner was his – she was the first person that he met when he got out of prison. She was his main squeeze I guess I don't know how else to put it -
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Excuse me, let me interrupt you for a bit. What I'm trying to do is isolate the incidence of violence -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's what I'm trying to do for you. He came over thinking that Mary Brunner was in trouble. Mary Brunner was the mother of his son and he came over full of, possibly fear for her and whatever else was driving him. He didn't stop when he came through the door, to find out what had happened and that everything was okay. He slashed Gary across the face before anyone can stop him. As a result of that, the circumstances became so awkward for everyone that they just got out of control. They really – I was so far out of my depth. I mean, look at the result.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: I'm more interested in the facts -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: (Indiscernible) that is the event that turned the circumstances into something completely out of my experience.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Other then the sword blow that Manson delivered – one or two?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Just one. It went across his cheek – he was cut – it was one cut. He had this one like knife or sword kind of thing that Danny DeCarlo had given him. When – he kind of hit Gary, left a slice on his cheek and the extension of that cut nicked his ear deeply.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Was there any other violence perpetrated against Mr. Hinman at that time?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: So, then Manson left?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Manson and Davis left.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Then what were the – was there any other violence leading up to the time that you stabbed him?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, none.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: How long of a period of time between those two?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was through the next day. I was at Hinman's place a total of – when I came back – not including when I first got the drugs from him, I was at his place about 24 hours total. Hinman was slashed by Charlie somewhere, maybe around midnight and I left Hinman's residence and Hinman was dead the beginning of the next day.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: During this entire period, from the time you initially hit him with the gun up until you stabbed him, he was not able to leave. Is that accurate?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that's true.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: You were attempting to get either money or the vehicles from him?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That had already been done. Prior to Charlie Manson coming to the place and slashing him, we had already resolved as much as we could. He didn't have the money. He demonstrated to me that he didn't have the $1000.00 I had given to him the previous day and I believe him. He signed over these two junkers to me as a way as me being able to have something to take back to the bikers to playcate them. (Indiscernible) anyone issue and I was done with those issues –
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Excuse me.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: We're going to have to stop you – (End of Recording)
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Okay now we're back on record. Go ahead and you were describing the sequence of events -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well I had pretty much concluded that part of it. The original problem with the drug deal and trying to get the money back from Gary had been resolved as well as it could be before Charles Manson came over there. When he had slashed Gary it turned into something completely different and everyone – the implication when Manson left, and Bruce Davis left, was that I was supposed to clean up the mess and take care of this problem, which by implication was to make sure Gary doesn't snitch. That type of thing. I spent that whole day with Gary trying to convince him that his wound – I mean, it was stupid, it was silly on my part to believe that he would ever even agree to that, but I was hoping that he would bandage himself up and not bring in the police. I was terrified that if he went to the hospital that it would automatically bring the police in and that I would go to prison. More then that – we're getting – well, there are some statements I want to make in regards to this – in regards to what was really motivating me, but I want to answer your questions as to specific facts so if there are any others.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: The specific facts I was concerned about was the nature of the initial violence, the secondary violence with Manson, Hinman's inability to leave, and then leading up to your killing him. I guess that does get us to, okay, why did you kill him?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It took me a long time to admit to myself what actually drove this, what actually drove me to override my good upbringing, my – essentially – peaceful and loving nature which everyone knew me by up to that point. This was so out of character for me. Everyone who had known me in my life was totally shocked, as I was by my own actions. I'm ashamed to admit, even though I'm now 58 years old and I'm no longer the kid that I was and I understand that if I were faced with similar circumstances certainly I wouldn't be driven by the same impulse or need. It still shames me to say that the reason I killed Gary was because I was so unsure of myself, so inadequate, that I felt that the only thing I could do to was bring myself up to the esteem of the people that I wanted to be accepted by, to – as Charlie Manson said when he came in there – he was showing me how to be a man. Was the thing that drove it. This need that drove it was to prove myself as a man to other people to gain their acceptance. I was left with a problem, totally out of my depth and I must say, manipulated by people older then me, who I looked up to, who I wanted to be respected by, who I wanted to be accepted by. I made a decision consistent with what they had – at the very least implied to me, which was if I was a man I would take care of Gary Hinman problem and that's what motivated the decision. I know now, having lived with this and having been able to accept that much and to understand that much, to go back to what it was that led me to that state in my psychological make up.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Sounds like that's a conclusion that you've arrived at after a considerable period of time of reflection.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely. In fact it was fairly recent that I realized the thing that was driving it up to that point, and a lot of my getting involved with those people in the first place, was (indiscernible) of my relationship with my father and my inability to gain his acceptance and approval. Not because he was a bad person or not because he wasn't a part of the family, but simply because he wasn't available to me. My father – and I will not beline him in any way because he was a very good man. He gave me a good upbringing. He was the hardest working person I've ever known in my life to this day and he supported his wife and five children working two jobs. He bought a house on the GI Bill and paid it off and he was a great example to me in those respects, but he was gone so much of the time doing those things that I was not really very close to him and I began looking outside of the house, outside of my family, for the kind of approval and reassurance of my adult manhood from other people.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: When, during the course of your incarceration, do you think that you came to realization?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think it's been a gradual realization. But it really came home to me when I started working with at-risk youth, about seven or eight years ago. I worked with the Los Manos program for a long time. I was on the Board of Directors. I was very deeply involved in the that, produced videos (indiscernible) numerous schools and in youth facilities. As a result of this awareness that I gained through meeting with the young me, who were like a reflection of myself, and all of them tried to prove themselves, tried to find a way to be accepted in doing horrendous things that their peers put them up to so that they could demonstrate that they are tough guys and that they are worthy of being accepted. I've seen so many people throw their lives away and this is where I began early on to realize - although I couldn't right away commit myself with what I was seeing – it was early on in my incarceration in San Quentin, where there were a lot of gangs. There was the Arian Brotherhood and the Mexican Mafia and the NoEstraFamilia and all those groups. They were in violent conflict with one another and the way that inmates – members, prisoner – inmate, prisoner members where brought into these groups were by a process of what was called 'making their bones.' In other words they would have to go and stab someone that was picked out by the group in order to become a member. So I first began seeing that process – people – young men, throwing their lives away for no better reason then to belong to some transitory group of individuals who were not worthy of their desire to be connected with them
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: So you've indicated a gradual process seven or eight years ago.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well especially then. That's when it really came home to me and that's when I – because I saw myself in these young me, these young boys, that were coming in, younger then me, that were involved in drive-by shootings or activities that were almost definitely going to lead to that.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Lets go at this point – just look at your prior record which is, as I understand it, as minimal. I'm looking at your initial, or an earlier Board Report. This one dated February 23, 2000, which under your juvenile record said: "Some contact with authorities, but no convictions." Would you describe that contact?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well I was a hippie so there was some – I was picked up one time for paraphernalia. It turned out to be not paraphernalia and I was released. I was in a house once and a raid was done on the house. I had rented a room in the back. It was a small commune in San Francisco and we were all taken to jail and someone – part of the group had a syringe in their back pocket, so we were all charged and the charges from that were dropped. The only conviction – actually – that I have, apart from – I think I have a couple 'driving without a license, but I also have a violation of the leash law, a conviction -
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: (Indiscernible) where was that?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was in Los Angeles.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: That same report gives a rather brief of your personal factors. I'll read that and then we'll expand.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: The following summary was taken from (indiscernible) information. "Inmate Beausoleil was the first of five children. He left home at age sixteen. He was first interested in music with several bands in the Hollywood area. Has no Military experience. Occasionally worked as an apprentice carpenter and musician. He's been incarcerated since he was twentyone years old. He completed his GED in the California Penal System. He's taken some college courses, but no degree." Let's flush that out a bit. Where were you born?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was born in Santa Barbara, California.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What did your parents do?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: My mother was – excuse me – Arlene Beausoleil. My father was Charles Beausoleil. My mother, of course, was a housewife. She raised five children. I was the first of the five children. My father worked at (indiscernible) farms, dairy, so he got up at 5 o'clock in the mornings and worked in the evenings at a liquor store. So he worked two jobs most of my childhood. I went to – initially – parochial school, then to public school. I dropped out of school. As I said I left home looking for how – some guidance on how to become a man, although I probably could not have articulated that to you at the time. I ran away from home a couple of times. Well actually one of those times was to live with my grandmother. I stayed with my grandmother for the summer and it was called 'running away from home' when I refused to return to go to school at the end of summer and wanted to stay with my grandmother instead. I was arrested – I was then sent to – because my parents that they couldn't control me very well. They had – I had two brothers and two sisters that they were, at that time, more concerned with and they needed help. So they signed papers to have me sent to a youth facility – a camp facility – for awhile until I could make a better adjustment.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Were you under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes I was.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: And that was as a what – as a minor beyond control?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes it was. That's exactly right.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Was that in Santa Barbara?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. I was about fourteen at the time. I was released when I was fifteen. I stayed in school for awhile, until I was about fifteen and a half. I then left home again, this time for good. I got a job. My parents didn't try to have me brought back or anything. I was working as – I lied about my age so that I could get a job in a trailer manufacturing company as a carpenter. I worked there for quite awhile. Well, to me it was quite awhile. I worked there for probably close to a year. I then went to Hollywood and I felt that I had become a good enough musician to find a place in a band and I began searching, became involved the counter culture. At that time – this was in 1965 – I experimented with LSD and pot during those years - during that time and in subsequent years. I did work with a couple of bands that became fairly well known. I lived in San Francisco for a couple of – two or three years. Then I became a sort of traveling musician. I went up and down the coast and during that time I became involved with Manson. I visited Spahn Ranch on a fairly frequent basis, whenever I was in town. I was trying to get Charlie into the studio because I felt that he had a lot of talent. That was, in fact, my attraction to him was the fact that he was a extraordinary song writer – extraordinary in the sense that he was unlike anyone else I'd ever heard and his lyrics – at least some of them – were relevant to the times. His ability to make songs up on the fly (indiscernible) of consciousness was appealing to me. Specifically, because I'm a improvisational musician myself and there was a certain simpatico relationship that occurred when we played together. This was the attraction, but I had trouble getting him to focus on doing things in a professional manner. I would get frustrated with him and then I'd leave again, so this was for about a year and a half. My relationship with Manson was of that nature, where I'd check in with him every couple of months and see if he was ready to do anything seriously. When he wasn't I would leave again and go on back on the road again.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What grade were you in when you dropped out of school?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I barely heard you that time sir.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What grade were you in when you dropped out of school?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was in the tenth grade.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: That was in Santa Barbara?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: During the time after you left home the second time, did you maintain any contacts with your siblings or your parents?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes I did. Not real frequently, but yes, I did. When I turned eighteen – I think I intentionally kept myself at a distance from my family until I turned eighteen because I was worried about someone arresting me again. Even though my parents didn't do that, and probably wouldn't have done that. I was worried that they would do that again, so I stayed away until I was eighteen and didn't communicate with them very often, though I did visit a couple of times. My father did not know what to make of me with my long hair and my colorful clothes. I came to visit them once – this was when I was about – I think I was still sixteen, I might have just turned seventeen – had long hair by that time and I had just come from a game so I was wearing these real wild clothes and my father scowled at me and that was the extent of our communication and it broke my heart.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Did you play music or were you a technical person?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Pardon me?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Did you play music or were you a technical person?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I played music. I was primarily a guitar player.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Did you and the military have any confrontations at that time?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was delinquent for the draft. This was later on. I had worked in San Francisco and had a popular band in San Francisco for about a year and a half. When we broke up I came back to Los Angeles and at that point I found out that the Federal people were looking for me for evading the draft. They had come to my parents residence. By that time I had a better relationship with my parents. They came up to visit me in San Francisco and we had a good time, it was nice. But they were being hassled by the Federal people who were looking for me and I didn't want them to be in any kind of an awkward position. So, though I did not believe in the Vietnam conflict I went and signed up for the draft. I was immediately inducted, however I was rejected for a bad ear.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: That was when? What year was that?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: This was in 19 – I think the year that I was arrested, 1969. It might have been late 1968, but I'm pretty sure it was in the early part of 1969.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: So you were classified 4F?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Is there anything else we should know about your upbringing or experiences prior to the time of this offense?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know that there is anything relevant to this situation, other then the pattern that I now recognize. It was that I was seeking approval from older men, for one reason or another, respected. Some of them were really good influences. Frank Zapa, for example, was an incredible musician and composer. You may have heard of him, he's very well known. He was a friend of mine and he was an extremely good influence in my life. But then in 1969 when things were getting really dicey across the country, with the counter culture, with the civil rights movements, with militants in the street and riots at the college campuses and on the streets and I began to withdraw at that point; both from the music business and society in general. The intensity of the – I don't know what to call it? This sort of bed of schisms. Everybody was at each other's throats, at that time, in 1969. Law Enforcement had, for all intents and purposes, declared war on the counter culture and everybody with long hair. The war was still going on and we were seeing things in the magazines and newspapers that were horrible in regards to what was going on over there. I withdrew – and this is significant I think to what brought me to prison – I withdrew to the fringes. The fringes – I met through Manson and his group, other people who were on the fringes, such as the Straight Satan's Motorcycle club and several of the larger motorcycle clubs, which the Straight Satans were one. I began to think that I wanted to be like them. I had romanticized about the bikers that I had met. I romanticized this sort of free-wheeling lifestyle of riding the highway on an iron horse with the wind in my hair, being free and I thought this was really cool and I was trying to become a prospect – at the time of my arrest, I was trying to become a prospect with Straight Satan's motorcycle club, which is how I got involved in that drug deal. So, I think that part of it – that withdrawal in 1969, into the fringes of society is significant in terms of what behaviors led to my being incarcerated for Gary Hinman's death.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Let me go through and identify -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm sorry, I can't hear you sir.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: I'm sorry. Let me go through and identify the support letters that we received. We sent out notices pursuant to Penal Code Sections 3041 and 3042. The District Attorney's office appears in response to those letters and there are numerous support letters received on your behalf that I'll identify. First, received October 31, 2005 from Ruth Ramseier, R-A-M-S-E-I-E-R. One sentence on who she is and her relationship with you.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: She is a friend. She lives in Switzerland. She is a housewife and mother of two children. She read about me and began to write to me. She's a wonderful human being. Sends me inspirational things at least once a week. She's a wonderful human being.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A pen-pal relationship?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I guess you could call it that, yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: I don't mean to degragate it by that but that's a short -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, it is a correspondence -
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A correspondence relationship.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Through my wife I do emails so we have both letters and emails and she's heard my music – so I guess pen-pal would be the right way to put it, but it is a relationship – I've not met her in person.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Letter received June 27, 2005 from (Indiscernible) Fuoss, F-U-O-S-S. One sentence on Dwayne.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Who was that from?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Dwayne Fuoss or Fuoss? F-U-O-S-S?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't think I know that person – personally.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Obviously the circumstances surrounding Mr. Manson and your connection with him has created a life all of it's own. So what I'm trying to do is separate from these letters those that may have just been sent in because of support by reputation from those that you are personally connected with okay?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right. There may be one or two in your records – those would probably have been sent by – sent straight to the Board of Prison Terms. Those who have written letters of support through my attorney are people who I have – in most cases – long term relationships with. Some – at least a year long or more. Some going back many, many years. None of them would be from people who have just sort of written because they were interested in Manson and the publicity and all of that.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Well I'll go through and recite the ones we have here for the record and make sure that what I have – and you can follow along with me. We'll try to be as summary as we can, but at the same time, but if there are those you think are worthy of a particular comment, feel free to make that comment.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Thank you sir.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter received, Cynthia Dayton, June 21, 2005. (Indiscernible).
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: This (indiscernible) is a friend of some years. She is an attorney for the city of New York. She is in human resources. I worked on some projects that she was a part of and I became friends with her through that process. One of those projects was to arrange for some teddy bears to be sent to the children of 9/11. She works in a building that's just a block and a half from there. So, it was through that – and also providing some videotapes for the (indiscernible) youth programs in New York. That's how we initially became friends. So, we've maintained that relationship since then.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: There's also attached to that a copy of fax which was a cover sheet for that letter. A letter dated June 18, 2005 from your younger brother, excavating business in Santa Barbara, offers support. Dated June 17, 2005, from a Karen Neisany, N-E-I-S-A-N-Y. Whose Karen?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Karen is a long-time friend. I met her when I was in San Lousi Obispo in CMC and we've maintained – she's a close friend of my wife's and mine.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: There's a cover letter from your attorney dated June 21st, which includes the following. These are support letters sent to her I guess on June 16, 2005 – Jenny or Geine, G-E-N-E -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Gene.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Gene. Your sister?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, that's my daughter.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Your daughter, okay. How old is your daughter?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: She is close to thirty-six years. She was born after my arrest.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: How often are you able to see her, if at all.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, not a lot. She has visited me. We correspond regularly. We don't have a real close relationship because she didn't even know about me until she was about seventeen-years-old. She kind of knew about me but didn't. She sought me out herself. We have a very good friendship. She is the mother of my grandson and I'm looking forward to spending some time with her and him.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: When was the last time you spoke to her or received a letter from her?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Last month.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: June 17, 2005, Robert Cupp, C-U-P-P.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, Robert Cupp is her former husband. They've been divorced. Their relationship continues to be good and I continue to have a good relationship with Richard.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter from Ed Brown, Brown & Brown Attorney at Law, January 14, 2005.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He wrote to me an e-mail after reading about me. I've corresponded with him a few times over the past year. He just feels like he wanted to do something so he wrote a letter of support.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter dated June 12, 2005, Michael Moinahan, from Waterbury Center in Vermont.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, he is a long-time friend. He's a writer as well as a musician, an extremely talented individual. He's been my friend – he and his wife – have been my friends for about nine years now. I would urge you to read that letter. He knows me well and I don't think anyone has stated the situation better.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Okay. I'll make note of that comment. Denise Noe, N-O-E, dated June 10, 2005.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: She's a casual friend. I don't know her real well. I have exchanged a few emails with her over the past two years. She wrote an interesting article called the 'Manson Myth' that she published and she wanted my opinion of it, which I provided. She just became interested in my situation and wanted to write a letter.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Another dated June 10, 2005, Camille Ross.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Camille Ross is a public relations persons I met last year in relation to a – I had an art show – I'm a visual artist as well as a musician. I had my first art show in a gallery this past year. Camille Ross was hired by the curator for the show to handle the public relations and promotion and she became interested and wanted to write a letter.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter dated June 13, 2005, Chris Booth.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Chris Booth is a friend of a few years, who again, I have not met in person. He lives in Australia and has a landscaping and design business. He is a longtime fan of my music, which is how I originally heard from him. We just have, over the past few years, become friends.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: (Indiscernible) Malik, M-A-L-I-K?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: (Indiscernible) Malik is also – he lives in the United Kingdom. He is another musician and has a label of his own, a recording label and he wanted to release a single of my music some years back, which we did, and he has remained in touch with my and my wife ever since. He's become a friend.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter dated June 2, 2005, Nicholas Seraquiz?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Nicholas Seraquiz is a professional photographer who has been working on a project called 'The American Road', which he goes across the country and takes astonishing photographs. He wanted me to do a soundtrack, an ambian soundtrack that would be used for gallery showings, which I began work on but was unable to complete. But, we still intend to complete that project at some point. Anyway, he's become a friend over the past few years. He wrote an extremely eloquent letter I think.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: James Healy, H-E-A-L-Y.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: James Healy is another – he is a close friend, does come to visit me. He is the President of 'Our Kingdom Entertainment' label, on which my past recordings have been released. So we have an ongoing relationship that is both personal and professional. As I said, we are really close. He's a really good guy.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: The music that you talk about – are you – have you been publishing music or producing music while in custody?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes I have. But also, I had produced some recordings while I was still out, so there are recordings that have been published on the 'Our Kingdom Entertainment' label that are both recordings that I had made early on – 1966/67 and '68 to recordings that I've made while I've been incarcerated. I haven't had a lot of opportunities to record. Those things are – you know, it's not normal for prison. I have been blessed to have supportive staff for some personal projects. Of course I have reciprocated with work that I have done for the Department in California and in Oregon. But, yes, I have recorded while I've been incarcerated. Some of those recordings have been released.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter from James Brown.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: James Brown is a partner and he's the co-owner of the same company, 'Our Kingdom Entertainment'. I have met him once, I correspond with him. Not a close friend as James is, but a good man and I've known him about a year and a half.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: (Indiscernible) -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: (Indiscernible) is also – he's part of the same label and also a professional friend and a professional person and friend. Again, it's more of a casual relationship. I haven't know him as long as I've known James Healy, but it is a relationship that I value.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: After that is another letter from you attorney dated June 14th, which is (indiscernible) -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That is her – that is her brief. That is her addendum to her brief that she submitted at my last hearing and she's just pointing up a few of the letters that she has received on my behalf and my parole plans and so forth.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter dated May 31, 2005 from your wife Barbara.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well I couldn't say enough about Barbara. She and I are the same age, we have many of the same early experiences in terms of counter culture and stuff. She was a hippie as well. We've been married for twenty-five years. Between us we have four children, with whom I'm very close and I couldn't ever say enough about Barbara. I mean, she is just a truly wonderful, loving, creative, artistic, intelligent human being and I love her deeply.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: The two of you have four children together?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Pardon me?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: You indicated that the two of you have four children together?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Gene is my daughter and I have two children by marriage. They've all written letters.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What are the ages of your children?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Pardon me?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What are the ages of your children?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: They are all in their thirties.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What are they doing?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Pardon – the automatic volume cuts your voice out sometimes. I didn't hear that sir.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What do they do? What are their ages and what do they do?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Evan is the oldest. He's a computer consultant, software designer. He lives and works in Los Angeles. It's Evan (indiscernible), he's my wife's oldest son and my oldest son by marriage. John Freeman, who is a teacher. Now - an extraordinary young man. He won a full scholarship to Cal-Tech when he was in high school. He is married and the father of my second grandchild whose name is Willow and we're very close. My daughter – again, he's around thirty-six now and Rachael, the daughter, is thirty-five. She is a dental hygienist and she's the apple of my eye. She has a closer relationship with me then Gene, my blood relation daughter, simply by virtue of the fact that I've been part of her life. She was about eight-years-old. We have a very close friendship and familial relationship.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Are your children able to visit you often or -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes – well, right now I'm in Eastern Oregon. I was transferred out here a little over a year ago and it's quite a ways away from Salem where my home, so I haven't been able to see my family very much – in fact at all over this past year. However, we do speak on the phone very often and correspond regularly.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter dated May 19, 2005 from Don Murphy.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Don Murphy is a producer in Los Angeles. He's fairly well known in that industry and become interested in me through my work as a musician through some of my filming and video work. He offers me a job in that letter.
PRESIDING COMMMISSIONER SAWYER: We'll talk about that in a minute. A letter dated June 1, 2005 from (Indiscernible) Claudia Beausoleil.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's my brother and his wife Claudia. They also offer me a job and alternate residence if I should need it.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: They reside where?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Pardon me?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: They live in Williams, Oregon?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. It's down near the Oregon/California border.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter dated May 30, 2005, Rachael Freeman.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Rachael Freeman is my daughter by marriage. I've spoken of her just a few minutes ago.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter dated April 7, 2005, Steve Fobarry.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Steve Fobarry is a long-time friend – or at least I've known him for seven/eight years I guess. I initially became involved with him some years ago when I was working in the video department in (indiscernible) penitentiary. He became one of our sponsors and it was my job to get on the telephone and find sponsors for the program because it had to be supported primarily –
(End of Recording)
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: We're back on and he needs to answer that whole question.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Lets go back to the answer on the last letter, which I'm – Mr. Fobarry.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, Mr. Fobarry is the Promotions Manager for Sony Media, for Sony Pictures. Because he is the promotions manager and handles all artist relations and that sort of thing, he was my point person at Sony Pictures for sponsorship of the Oregon State Penitentiary video productions program or OSP Television, which is no longer functioning actively due to budget cuts and some changes that happened. Steve became friends we me over the course of the past seven/eight, possibly nine years –
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Excuse me, I just want to interrupt for just a second. Is it necessary to go into an explanation of who every single person was who wrote a letter. I mean, I think the letters speak for themselves and I think that we really should move on. The letters are very detailed as to who the people are and to what they have to say in favor of the inmate. I just think we need to move on with the hearing rather then go into a long explanation about how long the inmate has known all these people and -
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Well, I'll take part of the responsibility for that because I keep asking. So, I think –
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I think that if he just acknowledges –
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: The concern is well taken. The letters are selfexplanatory, however Mr. Beausoleil, if there are particular ones that go beyond that feel free to bring that to my attention without getting into everyone.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I would like to say that the reason that I was going into some detail with Steve Fobarry is that he has commented on my abilities with regards to supporting myself and has indicated an interest in my doing additional work, which I have done for Sony in return for some of their sponsorship for the program.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I think that's all in his letter.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: So noted. May 26, 2005, Evan Freeman.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Evan Freeman is my son by marriage. He is Barbara's oldest son.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Thank you. June 2005, Renee Hernandez.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Renee Hernandez is my sister. She's – yeah.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Pricilla Beausoleil.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: She is my oldest sibling, my oldest sister.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Randy Gear.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Randy Gear is a former supervisor. If I may have permission to speak on this a little bit. I would like to comment that this letter is one of the most significant in the entire package given the fact that he is an employee of the Oregon Department of Corrections. He is the Emergency – he is currently the Emergency Preparedness Manager as well as the Central Mail Administrator and the chair for the Inmate Incentive's Committee and a number of other roles. He is my former supervisor for the video production program. I would almost – I would like you to read this letter and I know that there are a lot of letters there. This is one that I think – if I can't read it into the record myself I would ask that you at least read that letter because if you want to know what I've been doing for the past ten years and how I relate to other people, both staff and inmates, actually it's closer to eleven years, then that would be the letter to read. I think his credentials are impeccable and I would urge you to read that letter.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Thank you. I would indicate for the record that the reason I've asked for a summary from Mr. Beausoleil is because I'm aware of all these letters. I can not say that I've read them all in depth and I think it's important to try and separate what is most important from other general support kind of letters. So if the recitation becomes somewhat lengthy I have invited it, however I am sensitive to the need to move on, so as summary as you think you can reasonably be Mr. Beausoleil, it is appreciated.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Are you asking me to continue with this?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: I'll keep asking questions. Alan Tindel, March 7, 2005. He's an attorney.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He is an attorney. He lives in Washington. He's visited me on a number of occasions. Not a real close friend. I've only known him for about a year, but he's just a good man and a friend.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Thank you. Nancy Lingren or Lin-
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Nancy Lepage -
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Lepage, L-E-P-A-G-E.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: She's a friend for many years. I've known her about twenty years I think.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: A letter from Kieran Anderson dated May 25, 2005.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: She is a journalist I became friends with about ten years ago. We correspond regularly. She's a really nice friend.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Dawn Davis of Clear Water, Florida.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. I don't know Dawn real well. We've exchanged a few letters. She felt compelled to write a letter of support.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Thank you. There is a resume that you've written.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Following that, a parole plan. Let's get down to the bottom line Mr. Beausoleil. You've been given a date and released, what would you intend to do?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Occupationally?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Yes.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I would probably do a number of things. I would initially take a job at a software company in Salem that has offered me a job. However, in the long-term I would do some similar types of works that I've been doing while I've been incarcerated. In particular, over the past eleven years, I would be producing videos, doing technical consultation and continuing to produce work of my own in the process of doing that. I have job offers for my technical abilities on record in the documents that we've just been going over; and that's what I would be doing. Initially however, I would want to have a regular job to help in my transition; and I have a job offer at Gold Com, a small internet, web-site design company in Salem, whose been in business for a number of years.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Of those, which is your first preference?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: My first preference is to do the type of work that I've been doing; and to do work for Don Murphy who has offered me job in film and video and do consultation work and proto-typing assistance with people like Steve Fobarry and Sony Pictures Media Division.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Where would you live?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I would live in Salem, Oregon with my wife. We have a residence. We own a place. It is two acres. It's in rural Salem. We have a home and a mostly finished studio built on the property, which my wife has overseen and which she maintains. That is where my choice would be – my first choice would be to live with her in Salem. An alternative residence is with my brother in Williams, Oregon, as you've noted. I have also an offer from Evan, my oldest son by marriage. If I had to go back to California for even temporarily, in case there's still a law that says I have to go back to County of commitment, he is prepared to allow me to live with him for awhile. My wife has stated that she is willing to relocate as necessary to – in her letter you can see that – to relocate as necessary depending on where the Department of Corrections would determine that I should live initially.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: That concludes the letters that have been received. I will note that in the confidential section there is a letter of opposition, generally opposed to your release and relating apparently to the incident that generated – she recites some facts of the crime. Whether or not they're relevant – it's general opposition based upon the nature of your crime; and she's motivated by an article which apparently appeared on the internet (indiscernible) gallery offended her. I note that for the record.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: There is also a number of – I believe attached to that same letter – there are also a number of paintings that were contained on the web site that were also a part of that gallery exhibition that are also attached to that letter.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: That is true and that will be reviewed. At this point let me turn you over to my colleague who will talk about your progress in the institution.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER:
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Okay. Well, we've got one thing cleared up. You do have a high school diploma.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Good afternoon Mr. Beausoleil.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Good afternoon.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: I'm Mrs. Garner-Easter and I'm going to review your records since you last appeared before the Board on June 11, 2003. You were given a two-year denial at that time and was told to remain disciplinary free and lets see how you've done since you've been in custody. I do note that you have met your educational requirements. I believe you do have a GED, is that correct?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have a GED, yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: And some college?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have – well, also the GED – I passed the SAT. From there I do have some college, yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Your classification score – and I realize you've been out of state since 1994. The last time we looked I believe that 28 points was suggested at that time – level three and I have no doubt they are much lower then that. They don't update the classification score if you leave.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: In terms of CDC 115s, I note there are no 115s this review period. It appears your last 115 was in 1999, is that correct?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: I don't see counseling chronos.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: They don't do counseling chronos here.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Okay. I also – have you completed any vocational trades since you've been – in your thirty-seven years -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, I have several. You should have a record of them.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: I know, but you have – I have a record of a whole bunch of them. You have about three major files -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I could tell you briefly. I have two certificates in electronics, electronics 1, electronics 2. I worked in the vocational printing at CTF, completed a program after eighteen months.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Is that your printing program.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Bulk Printing, okay.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was part of the video productions program and the tutor for that program for a number of years at CTF as well. I came up here to Oregon and using those abilities, both as a print designer and with my experience in video productions, initiated the video productions program with Mr. Geers at his request and installed a video production program at Oregon State Prison, which functioned for about ten years and produced a number of videos.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: That's fine.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Just in brief I will just say that I have professional abilities in video productions and in design for graphics.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: I see that it is in your file and I see that you have some four and a half years training in video productions and two and a half years of electronics and eighteen months in computers – specializing in computer assisted layout etc, etc, is that correct?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: What is TELT educational tutoring?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That is the literacy program. I was trained as a tutor earlier this year and I'm supposed to be going to work for them pretty soon doing that.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Okay, very good. Where are you currently assigned?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I am currently assigned as a clerk in the canteen – the inmate canteen.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Okay, that's what it says here. Okay, sir, it appears that you've been doing well – progressing well. One – this crime – we can't forget why we are here and that's to assess your dangerousness; and that you're here because the crime was committed. What self-help programs have you taken since we last saw you?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I've continued with Alcoholics Anonymous.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: How long have you've been continuously involved in AA?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I started in California – I don't know exactly – maybe thirteen years.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: And have you been continuously involved in AA since you've been in Oregon.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right. I've also completed the Breaking Barriers program and subsequently – this is the Gordon Graham program that's been used across the country for a lot of years within corrections facilities. I have produced the new Breaking Barriers video series, so I am extremely versed in the skills and cognitive training that's involved in that program.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Is that since your last -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: (Indiscernible) Franklin Reality Model and number of other programs that I've done work for.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Mr. Beausoleil?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Is that since your since your last appearance before us in 2003?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No it isn't.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Okay, tell us what you've done since you last appeared, June 11, 2003.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Just the literacy training program and continued in AA.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Did you have a history – I know that you would frequent this ranch and there was drugs and free sex and all this other stuff going on? Did you have issues with alcohol as well?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I've never really had alcohol issues -
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: But drug issues, correct?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I've never been addicted to a drug but I had issues – obviously it played a role in the crime –
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Of course.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: So I mean, to say that I didn't have drug issues would be untrue obviously. I've never been addicted to a drug but I have had use of marijuana, including while I've been incarcerated, as you know. So, that is an issue for me and it is something that I have stayed away from and will continue to stay away from because I know it can lead to problems.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Two things. First of all, on the night this crime was committed were you under the influence of any narcotic?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I wasn't.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Okay, but this is about a transaction of mescaline and this other stuff, is that correct?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Now, second thing I want to ask you, and you said (indiscernible) – you did get a 115 in 1999, which to me suggests pretty recent after thirtyseven years and that was just six years ago.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: That you would get busted for marijuana in the joint. What's that about?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I got a urinalysis for smoking marijuana.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Well we know that. But does that mean you had been smoking regularly up to that point and you just got caught or – I mean -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, no I wasn't smoking regularly but I did have an opportunity, I got weak and I smoked pot and got busted. I have sworn it off having realized that this is not something I can play with. This is not something I can do part-time and that it doesn't just affect me. It affects everybody who is in my life who supports me and loves me and wants me out there with them. So, I can't play with this. I can't do it part-time. I can't (indiscernible). I can't take any chances whatsoever.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Let me ask you something. So, you just admit that that was a mistake.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Just as the crime was a mistake and a crime was kind of under duress – am I – that you wanted to fit in, is that a correct assessment?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It is, but when you say I was kind of under duress – I'm not going to sit here and make excuses. I made the decision. I knew, regardless of the emotional problems that I was having and the needs that I had to prove myself as a man to some other older men, that's not an excuse.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Let me ask you a question, because I'm going to go right back to this crime, because this is important and if you've got a date, then we want to make sure that you don't get weak, feel under the influence of somebody else and someone else dying.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Had you been involved in any other instances or present in any other times when someone was killed by Manson or an associate?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: You've never been. You weren't in a car at any point in time -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, no, never. If I heard – let me tell you – I'm going to tell you something that – if I had seen or if I had had any inkling that the people I was involved with were headed in the direction that they were going, in terms of violence towards other people, I'd have been out of there so damn fast it would have been their heads spin and mine.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Well I'm glad you mentioned that, and I can't site the reference because I've looked at – I've tried to, in your own favor, review as much of the information in your voluminous three files as I could, and I thought I saw some notation at some point that prior to this you had been in a car and someone was killed – not by you, you stayed in the car – and that the bodies were drug down -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That must be from someone else's record – this could be Bruce Davis' -
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Well let me just ask you – wait a minute – does it ring familiar at all?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, not at all.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: And that you went down the ravine?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, you're talking about – I know what that is, I've seen that myself. I think it's in the – possibly in the miscellaneous or legal documents section of the packet; and that is an excerpt from the parole hearing from Bruce Davis.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: I know, but you were implicated at that point.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was? I don't think so, uh-uh.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Okay, so what would that be in your file?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because he is a co – he was listed as a co-defendant by virtue of the fact that he is also convicted of the Hinman murder. He was with Charlie when Charlie slashed him; so he's also implicated in that, and as a co-defendant – although I was not tried with him, his record of his parole hearing is part of my file.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: So you've never been involved or in the pressence of any other criminal activity?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Other then the narcotics?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely not.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Are you still involved in Lifer's Unlimited?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I'm not. It's not available here at this institution.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Okay, fine. I have received the Board Report from you counselor (indiscernible) Correctional Counselor Large and I believe I've covered pretty much everything in it has already been covered. She is – we've covered the fact that you are an orderly in the commissary and that you completed the TELT, T-E-L-T, Educational Tutoring and waiting to be assigned as a tutor in education. I also have a copy of your resume. (Indiscernible) extensive production and graphic arts. I've reviewed your self-help – the one's I see in your file, as well as the ones that you've told me. I've also done some review of the file of past Board Hearing and you need to clarify – you've had a number of investigation – request for investigations done on the Board. I know at one point there was a concern raised about a business that you and your wife had.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: And I saw that, I saw the letter from the investigators of the Board that cleared you of that.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: It says basically there was no legal or statute violations. Just help me understand what the nature of this is, even though you were cleared, I don't quite understand – it had something to do with an adult spanking a bare bottom – I don't quite understand what the type of business it is?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It is an embarrassing business I suppose. It was an exploration of – it was publishing publications that explored the erotic fantasy of spanking. My wife's business, and I provided some illustrations for it, it wasn't intended to be about child abuse but the District Attorney at that time felt that it did, or at least expressed that and so an investigation was requested.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: But more so – and I'm not looking as much as the child abuse, even though there may be some elements of that. Any time you have adult and a child. I'm looking from the standpoint of either graphic sex, just inappropriateness and whether or not this is a business you continue to operate from your cell in terms of pornographic material on the internet or by mail or in publications.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, when that investigation was launched, that was the end of any involvement in that area of ambiguity where people might assume that there was some sort of child pornography or something, because that is not what it was. There was never any sexual interaction between children and adults or children and children, or anything like that. It was this old fashioned, more cartoons - I was like cartoons that you used to find in the Sunday comics – (indiscernible) kids and various comics and so on. It was a take-off on that, people who had an interest in that and kind of a hobby-fascination and I admit to you it was foolish of my to have had any sort of involvement in that and to open myself up to that kind of perception and that I accept responsibility for that. I don't make any excuses for it, but when it became an issue – when I realized that I had opened myself up for some strange perceptions I distanced – I stopped that activity, my wife stopped that activity –
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Let me ask you this. Are you involved in any pornographic kind of displays on the internet now.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. I have done artwork that maybe has some erotic significance. I was certainly not classified as pornographic. It is entirely adult in nature and it is not exploitative in any way. I had done some art that some people would say – I mean, I would say it is intended to erotic, but certainly not offensive or pornographic in any way degrading to anyone.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Let me ask you this then and then I'll move on to the psych evaluation. Having said that, if you – whatever the artwork is that you are saying in erotic in nature but not pornographic – if you were to take those documents and blow them up, could you display them in a California jail cell without a 115?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, absolutely. If we're talking about the work that I have done recently – we're talking about the work that I've done since the investigation that we've discussed.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: I'm looking at your Flying Foul Eye, the monochrom drawing on paper –
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right, okay –
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Wait a minute. The Ectasy, the Flying Foul Eye #1 – I don't believe that you would be allowed to show lovers in flight – any of these documents would be acceptable –
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Those are the drawings that I was doing in the seventies and eighties. I have not done anything like that since and I would not attempt to display them and I have not put them up on the internet. I imagine maybe – obviously somebody has –
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Do you get proceeds from that?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Pardon me?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: If they sell who gets the proceeds? It's your artwork.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well if they were to sell I guess my wife would get them because she's the – she's the person that manages all of that. I would – byproxi I suppose I would benefit as well if they were to sell.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: But I was just curious, would any of those cause you to get a 115 if you put them up in your cell?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know? At this institution you're not allowed to put anything up in your cell, so I would imagine – I'm trying to be as direct with my answer as possible. If they were to be in my property I don't think they would be an issue. I mean, I realize that they are erotic and they are things that I did with my wife early on in our relationship –
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: That's personal –
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was intended to be personal.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Now listen – my question is if you put that up in your cell would you get a 115 in a California prison and the answer to that is yes.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well I don't know. I haven't been in California in a long time. But maybe you're right. I would assume that that's possibly, but for what? Is it because it violates a rule because of content or does it violate a rule because you're not allowed to put things up on the wall?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Because it is sexually explicit, showing genitalia. It is in a copy of the Title 15.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't want to equivocate but at the same time I must say it was not against the rule at the time those were done and they were done a very long time ago.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: That maybe true – it just seems, and again it's already been referenced by the Commissioner, that was sent in 2005, on a website in 2005.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That is not a website that is maintained by me or anybody that's associated with me on any intimate basis. It is not my wife's website, it would not have been put up there for display had –
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: That might be something you might want to look at since you are an artist – that you have people not representing you in this way. Mr. Beausoleil, at this time I'd like to turn to the psychiatric evaluation. I have a psycho-social evaluation by Dr. Frank Coliestro, C-O-L-I-E-S-T-R-O. It is dated May 2, 2005. He gives a pretty thorough evaluation and goes into the background. He indicates that at the time he saw you – and this is on page 3 – you are alert, fully oriented, cooperative. That you had no signs that signify a presence of mental or emotional disturbance. I was glad to see in his report that he says your statements reflect self-awareness, empathy toward others and a capacity to think critically. I had looked at other earlier documents and was trying to ascertain if you fully understood the seriousness of this crime, had empathy for the victim and you really understand the full magnitude of this crime. I'm going to ask you today, do you understand the full magnitude of this crime?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes I do.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: And are you sorry for it?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Deeply. If I may – you've asked questions that ask for only very simple answers. May I just –
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Sure.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Make a brief statement here in regards to that?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Yes.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I not only realize the severity of what I did to Gary Hinman, but also to everyone it touched, and it touched so many people. I mean, beyond anything that I could possibly have imagined when it happened. One thing that I emphasized very strongly when I was with the young people that I met with – when I was working with at-risk youth – is how it affects the people that you love. Although I was never able to communicate with Gary Hinman's family – I've never heard from them, I've wrote to them, and I didn't receive a reply – but I can tell you from my experience with how it affected my parents and my brothers and sisters and everyone who knew me; and how it effects society in general and how it wounds us all – these things, these horrible things that happened – I am fully aware of what I set in motion with that decision and how petty it was, how petty my needs were, how I lost reverence for life and it's sadly ironic that it took Gary Hinman's death for me to learn how our decisions effect everyone.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: How old was Gary Hinman at the time of his death?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He was – I think he was thirty-four.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: And you were twenty, twenty-one?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Thank you, I'm going to go back to the clinical report and I'm going to just summarize it by stating that Dr. Coliestro has given you a low-risk assessment in terms of recidivism should be released. "He's demonstrated outstanding rehabilitation by implementing and maintaining a video production program, which has benefited his peer and institution and fellow inmates and the department." He says with a benefit of thirty-five years of close observation it is apparent to him that you have no significant anti-social personality, is not violence-prone, is capable of abstaining from the use of psychoactive substances, has maintained strong family ties and willing and able to maintain a productive goal-oriented lifestyle. He says there's no mental health or emotional disturbance on Axis 1, no personality disorder. The only risk factor would be if you were to relapse into drug abuse once again. With that he signs Frank P. Coliestro EDD, and with that I'll return it to the chair. Thank you sir.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Mr. Beausoleil, you talk about the extended people that you hurt beyond Mr. Hinman, the immediate victim. Do you feel you have a responsibility to those people?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely, absolutely. I mean I think that's what the lesson is in all of these things – is that we are not isolated. That are concerns and the things that we do, and the little lives that we imagine that we have are really far reaching and we have a responsibility to be empathetic with one another and compassionate with one another because if we are not we will make choices that are harmful to ourselves and others.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Well I'm glad that you agree that that is a responsibility. Is that responsibility and your response to it, in connection with this (indiscernible) gallery presentation, that causes me concern. Looking at this internet material that we've provided, indicates that you had a opening with your paintings in connection with an album that was released by (Indiscernible) Entertainment, who is one of the people that has written supporting you. It included a showing of these paintings, which included the paintings which are – I'm not going to describe them as obscene because I'm not a prude and they don't offend me – on the other hand, given your position, you're a cult figure. People look to you solely to the fact that you were involved with Charlie Manson. As you indicate you have a responsibility to the public, and are aware of that, how could you be connected with the display of these pictures in 2005? I think that speaks to your judgement. Can you respond to that?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well let me clarify one thing, as far as the release on (indiscernible) Entertainment. It was only the recent work that I've done that was included in that series. The release that we're talking about is Dreamways of the Mystic, which is the title, and there was a series of artwork that I did that is in relation to the music that's on that release. That is all that I have done recently. I had no idea that anyone was going to put up any sort of retrospective work. There are some pieces that I had done, as I said, way back when, shortly after my wife and I were married and they were done for her. They were done for our own, they weren't done for publication or publishing or whatever. I realize that things get out of control and things got out of my control in that situation and they should have not have been put up on any internet site. I had no idea that they would be. You're right. If you interpret it the way that you described it, it would speak to my judgement that maybe I don't care about what people think in your position, and I do and I would not have put something up there intentionally. I realize that the people who did put that up have their own agenda and they think it's kind of cool to have stuff that's unusual and all of that. I wish that they hadn't done that, and I didn't know it until after it had happened.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Not only that it's unusual, but that it was created and obsenciably distributed under the authorization of one of the Manson boys. (Indiscernible) private individual.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: What do you mean distributed? I have had no involvement in any distribution at all.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Well you indicate that if it was solely for your wife then it was through her that it got out. That's something, I guess, you'll have to discuss with her.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It did get out and it did get out willingly. It was something – it wasn't intentional on her part as far as sharing with other people, but as far as it being displayed in a way – in a public display – where it would become an issue at this hearing, or anything like that, that was not something that I chose to do or that she chose to do. It was something that – maybe it was a situation where there was trust extended and it was violated. I really have a hard time even offering conjecture on that. All that I can tell you is that I would not have chosen myself – and certainly Barbara wouldn't have chosen herself – to have something like that put on the internet where it could be misinterpreted.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Do I assume – or am I in error in saying that you had a relationship with the (indiscernible) Obscura Gallery that had this show opening earlier this year?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that's true.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: You did have a relationship with them?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes I did, but that material was not intended for the show however. The material that was intended for the show was the illustrations – the pieces that I did, which is Dreamways of the Mystic, which is quite different and does not have – some of – there is one that is of a reclining woman that's nude. There is no explicit sexual thing, but – that is very different from those old black and white illustrations that I did way back when and they weren't intended to be displayed the way that you have seen them. They've come back to haunt me I guess.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: The whole world knows about Charlie Manson and the boys and you're part of – like it or not – you're part of that group and so the public paid attention to what happens to you. You're asking this Board, that you are safe to be released into society and that we should govern you, not on the sins of the entire Manson Family, but upon what you've done and the work you've done since then and yet, I see that in March of '05, an organization with which you have a contractual relationship with is displaying material from you in a public fashion and how are we to justify to ourselves, to our Board, to the Governor, to the public, that if you have the kind of judgement that would allow that display to exist in an organization that you contracted with can be safely released. That puts us in an impossible situation sir.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I can not argue that sir. I communicated that (Indiscernible) Obsure Gallery. I asked them to take that material down as soon as it was put it up. I don't know what else I could have done and I don't know that that has been done yet. I don't know that I have any control over that situation. It created a problem in the relationship with the curator for that show. It wasn't intended to be that sort of – at least on my part it wasn't intended to be that sort of display. I don't know. I can't – I'm not going to sit here and make excuses. I can tell you that was not my attention to be displayed in the way that you've seen it and it's not my intention to exacerbate the cult aspect of things.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: You know – this is Ms. Garner-Easter and I understand that you may not have given that authorization, but even if your wife is acting as your agent – in the past Board hearing the investigation has gone into her association with your business as well. Again, it does show very poor judgement.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I see.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: I'm not in a position to judge you on your intent. When you say it puts you in an impossible situation, I want you to understand it puts us in an impossible situation. This is your contractual relationship, these are your drawings. This is something you have to deal with.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: I'll take this pause as an opportunity to turn the tape.
(End of Recording)
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: We're back on record. I have no further questions. Do you have any further questions Commissioner?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: I have none, thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Mr. Sequeira?
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: The inmate indicated that he was very much against 'The Family's' acts of violence and he was very surprised and very much against it. If that were the case, when Charlie Manson came in and sliced Bobby Beausoleil's ear, why didn't he just leave at that time?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: You can respond sir.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Just to correct you. I know you didn't intend that, it wasn't my ear it was Gary Hinman's.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm sorry, Gary Hinman's ear.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That's a very good question and I don't know, other then to say that it was – again – that I felt compelled by that need, that need that I described.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What need is that?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The need to be seen as – and accepted as – seen as a man and accepted. To find acceptance in that group.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: To find acceptance as a member of the Manson Family.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, that is not what I said, sir, and that is not consistent with any statement that I made. I am talking about acceptance as a man and acceptance – what I was looking for earlier was to have acceptance with the Straight Satan's motorcycle club, which may be not any better, but it is a distinction that I did make earlier on and I never wanted membership in Manson's group and that is part of the historical record – although some people refer to me as a member, or they think I was a member. If they have only done a cursory examination of the history and don't know that I didn't live in the commune on any sort of regular basis, that I was a visitor to the commune. Then I can't really stop people from making that assumption based on the fact of my association with him and my name being associated with him. But that is not something that I desired and it is not something that is appropriate to the record.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: I'd have to say that issue has been danced around on either side (indiscernible) for argument.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Hello?
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Just a moment, I'm trying to think of the next question. Just give me a second here.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: While he's thinking of the next question. I just have a follow-up question to the last one. What was the nature of the activities of the Straight Satan's that you were trying to impress?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: They were a motorcycle club and their activities were typical of fringe groups I guess; building motorcycles, riding motorcycles, drinking beer, corousing and that sort of thing. I thought these were – I was young. I thought they were cool. I thought these guys were – they said that they loved freedom and loved the freedom of the road and they had a strong bond with each other, in terms of they called themselves brother and they seemed to be devoted to one another and willing to look out for one another. You have to understand that what they are and what they were is much different then what I imagined them to be.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Could they be characterized, at the time, as violent, drug dealers?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Sometimes yes.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: And those were the people you were trying to impress at the time?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: At the time, yes. I won't equivocate that. I wanted to – I wanted to belong somewhere and as I said the times were crazy times and I had withdrawn to the fringes and I found those people and I wanted to feel that I belonged somewhere. I know they are nothing like what I want to belong to, but at that time I was young and foolish and I didn't understand that. I had romanticized them and in terms of their violence, they had fights and stuff like that, but they weren't going around killing anybody. I had thought of them as like cowboys. To me they were – I know that seems silly, but I was a silly young man and they were like cowboys to me.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Just my last question before I give it back to the DA. If the Straight Satan's in your mind were like cowboys, what was your perception of the Manson family? How did you characterize them in your mind?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: They were a commune. They were to me a commune and they had a patriarch as many communes in that period did. There were communes all over the West Coast and I frequented probably a dozen of them from time to time. There was maybe some difference in terms of the – this sort of being a stronger centrisism I guess, to put it in someway that kind of makes sense. There was more of a focus on Charlie as the patriarch then there was in most of the other communes that I visited, but they were a commune. They were a bunch of hippies and we'd have gatherings and play music and smoke pot. They were doing things that were typical of those times. When things got really strange and started leaning towards the events that we all know have since happened, it happened very quickly. It was within a two month period, when things started getting paranoid. Everyone started getting paranoid and everybody that I knew was paranoid. It wasn't just that group of people, it was everyone that was involved – that was on the street or involved in the counter culture as I was. Everyone was scared. Everyone was paranoid and things were – I had heard some rumor that Charlie had had some confrontation with some black guy – supposed to be a Black Panther – that's the only indication of any sort of violence with that group prior to that. Up to that point it was most of the time a peaceable – I know you're probably going to find this hard to believe given the fact that Manson has been cannonized as some sort of evil incarnate – that is not the guy that I knew. I know that it may sound strange to you to hear me say that, to hear anyone say that, but it's the truth. If I had known, if I had spent more time with him I probably would have been able to see it, but I didn't spend that much time with him and I didn't realize how paranoid and how out there he was getting.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Did you make the markings on the wall?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You know, I don't know for sure, to be honest with you. It's one of those few things that I don't remember as far as exactly what happened. I know that seems strange to you, but after I killed Gary I was a numb state. I can remember everything up to that point very clearly, but what came subsequently I just started collapsing in on myself and Susan Atkins has claimed that she was the one who did that. I had always thought up to that point that I was the one who had done that and I'm not certain at this point, who it was. I know that sounds strange but that's the honest truth.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Mr. DA I apologize for taking over your time. You may have your time back.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That's okay. Did the inmate tell Truman Capote, in an interview that's in transcript, that he was a member of the Manson's Family?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I never told Truman Capote that, and that was not a transcript. I know what you are referring to.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Someone just made this up, is that what you're saying?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, and he is notorious for having done that sort of thing. He apparently – the best that anyone has been able to determine, and of course that was also looked into in one of the investigations that Mr. Farmer referred to earlier, no one was able to get any sort of verification of that so called transcript. Apparently it was something that he took out of his own head. Everything that I've read about him sense indicates that this is something that he did on a regular basis.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm looking at a letter from the Random House publisher, specifically including the transcript copies, and saying that these are a copy of the transcripts and there's some writing on it. Some of the inks are by the copy editor, some of the pencils are his editing and that is Mr. Joseph M. Fox from Random House Incorporated.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was a transcript submitted by Mr. Capote to Random House. Yes.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And that's a transcript of the interview -
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, it's not a transcript from the interview, it's a transcript that he made up, based on a very brief interview that did occur many, many years ago at San Quentin that I stopped in the middle because I didn't want to answer questions about the Manson Family.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So you are saying that you didn't say in this transcript, "You know, they've called us a family and we are a family. It's just like if you were really one with family. I mean like we are mother, father, brother, sister, daughter and son to each other."
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I did not make that statement to Mr. Capote -
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Excuse me, let me finish Mr. Beausoliel.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm sorry.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: "Where it's at, that's our family, that's our country, our world and our society if you want to call it that. If a member in that family was to be in jeopardy, like you know, a family that loves would abandon that person, so for the love of brother those killings came down. I don't believe in killing, I don't want to believe in killing; but if I have to use violence I'll use it, you know?" So those are not your statements in the transcript?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, they are not.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: The rest of the transcript, was that all made up as well?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Pardon me?
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm not going to go into all the details –
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I'm sorry, you're fading out, I can't hear you.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm not going to go into detail of the rest of the transcript, but are you saying that this was all made up by Mr. Capote.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: To the best of my knowledge and to the best of the knowledge of anybody that has been able to figure out where it came from, yes. You know, I'm going to say -
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Is anything in the transcript true?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. The fact – I don't know. There might be something that he remembers – that he remembered at the time he made that transcript that is kind of similar to what I was talking about, but it wasn't about the Manson Family because I would not talk to him about that subject. He came to San Quentin saying that he wanted to talk about prison problems. Well he had an agenda and he didn't tell anybody what the agenda was. He got in front of the camera with me and started talking about – asking me questions, as I tried to evade him and that didn't work and I eventually just walked away. I did not discuss the nature of my relationship – and I don't know where he got that or where he concocted it or whatever, but he has me in his book, sitting in a prison cell, chewing gun – this was supposedly under supervision of – I don't know what he thinks but anyway -
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That's fine, Mr. Beausoleil. I don't have any other questions for you.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: May I volunteer a statement in regards to what you just asked me.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: You've answered the question.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Go ahead. If you have anything further to say, quickly summarize it.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It's just simply that Mr. Capote is known for manufacturing things that he thinks will promote himself, I guess. I don't know how to say it any better then that. The interview that you just quoted from appears in a book in which I'm sitting in a prison cell, with him, on the bunk, and I'm chewing gun and I'm acting a smart ass and I'm making these statements that you just read. I'm telling you that that interview never took place. I also want to say this, that I have been an open book about everything. The things that I do -
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Thank you – excuse me Mr. Beausoleil, just a response to tha specific –
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It is.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What you're saying did not take place at all; or did you talk to Mr. Capote?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I talked to him briefly yes –
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: In person?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The interview that he provided a transcript to Random House did not take place.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: When, obsenciably, did that occur?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The interview or transcript?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: I'll ask Mr. Sequeira.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I believe it was – and Mr. Beausoleil can correct me – that was an interview on death row in San Quentin. Is that correct?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, it wasn't. It was on the mainline at San Quentin at the time.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Well, let me just say –
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: What year?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: This was 19 – I believe it was 1972 or '73 – '73 I believe it was.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: I will say this for the record. I reviewed the file and I did see that Mr. Capote came in there, his purpose was supposedly looking at Death Row inmates across the nation. This has been in contention at other Board hearings. I recognize that the Board of Prison Terms did an investigation on this matter. My understanding – and you can correct me Mr. Beausoleil – is that the investigation revealed that the interview took place, but no one can find the original transcripts. They've talked to Mr. Capote's personal attorney. He could not find it. He said the transcripts exist but they never could find the original transcripts and that you have always contested that those weren't your words. But I did not get the impression in looking at the documents that the interview never took place. That there way an interview but the question had to do with whether or not you said what he said.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Precisely.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Okay, thank you.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I just began to say and I just want to say again. If something like that had taken place and I'd made statements like that, I would admit it. I mean look at everything else that I have told you. I have not equivocated in any way. I'm fifty-eight years old, I'm not a young kid anymore.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: You've responded to the question. Thank you sir. Mr. Sequeira you have no further questions?
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have no further questions.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Lets move to closing statement. First, Mr. Sequeira?
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. Inmate Robert Beausoleil continues to remain unsuitable for parole and a danger to society. I am not at all impressed by his retoric with respect to the things that he's done in prison. He's certainly done some things. But, I also harken back to, not only the commitment offense itself but, all of the lies that Mr. Beausoleil has perpetrated over the years and also his involvement in some shady activities while he's been in prison. First of all, Mr. Beausoleil has admitted to lying to the Board in the past, first by taking responsibility for slicing Gary Hinman's ear. He's explained that in his Board report version in 2000, where he says that the only reason he did that is he wanted to distance himself from Charles Manson by saying that Manson wasn't there and that he accepted responsibility for things that he didn't do. In an effort, obviously, to make himself look better for the Parole Board. The fact that he's willing to go to that extent for quite a number of years has certainly cast some doubt on his credibility. Also, the fact that he continues – I reviewed a number of transcripts and discussions from other hearings – continues to maintain that he's not a member of 'The Family', that this entire killing involved a Straight Satan drug deal. Yet, he is the only person that's come up with that theory. I look at all the other participants in the murder, or the witnesses, or anyone even close to the murder and they all give a completely different version of the crime then what Mr. Beausoleil gives. The reason that Mr. Beausoleil has to say that it's a Straight Satan drug deal is because he, again, he's following that familiar fact of trying to distance himself from 'The Family'. What happens is he gets caught in the lie, which he did in the past, regarding Manson slicing Hinman's ear so now he has to figure out a cover-up story. So the cover up story is, well, okay, Manson did slice his ear and now I'm angry at Manson – Manson just angered me so much by doing that and that someone forced him to be involved in the killing. It is completely inconsistent. It makes no sense whatsoever that if was that angry with Manson, he was that shocked and surprised that the family is going to be involved in this violent activity then he would have left. He wouldn't have participated, he would have continued and he wouldn't have been one of the main killers of Gary Hinman. Now the motivation for the killing was that Hinman was believed to have acquired an inheritance and the family was looking for him for a – as a source of money. That summer Charlie Manson had discussed Helter Skelter and the forth coming revolution, the race war between blacks and whites. He needed money so they could purchase the necessary supplies so they could move to the desert during Helter Skelter. That comes from the statement of (indiscernible) of 2/18/71. A week before his death, Hinman was mentioned as a possible source of money. Again, a statement from Ella Jo Bailery. But also, a statement from Mary Brunner and also, I believe we have even another – and Mr. DeCarlo also mentioned that they were targeting Gary Hinman. In fact, Danny DeCarlo testified that before Hinman's death – and this is directly from Mr. Beausoleil's trial – that he overheard a conversation between Beausoleil and Manson, which Hinman was called a political pig who should die. Again, no mention anywhere of any kind of a drug deal. This was a carefully planned killing and it was basically an extortion, first of all, that then resulted in the killing when Mr. Hinman couldn't come up with enough money to satisfy the greedy family members, including Mr. Beausoleil. They went up to the Ranch then they thought they were going to get about twenty or thirty thousand dollars – and this is from Mary Brunner's statement of 12/4/1969, and also in the Beausoleil trial – Davis dropped Atkins, Brunner and Beausoleil off at Hinman's home. None of those members, expect for Mr. Beausoleil himself as far as I can tell, aspired to be a Straight Satan gang member or motorcycle gang member. Beausoleil had developed a signal where Atkins and Brunner would go up to the house and see if Hinman was alone. If he was alone then Beausoleil was then going to then come up to the residence. If Hinman was with someone else the women would stop, talk to him for awhile and then wait to later on to see what they were going to do. Since Hinman was along, Susan Atkins lit a match at the video and signaled Mr. Beausoleil to go inside. When he entered, he was armed with a gun and a knife. I believe in previous statements he's made, he's indicated he's only had a knife he didn't have the gun. During the conversation – this is the statement of Mary Brunner again – during the conversation he pulled gun on Hinman and demanded $20,000. Hinman asked Beausoleil to leave and Mr. Beausoleil pistol whipped Hinman with the gun and punched him. That's, again, from the trial transcript. Atkins was given the gun to hold, while Hinman tried to wrestle it away from her. There was a struggle, but Beausoleil ended up with the gun and left the room and made a phone call to Manson. Contrary to what Mr. Beausoleil has said at this hearing. Mr. Hinman did suffer from serious injuries, not just a couple of bumps on the head. There is much discussion afterward of how long they kept him there. They were trying to keep him quiet. When Manson came in and cut the face and ear of Gary Hinman he almost completely severed his ear. In fact, Susan Atkins, and I believe Mary Brunner – which one or both – then took turns trying to sew up his ear using dental floss. Clearly indicating that Mr. Hinman was in severe pain and yet he was kept there. He was talked – they talked to him. Manson and Davis left. They took turns watching him and they stayed awake to keep guard on him. He tried to escape, but the next day the door was locked and all three of them ran over to him – and that was Beausoleil, Brunner and Atkins – he couldn't escape at that point. On Sunday afternoon – this was from Friday and now we're at Sunday afternoon and Mr. Beausoleil has been at the house the entire time, not just the 24 hour period of time. He called Spahn Ranch and afterward, Beausoleil informed Brunner that they were going to kill Hinman that night and that's from the statement of Mary Brunner again. The evening after dinner, they went to the kitchen – Atkins was in the bathroom – Brunner heard a noise, she rushed in and saw that Beausoleil had stabbed Hinman. That's from Mary Brunner's trial testimony and also a statement of Ella Jo Bailey. Beausoleil later told DeCarlo that Hinman did not die right away and had to be stabbed multiple times. After stabbing Hinman, Bobby Beausoleil made him chant because he was apparently into Prayer Beads and chanting, so made him chant, while Atkins and Brunner cleaned up the house and whipped out the fingerprints. With respect to the paw print – I was looking at the testimony – a statement from Mary Brunner and she indicated that Mr. Beausoleil told her that he had put the paw print. The paw print was put on the wall – it was a cat paw print to represent the Black Panthers, again part of the same overall strategy created by Charlie Manson to start some kind of a race war. I might also point out that with respect to that same strategy. After Bobby Beausoleil was arrested and he was in custody at the time of the Tate/LaBianca murders and Bobby Beausoleil, himself, has stated that the Tate/LaBianca murders was one of the motivations for the murders was also to try to free him by stating somewhat of a copycat murder so they would think that it couldn't have been Bobby Beausoleil involved in the Hinman murder. There is also more then ample evidence from a number of statements of various people that Mr. Beausoleil was not only, in fact, a family member, he was instrumental in recruiting females to join the family. Let me see what other factors that I think we need to really – also, the victim was not only asked for money, he was made to sign over the pink slips to two of his car and I find it very interesting that Mr. Beausoleil was found and arrested in one of Hinman's cars, which somewhat mitigates the thinking that this was – the theory that Mr. Beausoleil propounds, that this was a payback for some drug deal that went bad, because certainly if that were the case the car would have been sold or turned over to the Straight Satans as compensation for this drug deal, which wasn't the case. In the – as horrible as this crime was – I mean, you're basically tortured this poor man for several days, his ear was sliced and sewed back, they were trying to get money (indiscernible) sign over the pink slips to his car; and then after all of that, then brutally murdered him; but then, Beausoleil leaves the house, comes back in, apparently puts a pillow over his face because he's still gurgling in the house and then asks the other two women – Mary Brunner and Susan Atkins – to also take turns putting the pillow over his face to make sure that he dies to completely suffocate him. Later on he returns, by his own admission, boasted to DeCarlo not only what he'd done to Hinman, then he told him that he went back to the house to clean up some of the writing off the wall and clean up the house even more; and then when he came back it smelled bad and he could hear the maggots eating away at Hinman. The victim died of five stab wounds. Just a horrendous crime of which Mr. Beausoleil was convicted of and a jury voted to give him the death penalty. Because of a very lucky circumstance he was spared the death penalty and is now in a position where he is actually eligible for parole. Because of all of this, and because of his inconsistent statements over the years it is clear that he really doesn't understand and is unwilling to admit his involvement in this entire offense. He is willing to capitalize on his notoriety of being connected with Charles Manson, but continues to try to distance himself from what he was and who he belonged to and who he sought approval from during the time of these horrible murders; not only Hinman murders, but the other murders that he was not involved with, which are the Tate/LaBianca murders, which followed up. While he's been in prison – I think we've spent some time discussing his wife and the business regarding the B&B Enterprises, which I found it very interesting to see a letter – a report from a prison, and that was in October 24, 1985 from Lieutenant Bellman, and that report indicates that Beausoleil had this business and that as a result of this business being advertised he received unusual solicitations outside of the prison, letters of correspondence from very stages writing to Bobby Beausoleil, asking for purchase orders of child pornography, ages between 4 and 12 years old. The types of orders were photographs, movies, tapes, cassettes and magazines. They were all specific in what they preferred; age, sex and nationality. Photocopies of order forms with names and addresses of purchasers with their money order or check made out to B&B Enterprises and a few of the money orders were made out to R. Beausoleil in care of B&B Enterprises. One letter, pertaining to a person offering his services to B&B Enterprises by making movies or magazines for him, meaning Mr. Beausoleil. In his letter, the man stated that he and an accomplice would kidnap children between the ages of 4 to 8 years old. They would move from one state to another every three months to stay ahead of the law. They mentioned a bunch of different states. The last state they had just left was Arizona and that they were staying in California, heading to Washington. Of coarse there was an investigation and as Mr. Beausoleil indicated, the business was shut down. Certainly not only poor judgement but even if the intent of Mr. Beausoleil, his wife and his business was erotic but yet innocent – this spanking – certainly there were people outside of the prison, or people who knew of the business who thought otherwise. That clearly shows, at the minimum, a real lack of judgement with respect to that business. But it seems that some of that continues today, because we have – in March of this year we have the Claire Obscure Gallery advertising and selling drawings and paintings by Mr. Beausoleil, which also contain very erotic content. Again, I'm not going to belabor this point because I think Commissioner Farmer went over it quite well with Mr. Beausoleil, but again, showing not only a lack of judgement but, also, I think it fits into the overall psychological makeup of Mr. Beausolei, in that he is an ego-maniac, he is I think he's hedonistic, he's anti-social and – an interesting comment from his 1974 psychiatric report – they also describe him as being tribal, which I assume means that he stays very close to family members, in this case with respect to the other business, would be his wife. Notwithstanding all of this, I think the inmate's unwillingness to truly accept the facts of this case and constantly try to minimize his behavior in this murder – and I have yet to hear much in the way of any kind of remorse from him. Even in looking at the transcript from the Capote interview, it doesn't show that he had any remorse whatsoever for killing Gary Hinman. This was, again, a premeditated crime. The victim suffered over a significant period of time. He was mutilated and then finally killed. It was for a purpose. It was for financial gain, and in the end there was very little financial gain, which even further underscores the senselessness of this particular violent act. So, for all those reasons, I would ask this panel to find the inmate unsuitable for parole and that it be a multiple year denial. Thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Thank you Mr. Sequeira. Mr. Beausoleil, it's now your opportunity to address us regarding the question of your suitability.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Is there – is there another tape in the machine? Is it getting close to running out sir?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: You have about fifteen minutes still, or do you need me to put a new tape in now?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Pardon me?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Go ahead.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: You've got fifteen minutes, if you need more –
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't think I'm going to need that much.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: If you do, I have another tape I'll be happy to put in.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Thank you. I was just concerned about getting interrupted in mid sentence. I'm not going to belabor this hearing with a long statement. As I have many times in the past, eluded myself and in this case I'm diluted myself that we may have, at this point so many years distant, evolved or grown or become somehow more understanding and more compassionate. I think that the panel is compassionate and understanding and insightful and discerning. That is the evidence that I've had through this hearing and even though some of the questions and topics that were raised have been uncomfortable for me and it has been difficult for me to address them and try to bring some clarity to the circumstances with my answers. I don't feel that there was any malignancy at all in the questions or their motivations. On the other hand, I have just listened to basically a re-trial of my case. Once again, using information that was not introduced in my trial, much less in a hearing in a document that can be verified. This was done once before, in fact it's been done multiple times before by representatives of the District Attorney's office in Los Angeles and it's so hard to be able to say anything after something like that. I'm almost – it seems like I'm more evil then Manson in the way that this has been represented. To try to even address that in this hearing – what was just said by the District Attorney's representative – I just don't – I don't even know how to begin to do that. I mean, we've had investigations conducted by the Board of Prison Terms in terms of the source of the transcript that was used for Mr. Capote's book, in regards to the original allegations having to do with pornography and all of that, which have never produced the documents that were alleged to have existed. It's just obsured. So, once again, I am painted with the Manson brush. I don't know that I could ever do anything to overcome that and probably not. It seems like as the years go by it gets more and more out there; more and more strange and distant and remote from anything that I've ever done and I don't know how to defend myself to that. I don't know how anyone could defend themselves in those circumstances and the fact is I don't blame anyone in this. I don't blame the Board, I don't blame the representative from Los Angeles – and sir what is your name? I didn't – the machine was not clear when you stated your name?
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Patrick Sequeira.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mr. Sequeira, I don't mean to – you're just doing your job. I understand and I'm okay. I'm not going to carry any bitterness toward you for this, but –
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Talk to the panel and tell us why you're suitable Mr. Beausoleil.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Did you hear the comment sir?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes I did and I'm gathering my thoughts for that. I'm suitable because I have been honest with you. I have been honest with you like probably nobody you've seen before; and I have been honest with myself. Now I understand that there are disputes in terms of some of the facts and I'm probably never going to see a situation where there is not almost a hysterical resistance as we've just heard – similar to what we've just heard – to my parole. I don't know what I can do about that? I can't do anything about it. I'm just trying to do the best thing that I can to represent to you who I am. I have opened all the skeletons of my – opened all of my closets and let all of my skeletons out. I've told you what my motivations were and what I've done; and what my involvements were with various people and the nature of them. I don't know how I could be more honest with you. I don't know how to defend myself to people who are basically, in many cases, drawing things out of what seems to me, thin air and saying things about me. All I can tell you is that I will never, ever harm another human being. That I have learned reverence for life the hard way. That I will honor Gary Hinman's memory for the rest of my days and bringing a honorable, creative lifegiving, life-reinforcing, life-supporting energy to everything that I do. I've heard horrible things done to Gary Hinman that never happened to him, never happened. I will honor his memory if nobody else does. I am so ashamed to have taken a life that it is impossible to articulate the feelings that are related to that. It is impossible for anyone to do that really. But I'm doing the best that I can in expressing who I am through the work that I've done and through the work that I do. Through the relationships that I make and how relate to other people. I'm not doing these things to impress the Board, as Patrick is (indiscernible). I'm not telling you stories to impress the Board. It's not as important to me that I impress you as it is for me to be able to look at myself in the mirror and know that I've done all that I can; and that I will continue to do all that I can to be as good of a human being as I can. To be as honest and as forthcoming and to allow through the story that I have told through the story of the events as I know them to help people learn from these tragic circumstances, so that maybe we can start building a world where there is less violence; that there is less murder, that there is reverence for life. In the light of the climate that has been created just within the last little while, I don't know if you can ever see that. I don't know if you can see through that to the real me, but I have represented myself to you as well as I can. I have represented myself to all of the psychologists and psychiatrists that have evaluated me over the years, and to every staff person and to all of my friends, all of my family, everyone who has come to me, I have represented myself to the best of my ability and I submit that to you. Thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Thank you sir. The time is now 2:42 P.M. We will adjourn and terminate the telephone conversation. So, when we have a decision and we'll call you back Mr. Beausoleil.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Thank you very much.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: Bye bye.
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS DECISION
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Mr. Beausoleil, we are back on record. The time is 3:28 P.M. We have returned for a decision and in the matter of Robert Beausoleil, CDC number B-28302. Mr. Beausoleil is present by telephone and the other participants have returned to the hearing room. Mr. Beausoleil, the panel has reviewed all information made available at today's hearing – your comments, matters contained the files, the arguments from the District Attorney's office – and having reviewed all that information, as well as other information received from the public as noted, we rely upon the following circumstances to concluding that your remain unsuitable for parole and you would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. This analysis always starts out with a discussion of your commitment offense, which I have listened to and understand the argument that that will never change, but nevertheless that is an element and in your case, because of the nature of your offense, that fact in and of itself creates a steep hill that you need to climb. We describe that offense as one being carried out in an especially cruel or callous manner. The offense was carried out in a dispassionate manner in that it took place over a period of days leading up to the ultimate killing where there were opportunities to cease and desist and that did not happen. It just got worse and worse and worse until the ultimate killing. The victim was abused, again, over a period of time. Not only restrained in his ability to leave the premises, but initially assaulted to a degree which is a subject of dispute. Subsequently had his ear severely lacerated, again to a degree that is subject to dispute, (indiscernible) presence of the prisoner. The short and sweet is that Mr. Hinman dies hard over an extended period of time. The offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptional callous disregard for human suffering, and the motive for the crime was either not understandable or very trivial given the gang that was gathered. So, the offense has been described, both at this hearing and on numerous other hearings in great detail. We understand the differences of opinion, but even under the best view of things, this was an ugly way to die. You've acknowledged that. It was a culmination of really a minimal history of criminal conduct. It was a lifestyle of perhaps your parents didn't approve of at the time, but you weren't the only one that was living an aberrant lifestyle against your parent's wishes, but there was nothing that would indicate, up to this point, that it would result in the violence that did result, which always gives rise to the question why? I'm not sure that was fully answered. We look at your institutional behavior and the Board recognizes that both, you've been in for a long time for this offense. While there had been an early history of marginal institutional misconduct, by and large, for a very extended period of time you've performed well within the institution. You've done good things. It is troubling, your 1999 possession of marijuana in the institution given your involvement with the drug culture at the time of offense. That's been addressed before, but it can be viewed as relevant recent. What I think this panel, or particularly this Commissioner, has tried to do with the understanding that you've been in custody for an extended period of time, is separate your involvement in this criminal activity from the greater notoriety of your associates, the Manson Family. There is always the question that can be raised of whether or not Mr. Beausoleil is being punished for what he did or for what the other persons have done. We tried – I've tried to separate those and look at your conduct. You similarly have attempted to distance yourself from the greater sins of the Manson Family and we recognize that the crime that you were involved in – while it involved many of the same – certainly it involved Mr. Manson and others of his associates – occurred before, and you were in fact in custody at the time that these other circumstances took place, which you were not a part of. So you have sought to distance yourself from that. That is why what is most troubling to this Board member - and we talked about it at length - was your connection with – in March of this year, 2005, with the Gallery exhibition under the auspices of the release of your CD and a showing of your pictures, which included graphic pictures. I'm not going to describe them as pornography, some might, but I would like to view myself and being open-minded and they are sexually explicit. But it seems to me that someone who – a lot of this is judgement – you describe your involvement in the crime as demonstrating exceptionally bad judgement and bad decision-making. Frankly, given the notoriety that the Manson crimes, the Manson name, your association with the Manson Family has painted you with – as you recognized – for good or for ill, you are going to continue to be associated with that name. An examination of the announcement for this exhibit and the exhibit of your material can only be regarded by this counsel member as an extraordinary exhibition of terrible judgement. You can't have it both ways. You're either not associated with the Manson name and you're going to do everything you can to disassociate yourself; or you're going to utilize that to your economic advantage. You can talk about you didn't do it, or your wife did it, or your contractor did it, but these are people that you choose to be in contractual relationships with. These are people that are displaying your material, utilizing your name and it's obvious that that name and that association has reaped commercial benefits. It's not just Robert Beausoleil, the great guitar player, a musician. It's not just Robert Beausoleil the great artist. There's always in there "and former associate, or friend, of Charles Manson." So, if you realize, as you say you do, your obligation to disassociate yourself and to demonstrate to the public as a part of your suitability, your disassociation, well, then you have to do it. If you haven't done it, or it appears you haven't done it. The responsibility is yours to make that association. I'm making this record to make it very clear for anyone reviewing it, my concern when assessing your suitability today, not just with rehashing what has occurred in the past, which frankly can be done for a very extended period of time because of the enormity of the offense, but because of your activities this present year. We have considered, in our evaluation, the psychological report of Frank Colrsto, C-O-L-R-S-T-O, dated May 9, 2005, which appears to be supportive of release, but of course is not addressing the same items that we are addressing. You have marketable skills, that's obvious. You market them, they are being marketed. You can develop that into reasonable parole plans for it's difficult for, at least this panel member, to quarrel with that. We have considered the input from the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, but we think you need to appreciate the role that you have and ensure that the way the present yourself supports what you tell us; so that what you tell us can, in fact, have greater credibility. So, if we look at whether or not your are suitable we not only convince ourselves, our Board, the Governor, people of this state, the people of Oregon and your constituencies – it gets even broader the that; that you are, by your actions, suitable for parole. Because of the items just discussed, in a separate decision the panel finds that it is not reasonable to assume that you would be found suitable for parole during the following three years and so we deny you for that period of time. I hope I've made it clear, the basis for my decision, Mr. Beausoleil. You have a lot of abilities. You can have a lot of things going for you, but you have to demonstrate over an extended period of time that you put what you say into practice. That concludes my comments. I'll turn it over to my fellow commissioner for any comments that she has.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GARNER-EASTER: I have none, thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: Good luck to you Mr. Beausoleil. I hope you will take care of the matters that we've discussed.
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FARMER: That concludes the hearing. The time is 3:40 P.M.
PAROLE DENIED THREE YEARS