• Bruce Davis • 2024

PAROLE HEARING

Thursday, August 8, 2024

BRUCE
DAVIS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: We're on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Good morning, everyone. It is 9:05 a.m. on August 8th, 2024, and this is a subsequent parole suitability hearing for Bruce Davis, CDCR number B41079. Mr. Davis is in the Board of Parole Hearings room at San Quentin. Everyone is appearing through Microsoft Teams. Uh, I do want to start by, uh, saying -- noting that we do have a media, uh, presence here today. Ms. Arguelles, um, I just want to confirm with you, you know that you have not been approved to have any kind of recording, audio or video, uh, going during this hearing. Do you understand that?

OBSERVER ARGUELLES: I understand.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right, very good. Thank you. All right. So, what we'll do now is, um, have everyone state their full name. This hearing is being audio recorded, and so we wanna make sure everyone's, uh, name and voice are identified for the record. I will just go in order of the list of people on my, um, on my list, uh, after counsel and Mr. Davis. So, I will start. My name is Julie Garland, G-A-R-L-A-N-D, and I'm a Commissioner with the Board of Parole Hearings.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Good morning. Matthew Brueckner, B-R-U-E-C-K-N-E-R, Deputy Commissioner, Board of Parole Hearings.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: And counsel?

ATTORNEY HART: Good morning. Ananda Hart, A-N-A-ND-A, last name Hart, H-A-R-T, on behalf of Mr. Davis.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Go ahead, Mr. Davis.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Uh, I was just gonna say, Commissioner, I think he looks frozen on my screen.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Oh, shoot. He sure does.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Um, should I take us off the record?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: I'm -- yeah. Let's go off the record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: We're back on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. It is 9:09 a.m., and everyone has returned. So, Mr. Davis, we are at the point in the hearing, uh, you were frozen, but we want you to now state your full name and spell your last name and give us your CDCR number.

BRUCE DAVIS: Uh, my name is Bruce Davis, D-A-V-I-S, CDC B41079.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. Thank you very much. And let me go to -- we do have an observer today. Go ahead.

UNKNOWN: Me?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Oh, actually, I'm sorry. Uh, Mr. Mahoney? Uh (inaudible).

OBSERVER MAHONEY: Uh, yeah, uh, Steven Mahoney, MA-H-O-N-E-Y, Associate Chief Deputy Commissioner with the Board of Parole Hearings, observing only.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. Now, I'm going to go to the family members. I'm gonna go in order. M -- Ms. Martley, go ahead.

KAY MARTLEY: Uh, Kay Hinman Martley, M-A-R-T-L-E-Y. Gary Hinman was my cousin.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. Mr. Campion?

CHRIS CAMPION: Um, my name's Chris Campion. I'm a support person for Kay Hinman Martley.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: And spell your last name for us.

CHRIS CAMPION: Uh, C-A-M-P-I-O-N.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: And Ms. Pickford?

SHERYL PICKFORD: Hi. Sheryl Pickford. I do go by Shelly. Last name is P-I-C-K-F-O-R-D. I am Gary Hinman's niece.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. And Ms. Tate?

DEBRA TATE: (inaudible)

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Oh, we're not hearing you clearly, Ms. Tate. Um --

DEBRA TATE: Okay, let's try this.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. That was better. I can -- I can hear you pretty well.

DEBRA TATE: How about this?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Yes, that works. Thank you.

DEBRA TATE: That's better.?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Yes.

DEBRA TATE: Okay. My name Debra Tate, spelled T-AT-E. I am family representative for the Hinman family, in particular, Shelly Pickford.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. And let me make sure that's correct for the record. Your first name is D-E-B-R-A?

DEBRA TATE: That is correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Thank you. And Mr. DiMaria?

ANTHONY DIMARIA: My name is Anthony DiMaria, D-I, capital, M-A-R-I-A. I am a family representative for Gary Hinman's family.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right, thank you. And go ahead Ms. Arguelles. We have a media representative today.

OBSERVER ARGUELLES: Hi, my name is Sophia Arguelles. I'm an -- as media representative for Smuggler Entertainment.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: And your last name, please?

OBSERVER ARGUELLES: Sophia Arguelles.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Right. And spell your last name?

OBSERVER ARGUELLES: A-R-G-U-E-L-L-E-S.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Commissioner --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Commissioner?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Can we just remind everyone to keep themselves muted when they're not talking? Um, I think that would be helpful.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Yes, that would be great. And Ms. Tate, we are getting a little bit of feedback from you. I forget, what is it? Star --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Star six or star -- star six.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Star six I think will mute you, and then you hit star six again to unmute yourself.

DEBRA TATE: Okay. Thank you for that tip. I will do that now.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right, thank you. All right, Mr. Davis, were you able to hear everyone who identified themselves?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, I was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. So, we'll do, um, let me -- Ms. -- Ms. Hart, let me go to you and see if you have any preliminary motions or objections.

ATTORNEY HART: Thank you. I would actually like to just start with a request. If anyone who is not participating in the hearing, when is observing, even if they're here for purposes of being, um, a representative, if you were willing to go off camera, it would make it a lot easier for, uh, myself at least to focus on the people who will be speaking during the hearing. Um, there are so many faces on the screen. It is, uh, I'm finding it a bit of a jumble. Um, so thank you, um, already to those who are willing to do that. But I did want to put an objection on the record. Um, I do object to the media's presence here at this parole hearing. Um, given the notoriety of the Manson Family and of this case, and also because of the Board of Parole Hearings’ expressed concerns about, um, Mr. Davis publicly sharing the details of the crime, um, specifically, um, I -- and specifically for the reason that it is re-traumatizing both to direct victims and also to indirect victims, meaning the community at large, um, I -- although that is absolutely not Mr. Davis's intent or desire here, um, I would ask that the media be excluded from this proceeding, um, as I do not think that that is - - that comports with BPH’s expressed interest or really the public's, um, interest either.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. Thank you, Ms. Hart. And, um, I -- the Panel did inquire into that, um, in -- about the media presence in this case for the reasons that, uh, you stated. Uh, we will be, uh, denying your objection, um, because there is a broad right to the media being present, uh, due to transparency issues, and, um, and this has been approved by the executive officer. Um, and so, we'll -- we do need to continue with the media presence. Your objection is noted, but -- but overruled at this point. All right. All right, thank you. Any other objections or motions today, Ms. Hart?

ATTORNEY HART: No, Commissioner. We're ready to proceed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. All right. So, we'll go through a quick review under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Um, just a few things I see in your system. And, and I know, uh, we talked about it at the hearing in January, and I should have said, actually, I said this was a subsequent parole suitability hearing. This is actually a continuation of the subsequent parole suitability hearing from January of this year, of 2024. The hearing was continued in order to get an investigation into some issues that we were addressing with Mr. Davis. So, this is actually not a new hearing. It is the continuation of that hearing. Um, and regarding ADA, as I recall, Mr. Davis, you had things like a cane and a wheelchair assigned to you, but you've had surgery since then, and you don't need those things. Is that correct?

BRUCE DAVIS: That's correct. You're right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: What is that down -- is everybody seeing this screen that says, “Meeting Guest”?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: I do not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Hold on. Let's go off the record for a second.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: We're back on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right, 9:20 a.m., and hopefully we're going to continue to get through this. All right. So, um, Ms. Hart, I just wanna let you know, uh, the Panel did receive an additional document this morning. It was a, I believe, a two-page support letter --

ATTORNEY HART: Yes. From Essence, is that correct?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Yes.

ATTORNEY HART: Okay. Very good.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: And that's the only additional documentation you have?

ATTORNEY HART: Yeah. For today, yes. I believe there was an additional document filed yesterday that was uploaded from Craig Morton, but I did see that reflected in the 10-day file.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. Very good. All right. So, we were doing an ADA review, Mr. Davis. So, um, you had a cane, wheelchair, and walker assigned to you at one point. It's still in the system, but you don't need those. Is that correct?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, uh, I'm never aware of need of having a wheelchair. Now, I'm not saying it didn't happen. A lot of things get on and off, and I didn't know anything about it. I did have a cane.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay.

BRUCE DAVIS: And I turned it in.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Right, because you had a --

BRUCE DAVIS: I don't

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: -- a hip surgery or something, correct?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. All right. And, uh, you have your glasses on and, uh, do you have your dentures on?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. And compression so -- socks. Do you still wear those or no?

BRUCE DAVIS: I never had 'em.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Oh, okay. And you -- you are still in CCCMS. Is that right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. So, your attorney is an accommodation for that. What that means is if you ever need to take a break, uh, you can do that. And Ms. Hart, if you ever think that your client needs a break or needs, um, you know, just some assistance with understanding a question, feel free to step in. Um, and Mr. Davis, obviously, you're quite educated, and as I recall from our previous meetings, you will understand and comprehend what we talk about. But if there are any words, phrases, or questions that you don't understand or that, you know, are confusing, please just ask us and we can repeat or rephrase those for you. All right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. Any medication that could affect your ability to participate in the hearing today?

BRUCE DAVIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. All right. Ms. Hart, do you know of any other accommodations your client needs?

ATTORNEY HART: No, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. And is your client planning to testify as to all matters?

ATTORNEY HART: Yes, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: So, Mr. Davis, I'm going to place you under oath, so please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

BRUCE DAVIS: I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. You can put your hand down. All right. So, as I mentioned just a bit ago, this is a continuation, so I'm not going to go through the usual rigmarole about what we're doing here today. I think you know that Commissioner Brueckner and I are here to determine whether your release would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. Um, and just so we are clear, we continued this hearing because at the last hearing, or at the beginning of this hearing in January, uh, the Panel had some concerns about your, um, involvement with the podcast that's called, um, The Lighter Side of Serial Killers. And so, we requested an, uh, investigation into that to learn what was said in that, um, hearing, uh, how many times you talked to the podcaster, whether you had approval for that, um, whether you were given any compensation for being involved with that podcast. Do you -- do you recall that, Mr. Davis?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. Have you had a chance to look at the investigative report and the transcript from the podcast?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. And do you think that you were honest with us at the last hearing?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, except, um, when we -- he said, “How many times did you talk to this man?” And I had -- I had talked to him, I found out, 30 times. Well, there was 30 phone calls broken up -- I don't know how many sessions we had, but they were broken up into 15-minute segments 'cause that's what -- that's how the system runs here. But, uh, we had phone calls, several phone calls, honestly. And so, I just want to make it clear that I -- I -- I -- I -- I don't know how many sessions we had. We probably had 10 or 12. I couldn't -- I wouldn't even, you know, try to guess that. It was over a -- a period of couple months, so -- or maybe more. And so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. So, you -- you -- you told us that it was like one 15-minute call, maybe two, but you didn't remember. Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. Well, yes, ma'am. I'd like to clear that up. I misspoke myself. I -- no. And -- and when -- when I talked to Mr. Mott about the investigation, he showed me all the transcripts and stuff. So, I see it now much better.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. Well, you -- why would you think you just misspoke?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: I mean.

BRUCE DAVIS: The two -- the two --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Thirty -- 30 versus 20 -- two is a pretty significant difference, right?

BRUCE DAVIS: It is. That's right. I was -- I'm referring to the ones where I thought we were having a podcast, and there was two times when I thought we were having a podcast. Now, the other times, uh, I wasn't counting those.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: So, when Commissioner Brueckner asked you, “How many times did you talk to the podcaster?” and you said once, maybe twice for 15 minutes, you're saying that was related to when you thought you were being recorded for the podcast?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, those were the two times that I knew we were being recorded.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Commissioner Brueckner, can you, uh, follow up? I'm sorry. I'm having a cough issue.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: No problem. So, uh, Mr. Davis, um, the -- I think the con -- the concern we have is, um, yeah, I -- I'd asked you -- we wanted to get an idea of how many times you had, um, had telephone calls with, uh, Mr. Rovere. I think you said one, maybe two. You did, um, um, describe the, you know, 15-minute limitation, um, that there appears to be, uh, for telephone calls at the institution. When we received the investigative report, um, that indicated that there were 30, I believe, 31 telephone calls between you and Mr. Rovere. And I, uh, if I recall correctly, the podcast itself, there were 12 telephone calls that, you know, comprised the podcast. I assume that that -- those are the, uh, the telephone calls where Mr. Rovere, uh, was a - - you know, actually recording you and that, you know, uh, ultimately made up the actual podcast. I'm sure they were -- they were edited by him. Um, so, um, you know, off the bat, that's -- I -- that's the concern that we have. Um, you, it was kind of surprising for us to -- to, quite honestly, to see that there were 31 telephone calls, um, I think over the course between February 2023 and April 2023. Um, and you had told us that there are one or two telephone calls. Um, do -- did you -- did you not remember having 31 telephone calls? Um, were you -- I guess the question is, why did you tell us you only had one or two telephone calls with him?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but I was trying to minimize this.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Okay.

BRUCE DAVIS: And, uh, I apologize, and I was wrong.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: And -- and I guess it, uh, why? Why would you -- why would you -- why would you attempt to minimize at anything at this point, I guess would be my next question?

BRUCE DAVIS: Why would I do what?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Why would you -- why would you even -- why minimize? I mean, you've been in, you know, the institution for decades. You've taken, you know, a -- a ton of programming. Um, you've been through these parole hearings, you know, third, you know, uh, you know, 30 -- 30 times, um, uh, or -- or -- or some amount thereof. Why at that -- why at this point in January -- why in January 2024, are you still minimizing, um, minimizing when you talked to the Panel?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, you know, I -- first off, having that podcast, I never -- I never dreamed that it would be an issue. And when it came up, I was kind of thrown off balance. And, uh, I -- I’m sorry to say, I wasn't thinking very well. And, uh, I -- I just tried to - - well, I -- I was minimizing the -- the number of phone calls. Uh, I know we'd been talking for a few months, so I know it was more than two. Uh, uh, the two only -- the two only relates to the -- to the ones where I thought we were being, uh, recorded. Turns out I was being recorded for all of them. He was recording 'em all, but that didn't have anything to do with that. But anyway, I apologize for doing that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: The -- you said you -- you didn't -- you -- you -- something to the affected that you never dreamed that that would be an issue. Um, but the hearing you had prior, not January 2024, but the hearing before that, um, coincidentally, Commissioner Garland wa -- was on that Panel, and that is a coincidence that, you know, these Panels are -- are drawn, um, randomly. Um, but there was a pretty extensive conversation between you and the Commissioner at -- at that hearing about, I believe it had to do with, um, you talking about, uh, you know, a so-called, like, Redemption Tour. Uh, you remember that conversation with the Commissioner two -- two -- two hearings ago?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. Yes, I do.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: And, um, and I think quite honestly, that was part of the reason the Panel was surprised to hear about the podcast. But, um, it seems to me that you, I mean, you had -- you had had a pretty extensive conversation with the Panel about, um, about these issues. Yes?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. Well see, you know, the idea of the Redemption Tour, I don't know == I don't think I said that. I think that came up as a definition. Now, I may have said it, but I don't remember that. Uh, if you -- if it's on the record that I said, okay, I did. But I -- I don't think I would think of it in those terms that I was going on a tour.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Right. And -- and thank you. And I don't want -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Um, I -- I just, uh, from reviewing the transcript, I know it was kind of referred to that way, but I think maybe they -- but still the, um, there was a - - a conversation and concern about, I think, kind of this very same thing. Yes?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Um, and so why would you think that the podcast wouldn't be an issue, I guess is the question?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I thought the pod -- well, I didn't -- I wasn't -- obviously wasn't thinking of it in the same way as about a public meeting. Uh, I see that's - - that was a mistake on my part. I should have -- I should have figured, well, it's going to be on the internet where everybody has access. It's -- it's the same as somebody -- it's quite -- not quite the same as somebody showing up somewhere to hear something, but it has the same effect. And, uh, that was -- that was a mistake on my part.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Um, were you aware, um, as to, you know, how popular the podcast was, how many people, you know, but the -- the size of the -- the audience, or how many people, I don't know, follow the podcast, if that's the correct terminology?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I don't know if I knew it before, but I knew it after. He said something like he had 60,000 people. And, uh, uh, sir, I want to talk about what Jesus did in my life, and I want as many people to hear it as possible. So, I'm -- I'm -- if he'd have said whatever number.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: I think that, um, it's certainly something that we wanted to talk to you about as well, because I think that did come up in the, uh, in the January 2024 hearing. Um, you talked about, um, wanting to discuss, you know, your, um, um, your rehabilitation, um, your, um, you know, you talk -- you talk about finding Jesus and -- and, you know, your -- your personal journey in -- in that regard. Um, now, during the podcast with Mr., um, Rovere, um, did you -- you talked -- you talked a bit about that, um, but you also talked to him about other things. Is that right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Like what?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, he asked -- I don't have the transcripts here, but -- but I know we talked about other things.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: I -- I mean, obviously, the -- our focus is talking about, um, the Manson Family and, uh, the murders and what was -- what was happening at that -- at that time. Um, I think our -- I think, um, at one point there was a reference to, you know, this is a story about, you know, drugs, sex, and -- and murder, or, you know, were words to that effect. Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Who -- who reached out? With respect to the podcast, do you remember who reached out to whom, uh, and who made the first contact?

BRUCE DAVIS: Uh, I -- I'm pretty sure that, uh, he contacted me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Okay. Um, had you ever -- had you at any point in time heard the podcast yourself?

BRUCE DAVIS: No, I haven't. Uh, I haven't -- I didn't have an audio copy. I -- I -- I've read the transcript.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: I was wondering about, um, before. Um, I think at one point in the conversation with Mr. Rovere, you had mentioned something to the effect about audio -- audience members sending questions into you.

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: For --

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: For, uh, your book that you were working on.

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Why?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I realized that there was a lot of things going on at the ranch with the family that I didn't know everything about. I knew that. And there's some things that I might have just overlooked, or forgot, or denied, or it just wasn't in my memory. And if -- and if there's some things in those categories that would've been important, I want to remember that and -- and treat 'em with -- with -- treat 'em right and talk about it in the right way.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Well, I guess the question would be, if your focus is on your, um, you know, you finding Jesus and that, you know, how -- how that has influenced you today, um --

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: -- why would you need to, you know, develop, uh, you know, a -- a -- a -- a more, you know, thorough discussion about, uh, you know, the -- the ranch and the Manson Family or -- or, uh, whatever questions people might have? I mean, if, uh, presumably if I, you know, people are sending in questions they may ask about, you know, your relationship with Jesus and -- and rehabilitation and that path. But certainly, we would expect that the, you know, a -- a substantial, uh, percentage of those questions would probably be about, you know --

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: -- Manson, the crime, uh, and what happened at that time. Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: So, but again, so if you -- well, what were you planning -- what are you planning to write about in the book?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, you know, when I talked about that the Lord delivered me from a life of complete darkness, well, the question is, what was that? What did you get delivered from? So, I wanna start back and say -- describe where I came from in that. Well, what about that? And -- and give it a -- a picture that's plausible. You know, a person could say, “Okay, we know about --" and just say, that's where I came from. That's what I got delivered from.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: I mean, do you -- do you understand -- do you understand what we are -- why we're asking you about this? Um, do you understand why?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Why?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, uh, because the Commissioner said that, uh, my talking about what happened before in that would re-traumatize people. And that's certainly not my intent.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: You -- you wrote about that. You sent a -- a -- a -- you submitted a letter in anticipation of today's hearing. Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: A letter of what?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Uh, for -- for today, for us to have for today's hearing. Right? A letter? Um, like it's called, uh, Reevaluating My Speech. I -- I'm assuming you sent this in. Yeah. You -- right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, I did.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Okay.

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: And, um, what was the purpose of that?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, when she mentioned how it would potentially re-traumatize people, a lot of people, I had to rethink what I was saying, or I had to rethink what I thought about it. Uh, I know that whatever I might say, somebody would be traumatized. Okay? And maybe a lot of people. I don't know. But -- so, I'd like to just minimize the trauma. I've -- I've got to tell the truth about what happened, and if people are traumatized by that, I'm sorry. But I, uh, I think the truth probably should trump, uh, a possible, uh, person being traumatized. We just don't know who, or how much, or what. Uh, that was a judgment I made. I -- I could be wrong.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Uh, w -- w -- why would you need to be talking about, um, any of this that, you know, anything that might potentially re-traumatize anyone?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, because it's part of where I came from. That's what I got -- that's what I got delivered from, that -- that kind of thinking, that kind of behavior, that kind of lifestyle. That was a -- a wicked and twisted life I was in.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: So, help me understand, 'cause you, like, a few moments ago, you said you have to tell the truth, and if that, you know, traumatizes people, um, then so be it. Um, but in your letter, you also talk about the fact that you tell the Panel that you're -- you'll -- you're not gonna talk to -- and you're not gonna talk to, you know, the public or the media about any of this, about your crime, um, other than to, you know, say that you're guilty.

BRUCE DAVIS: That's right. Well, except for today. I'm talking to the media today.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Right.

BRUCE DAVIS: That we were so concerned about before.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Right. So --

BRUCE DAVIS: So, I'm -- I'm just kind of nonplussed about what was the big deal about talking to the media then and now it's okay. So, anyway, that's -- that's where I -- I have a little -- but anyway, it’s good. I'm okay with talking about it. If -- any questions you ask, I'll be glad to answer.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Of course. Um, what, um, what other concerns might the Panel have with, you know, for example, you going on a podcast and talking about, uh, Manson, the -- the family and the -- the, you know, the ranch, um, anything concerning the -- what happened during that time?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I was -- I did not talk anything about the crimes. I just admitted my part. I didn't get into any detail. I've never -- I've never talked about details, especially in a public place except to you all, who was -- and now this is open to the public. So, I guess in a way, this is public speaking. Uh, anybody who wants to read it, can, or -- or review it. But, uh, I never -- I never -- and all the -- the -- the support letters I ever heard of for me, people said I never talked about that. I -- I steered away from that. I said, “I'm not interested in talking about the details of these crimes. There's plenty of -- there's plenty of stuff on the record you can read and find out, but not -- it’s not coming from me.”

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Well, so let me -- maybe I should clarify myself. Um, so, uh, you know, for you -- you -- you say you wanna focus on, you know, finding Jesus, and that's it. You don't wanna talk about anything else, right?

BRUCE DAVIS: No. No, I didn't say that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Okay.

BRUCE DAVIS: I said the main emphasis is -- is -- is -- is how Christ saved me. But the question comes from what did he save you from? And so, that's when I talk about where I came from and what happened to me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Okay. Did you review the transcript, um, of your conversation with Mr. Rovere, the two transcripts?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, I read 'em.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: And --

BRUCE DAVIS: No. I -- I take that back. I read the transcript of the podcast. I didn't read all of the -- all of the transcripts of the phone calls.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Right. That's the -- that was my question. Yeah. The -- the -- the -- the -- the transcript of the podcast. Um, let me -- let me back up and -- and -- because I had a kinda question out there. Um, what other -- you know, we -- you -- we talked about, you know, the trauma and re-traumatizing, uh, victims. What other concerns do you think the Panel, um, has about talking about this to the public?

BRUCE DAVIS: Uh, I think the re-traumatization was the biggest issue. And, uh, there seemed to be -- well, not seemed to be, there was an issue about, uh, uh, my speaking about it in public. It seems to, uh, it was thought to be that if I spoke about anything, I was glamorizing what happened, which I've never done, and I think -- you read the transcript. I -- I think you'll see that I never glamorized it in -- in -- in -- in the podcast or any of the phone calls.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: But why --

BRUCE DAVIS: I believe that's a fair assessment.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Why would -- why would we be concerned about that?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I would like to ask that question. Why are you concerned?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Um --

BRUCE DAVIS: I mean, I understand -- I understand that, uh, that somebody with a high-profile case, when they talk about their case, it -- it can be spread around, it can be thought of, interpreted, in many ways. And -- and -- and -- and a lot of it doesn't reflect very well on -- on the CDC, on me, on -- on everybody. So, I can -- I can understand that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: What -- what are - - what -- what is the Panel -- ultimately, what's the Panel, uh, trying to decide? What are -- what are we -- what are we trying to decide?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, if I remember correctly, uh, the investigator was asked did I make any money off this? Was I promised anything? Um, which I wasn't. And we -- that's pretty clear. Uh, I didn't want anything. Um, uh, maybe you can refresh my memory on the -- the -- what the investigator was asked. That was the -- that was the thing that got me first.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Well, I -- I --

BRUCE DAVIS: And did I -- was I --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Go ahead.

BRUCE DAVIS: Was I -- was I compensated? But I -- I was not.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Um, I guess my -- I’m focused on something more basic than that. It was like the first thing that the Commissioner, uh, says at the beginning of the hearing, “We're here to decide,” what? Whether or not you are what?

BRUCE DAVIS: A public danger.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Right.

BRUCE DAVIS: Is that what you said?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Yeah.

BRUCE DAVIS: Okay. All right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: An unreasonable risk of -- of danger to the public. So, um, with that in mind, why would -- why would we be concerned about what you're talking about?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I suppose, and then this is a guess on my part, that, um, a restimulation of trauma would be a, um, an offense that could take me to court. It would be an illegal thing. I could cause -- that if -- if somebody felt bad about what I said, I could be charged probably with a felony or something serious, and that's not to -- to diminish what people were feeling. I'm sure they're feeling whatever they are. But maybe I'm making too much of it. I'm -- I'm just not sure. I told you it's -- it's kind of a guess on my part.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Mm-hmm. That’s fair -- that's fair enough. Um, I -- I wanna go back to kind of what you said at the beginning our -- of our conversation about minimization. Um, and I -- I don't want to, you know, beat, uh, this, uh, you know, longer than it needs to be. Um, but, um, I -- why do you -- I mean, again, why -- why -- why -- why would you -- why minimize anything to this Panel?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. I -- I understand your question. And, you know, when the subject came up, I was - - I was completely, like, out of pocket on it. And I -- I just wanted to get through that issue. I just wanted to get through the issue. I didn't realize that it was a major -- that it was the major thing. Or I shouldn't say the major thing. There's other things, too, I'm sure. But -- but I was just -- I was just in, I -- I guess we call it fear. You know? I just didn't -- I -- I didn't know what to say, you know, in a lot of ways. You know, I -- I wish I'd had time to think about it a little more. Um, I - - I -- I, as I told you, I -- I apologize for that, for wasting your time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Why not just -- why not just tell the truth?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I -- I believe -- well, as I look back, I just wanted to get through the issue and -- and I -- I picked the wrong way to do it. And, uh --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: I’m sure we're gonna circle back, but I just -- I did want to kind of ask you a few other, uh, questions. Um, what have you -- what have you been doing, uh, you know, since January 2024, you know, in the institution? What have you been doing? What have you -- what have you been focusing on?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, uh, mainly I've been focusing on reading the scripture. I'm studying books about it. Um, I'm involved in a -- a music class. I'm involved in the chapel, uh, choir. I'm involved in, uh, a writing class. Uh, I'm involved in a -- in a, uh, a biblical class, uh, on -- we call it the Humility class, and, uh, some -- some bible studies during the week. And they're on -- the one’s on SOMS, I think they can -- they're showing up there.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Yeah. I think I saw those, as well. Humility. So, a course called Humility, um, Second Chance Life. Um, looks like you've just started participating in that recently. Prison Fellowship Academy. Um, you've been in, um, at Narcotics Anonymous for, um, a long time, but you still participate in NA. Correct?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Um --

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Anything else that you have been doing, working on, focusing on, that you think was important we should know about?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, you know, when -- when I was denied for having -- not having enough empathy, I went to, uh, I went to my mental health people, and I said, “Tell - - talk to me about this. What -- give me some -- teach me about this. Let's talk about it.” And, uh, they gave me some information, and I read it, and I studied it, and, uh, I started getting the picture a lot better than I ever had it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: What picture were you getting?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I was getting the picture that, uh, to be empathetic, I really needed to listen, number one, and -- and two, uh, to -- to get on that person's side in a certain sense, on the -- on the emotional level and to emphasize -- and to -- and to -- to, uh, to be for the person and not ar -- not being argumentative, but just to listen and -- and -- and let the person know he's being heard and -- and -- and be interested in what he's saying rather than just, “Well, I have to let him know he's being heard.” But I mean, just be -- become interested, which is the choice that I can make, and I make.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Have you -- have you learned anything since you've been working on that?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, yes. I'm learning -- I'm learning how -- I'm learning that I -- I really need to see this person as a -- as a creation of God, that I owe him -- I owe him love. That means giving him what he needs, and he need to be heard, and understood he is heard, and to be on his -- to be -- to be on his side, and to emp -- to -- to feel his feelings.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: If you were released to the community, where would you go?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, right now, I'm going to, uh, I have a -- a transition home in Modesto.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: What about after that? I'm thinking more like long term, you know, say, after transitional housing.

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, uh, I've had a lot -- I have a lot of friends who say, “Hey, when you get out, we got you. Whatever you want to do, we'll help.” So, I hadn't really thought about, well, I'll do this, and I'll do that. I just know I'll stay. And -- and, uh, uh, Mr. Aguilar, who, uh, gave -- gave me permission and accepted me into the -- for the program in Modesto says, “You can stay here as long as you want.” So, uh, that took the pressure off having to make decisions about, well, what do I do next? And -- and, you know, trying to run it all down at once. So, what I believe, I'll go there, and I'll stay, and -- and -- and then I'll -- then I -- I'll -- I'll -- I'll have a lot more kind of a -- a relaxed atmosphere to -- to really review what alternatives I have. And I have several alternatives.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Uh, well --

BRUCE DAVIS: And so --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: I'm -- I'm curious as, yeah, as you -- as you sit here today, what are those -- what are those alternatives? The -- the -- the -- I guess the main ones.

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I have a friend in Middle Tennessee, uh, who -- who said, “Hey, uh, we have a big spread here. We'll find you something. You can all stay here.” And, uh, he got in touch with me. And then I have another friend that I graduated high school with. He said -- he lives in Georgia. He says, “We want to help you. We wanna make sure you're good.” And then I have a friend down in Southern California who said, “I'll give you -- I'll give you some money,” and he offered me $10,000 just right off just to -- just to help me settle in. And, uh --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: That's a good friend.

BRUCE DAVIS: So, that's -- that -- that came as a complete shock. You could have knocked me outta a chair with that, uh, but I'm glad to have it. And, um --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: So, it -- it -- you, um, so you have a friend, uh, that, um, offered, you know, for example, offered you $10,000. What's that -- I just -- what's that friend's first name, just so we can get some --

BRUCE DAVIS: Oh, it's Bob.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: That's fine.

BRUCE DAVIS: Uh, um, G-U -- it's a German name.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: That's fine. Bob - - Bob's -- Bob's fine. Just -- just for -- for our -- our reference. Um, one -- one moment. One moment, please. Hold on. Hey, Tebar? Hey, Sion? I need these dogs quiet. Sorry, I had barking dogs in the background. Are you still -- do people, um, you know, reach out to you still?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Um --

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes. Like, give me an idea. You know, say some, you know, Jan -- this year, you know, 2024, has anybody you know, reach -- I -- I'm talking about, you know, new people, people that you don't know, um, you know, new friends?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I have -- I have a friend on Long Island. We talk on the phone a lot. He works for a -- a -- the company that, well, it's -- it's a scientific thing. And, and he was telling me, he said, “Hey, if you get out and you don't have where to go, you can come up here. We got a big house. We're good.” Now, it's easy to say that. I realize that. And I know that when a person, you know, at that point, he wants to help. And so, he -- he probably -- he may over offer. I -- I realize that. And when -- and then when -- when push comes to shove, he might have to rethink himself. And I realize that in all these cases. Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: So, I guess my question -- so, we're -- we -- we're clear, um, my question is, are people, you know, that you -- you -- you don't know, you know, reach -- reaching out to you? And I'm asking you to kind of just focus on 2024, just as a frame of reference here for our conversation. Are people, you know, uh, out -- outta the blue, so to speak, you know, contacting you, writing you? That's my question. Offering help.

BRUCE DAVIS: Uh, uh, some people. I -- oh, I get letters. People say, you know, um, “I read that -- that the Lord saved you and -- and how's that working? And -- and I'm struggling with things about it. What should I do?” Uh, you know, what -- what -- what do you say to me? You know, I says, I'm kind of at -- at sea about all this spiritual stuff, and so I talk to people about it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Have you, um, did you -- do you write them back? Is that what you do?

BRUCE DAVIS: Oh, yeah. Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: So, just say, again, say, you know, this year, 2024, how -- how -- how would -- would you say, how many people have, uh, have you received communications from, you know, letters, it sounds like, uh, people that you didn't know before?

BRUCE DAVIS: Half a dozen. I -- it's a guess, something like that. Not -- it's not a -- not a -- not a bunch.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Your -- your -- your best estimate. I -- I get it. That's fine.

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: And you'll typically write these people back. Right, yes?

BRUCE DAVIS: Oh, yeah. Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Have you received -- and let's kind of expand the timeframe now. Have you received, um, any letters that are -- have been concerning to you?

BRUCE DAVIS: No. No. Well, I'll take that back. A guy wrote. He's from, uh, he's some kind of a -- a documentarian, uh, back in -- I think he's in Woodlawn, Tennessee somewhere. And he wrote, and he -- and he said, “Well, we are hearing this.” And he wrote -- he wrote a lot of stuff out that I had never heard of. And -- and I hadn't answered his letter yet. But -- so, but I'm going to go through. I believe I'll make a -- get a photocopy of his letter and just go through each point and just say, “I don't know anything about this. This was not like that. It was like --" and that kind of -- well, first I might ask him, “Are you open for me to correct this?” And -- and see what he says. I -- I'm kind of on -- I -- I didn't know whether just to correct it out front or just ask for his permission. I -- I'm not sure. But I'd like to do that if he says, “Okay.”

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Well, like, uh, correct what? What do you mean by correct?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, he asked me, he said, uh, “Well, what did --" getting back to -- to, uh, when I was in England, uh, there was a guy named Pue , and he was -- he was killed there. Well, I wasn't even in the country when that happened, but this comes up on his -- he says, “Well, I heard you were over there for this guy.” And I said -- so -- so -- so he's got a lot of misinformation, those kind of things. And he asked me about certain people. Uh, I've -- I never -- I've never -- I don't know him. As I said, I don't know -- I've never known this person. And so -- so it was that kind of -- now, that -- that's -- that's concerning. That concerned me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Um, why? Why?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, uh, he's receiving this information. I don't know how much he believes it. I don't know if he says, “Well, we'll -- we'll check it out and -- and -- and -- and verify these points.” I don't know where he’s at on that. So, when he sent it to me, I just take it, and maybe this is an assumption on my part, might be right or wrong, that when he sends me this, he's asking for clarification. Now, he may or may not be. He might not even appreciate clarification. I don't know. But I'm -- I'm going to ask if -- if that -- if that means anything.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: If they wanted clarification, and if so, you -- you'd be -- you would -- you would do that?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. Yeah, I'd be glad to.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Okay. And you gave the example of, uh, that being in England. I actually think you and I talked about that in January. So, um, I -- I know what you're referring to. Um, and, um, and what about anything more deeply concerning?

BRUCE DAVIS: I can't think of anything.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Okay.

BRUCE DAVIS: I mean, no -- nobody has written me and says, “You're a terrible person because you did this. And you're --" I mean, getting on me like that. I mean, plenty of people might think about it, but nobody's written it to me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Okay. Um, oh yeah. Or anything like, yeah, dangerous if -- if you thought. Okay. Um, I'm going to see if the Commissioner is ready to take things back from me. Um, and if so, uh, we'll do that. If not, we'll probably take a break. Commissioner?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Yeah. I -- I will hopefully be able to proceed without coughing for a bit. So, um, I've been listening, Mr. Davis. I -- I, um, I have a few questions, a few follow up. Um, when you talked about, uh, the podcast or just in general, you never glamorized anything about the crimes, or you didn't want to glamorize anything about the crimes. Do you recall that, saying that to Commissioner Brueckner?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. I -- I guess in reading the podcast, I'm not sure I would agree with that. Um, there's quite a bit of discussion in the podcast that you're talking about the entertainment value of being part of the Manson Family. Um, you, you know, in fact, you said I might -- you might even call it an infotainment. Um, you talked about TMZ. I guess you are aware of TMZ as -- is sort of a -- I don't know how to characterize TMZ, but sort of a sensationalistic, um, approach to television. Um, and -- and -- and so, I guess I'm wondering, it seems like you acknowledge the draw of people learning about crimes like this. Um, and so, I -- I -- to me, that's glamorizing. Would you disagree?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, only -- only -- yeah, I'd agree if -- if I said, “Oh, that was really fun. We ought to do it again. Uh, it was -- it was good. Everybody ought to do it.” If I'd have said things like that, yeah, that's glamorizing it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Well, it says, I mean, you -- you specifically said, you know, you talked about the podcaster said, and this is page six of the, I believe, the first part, um, you know, “Everybody's dying to know about the ranch.” This is the podcaster, “What happened to the ranch? What was life like living there? And certainly -- and we'll get into that. Um, I just mean to this day, it's still fascinating, everything about Manson.” And you say, “Yeah. Well, because I know this. I know this. The sense of Manson is hot, because my theory is this. The culture, the modern culture, cannot accept the reason why this little guy got these people to do these terrible things.” Right? And then you say, “They're left with a mystery, and -- and that's always very engaging.” I mean, you're -- you're embracing the notion that -- that talking about these crimes in a public way is, you know, engaging, is -- is compelling. Right? I mean, just -- and I have a follow up to that. But I mean, would you agree that those kinds of comments are acknowledging that, you know, the Manson story is something that could get attention and -- and be compelling to the public?

BRUCE DAVIS: Only to the point that I want these people to hear how God saved me and what has happened in my life.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. Your comments in the podcast are not consistent. And let me tell you, you said you only thought it was about the impact on the victims. I'm gonna read you from the July 2022 transcript. This is part of the decision, and it says, “The potential impact of you speaking about yourself and your past and your involvement with the Manson Family could not only affect the victims’ family, which it clearly would, but it could also impact public safety in that others may be inspired to follow a similar path as you.” So, this was -- this was broader than just the impact on the victims' family members. Right? This was -- this was a concern the Panel had about, you know, if you go out and -- and tell your story, you talk about it being your redemption of coming from that, but that's not what these two transcripts say that you were talking to the podcaster about. There was actually very little discussion of your redemption and you’re going to find Jesus. It was sort of more focused on that this is juicy stuff that people might wanna hear. And I -- and -- and that seems very -- it -- it -- it seems like you didn't take to heart what the Panel said to you in July of 2022, which all related to the -- the lack of empathy, the minimization, the things that the prior Panel, or the prior Governors have said in denying you parole before. And so, I think I'm -- I'm struck a little bit, the fact that you don't seem to still realize the impact that you being involved and -- and spreading the word about the Mansons family wouldn't impact public safety and influence, you know, bring you even more notoriety, I guess. Is that -- do you understand that?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am. I would say this. Nowhere did I ever say that what I did was good, that I recommended it to other people. Now, what other people make of what I said about it, well, I can't con -- that'd be what they say or what they can conclude. I don't -- I don't see how my characterization of -- of that lifestyle and what I did says anything about this is good and -- and -- and it -- there -- there was anything good about it. I tried to make it very --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Well, let me -- let me stop you. On page seven, you say, “Everybody has a theory, but here's a story that's got mystery. It's got sex, drugs, and violence. Boy, that's very appealing to this culture.”

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, is that true?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: “I have an idea that that's very -- that's a big draw.” That --

BRUCE DAVIS: It is.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: That sounds like you are saying, “This is good stuff.”

BRUCE DAVIS: It is -- okay. Okay. I hear you. Listen, I believe this. They're interested. So, I say -- so, they say, “Oh, this is a person who is -- who was involved in that.” And I say, “The big deal is what happened to me later, how God saved my life, and how I changed from that.” It's not -- I'm not -- I -- I'm careful not to say any of this was good, I recommend it for others. I say, “I recommend against it. Don't do this. Don't be a fool like I was.” Uh, I'm -- I'm -- I'm going - - I -- I thought I was pretty clear on, “Don't do this, people. This is a bad thing for -- for everybody.” I'm not -- I'm not advertising this as anything good. I'm just saying, “This is where I came from.” And -- and many people are -- they are, uh, fascinated by that, not by what I'd say, but by the whole -- the whole mystique of the thing. And -- and so, I'd say, “Okay, well here's -- here's what I have to say about it.” And so, I would tell 'em, and I never said anything was good, or I had -- it was a great time or -- or you ought to do this, or anything like that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: So, you don't -- you don't think the thing I just read to you about sex, drugs, and girls, or whatever you said, you know, that -- that isn't saying, “This is good,”?

BRUCE DAVIS: I'm saying that’s --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: It sounds pretty compelling to me.

BRUCE DAVIS: Okay. I -- I hear you. And -- and that was the reason I got mixed up in it from the beginning. Right? That's what was offered to me. That was the bait that I took.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right.

BRUCE DAVIS: Right?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: So, one of the other reasons that you were denied parole at the last hearing was this minimization, uh, thing. This has been kind of a theme that you've been distancing yourself quite a bit from, you know, how much you participated in the crime. That was a concern of the last Panel. You know, you, instead of just acknowledging what you had done, you really wanted to parse out the -- the very exact parts of your involvement. Um, and -- and so, you talked to Commissioner Brueckner. You finally, you acknowledge, “Yeah, I was minimizing today about the podcast.”

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: So, what do we make of that, right? I mean, you -- you've been denied parole in the past because of minimizing and -- and not understanding the impact of -- of your actions on the public on -- and on the victim’s family. And today and in January, you were still minimizing and not understanding the impact of your actions on the public and the family. What -- what do we make of that? How do we not -- how do we get past that?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, it's a serious -- serious issue. Uh, I just -- I just want the world to know that my life has been changed by God and changed from what, and I wanted to tell enough about the what just -- just to say, “That's where it came from.” I'm not saying anything -- the -- the -- the what I got saved from is not good. There was nothing good about it. There's nothing good about it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. I want -- I wanna -- I wanna refocus you back on that question, though. Um, you know, we all -- you've acknowledged now, you didn't at first, but you acknowledge you were minimizing when you told us you had two conversations with the podcaster. Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: So, I wanna focus on minimization. So, you were denied parole in January 2022 for -- for, in part, not understanding the -- the impact those -- that kind of outreach have on the family and the -- and the public, and because you were minimizing your participation in the crime and -- and what you could have done about it and things like that. So, my question was specifically about, you know, what do we make of the fact that you're still minimizing, and you're still not understanding the impact of -- of your outreach on the family and the public?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, for -- okay. I -- I've done everything I can to be as open and honest about my participation in the crimes. I said, “Yes, I was there. I participated,” and I was found guilty. And -- and that's good. I mean, that was good. I should -- I should have been found guilty. I was guilty. Uh, for a long time before 2010, I was saying, well, I didn't want to do it, this and that and the other, which was -- there -- that was some truth, but that wasn't the bottom line of the decision. I did it. I made the decision to participate, and I did it. Uh, I don't know how to be more open than that. Uh, uh, ever since 2010, I -- I told -- I told, uh, uh, Commissioner Doyle I -- I -- I all about the crimes, what I did, all that part. It's all in the record. And -- and I've -- I've always been like -- I've been like that ever since. And I apologized for -- for minimizing my participation in the crimes and -- and with the -- with -- with Manson and the family. And I apologized for that, and I -- I -- I haven't done that since. I'm not minimizing my -- my role and my responsibility.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: So, why do you think people minimize?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, they're afraid of the consequences.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. So, you -- you said earlier you had -- you never dreamed that talking to the podcaster would, you know, suggest anything regarding your suitability for parole. You said that. You said that, “I’d never dreamed about it,” but then you minimized it in January when we asked you about it. So, you did know that there were consequences from talking to the podcaster. I mean, minimizing is another word, frankly, for dishonesty.

BRUCE DAVIS: For lying.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Would you agree?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay.

BRUCE DAVIS: You know --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: So, you -- you lied to, I mean, bottom line --

BRUCE DAVIS: What I did is --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: -- is you lied to us about something that we had already told you, or our previous Panel had told you was a concern because you were afraid of the consequences.

BRUCE DAVIS: That's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: And you -- and you lied about your involvement in the crime for decades or minimized your involvement in the crime and what your participation had been for decades, as well. Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Uh, as of up to 2010.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay.

BRUCE DAVIS: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: The -- in the -- in the last decision in 2022, I mean, there's a pretty big discussion about minimizing that you're still doing that. Um, there's -- I was very verbose in that decision, it looks like, now that I look back at it. But, you know, I - - we explained to you why we saw that you were minimizing, um, what you had done and why that's a concern. So, um, let me see if I have any other questions. All right. I mean, I -- I -- I guess I -- I -- I think it's, um, I think it's just a little concerning Mr. Davis, that -- that we're not seeing change and kind of aha moments about things that, um, could affect, um, public safety. And, um, so, I think that that's a concern that, you know, the -- the involvement with the podcast, the things you say to the podcaster are not about your, you know, getting out of it through Jesus. That -- it just isn't. There's a lot more, and maybe the podcaster edited a lot of things out of your conversation, that that was your focus, but the podcaster was clearly focused on -- on Manson and -- and what, you know, had been done. And, you know, and you specifically say right out of the gate, “Please send me questions about the crime, about Charlie, about, you know, the ranch.” So, it's just not consistent. And if you're not being honest with us, maybe you're not being honest with yourself either. I mean, maybe you're justifying this saying that you wanna show your redemption, but you're actually taking this opportunity to talk about Manson and the crimes. So, that's the concern about the sort of glorification and, um, stuff that we talked about earlier. So, obviously you're, you know, you can talk to people about this, but if you have a mindset that says, “This is still okay,” that's what concerns me. I think at this point, um, I'd like to take a brief break, and it's 10:19 a.m. Let's come back at about 10:30 a.m.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: We're back on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Thanks. It's 10:33 a.m., and everyone's returned from the break. So, Mr. Davis, uh, just a couple of, uh, additional questions. Do you know the definition of criminal thinking?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, thinking -- thinking that it's okay to, uh, to go against the norms of the -- of the -- the criminal code.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. The definition I've heard, um, is a little broader than that. And it -- it's -- it's basically, like, knowing the difference between right and wrong.

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: And then doing wrong anyway. Right? I mean, sometimes with the, you know, underlying hope is that you're not going to get caught. And sometimes I give an example of, you know, I'm driving down the freeway. I'm going over the speed limit. I know it's over the speed limit. I know it's wrong, but I don't think I'm gonna get caught, and all these other people around me are going fast, too. Right? So, I -- I do it. So, it's a fairly low bar to engage in criminal thinking, you know, using that example. Do you agree with that?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. So, can you think of the last time you engaged in criminal thinking?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I was tempted to, uh, take stamps off of letters that came to me that were not canceled and reuse them. I didn't do it, but I thought -- I knew -- I knew I could, and I'd never get caught. I didn't do that because that wouldn't be right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Right.

BRUCE DAVIS: But I under -- I understand the temptation.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Do you think that minimizing about your involvement with the podcaster is possibly criminal thinking?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, under your definition, it def -- definitely is.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Do you think you were engaged in criminal thinking at the time of these crimes?

BRUCE DAVIS: Absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. Commissioner, do you have any other questions?

ATTORNEY HART: Commissioner, I just wanna make sure that you meant to ask that question the way that it came out, which was, uh, were you involved in criminal thinking when you were engaged in these crimes? Did you actually mean when you were engaged in the -- talking to the podcaster?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: No, I meant the crimes.

ATTORNEY HART: Okay. Okay. Sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: That's okay. Thank you for clarifying, actually. But that is, yeah, that's what I meant. Okay. And Commissioner Brueckner, anything else from you?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: No, thank you, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. So, Mr. Davis, what we'll do now is, uh, I'll first ask Ms. Hart, do you have any questions for your client?

ATTORNEY HART: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. So, I'm gonna turn it over to Ms. Hart. She's gonna have some questions for you, Mr. Davis, and then, uh, we'll go into closing statements after that.

ATTORNEY HART: Mr. Davis, what do you learn in CDCR about talking about your causative factors?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I was always taught to be open, transparent, tell it all, let the chips fall where they may, accept responsibility for what I did, and for the consequences, and -- and just be open and be free with it. Let it all come out.

ATTORNEY HART: Do you think that you've been doing that, that you have been open and honest about your involvement in the Manson Family and your involvement in the crimes?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes. Now --

ATTORNEY HART: Since about when, do you think -- since about when do you think that you -- I'm sorry, don't mean to talk over you. Go ahead.

BRUCE DAVIS: Uh, since 2010. I wrote a long paper.

ATTORNEY HART: Okay.

BRUCE DAVIS: My Role and Responsibility. Since that I've been -- I've just -- I'm confessing to everything I did.

ATTORNEY HART: Okay. And so, were drugs, sex, girls, were those some of the things that attracted you to the Manson Family?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, the girls and the drugs was the only thing that attracted me.

ATTORNEY HART: At some point, didn't Charlie become important to you?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, yeah. Charlie, well, of course he had the control of the drugs and the girls, and when I started to see that he was -- he was the gate to what I wanted, then he became important. And -- and, you know, the way he treated me like an equal. Now, I'm sure it was manipulation on his part, but I took it for respect that I'd never had like that. And, uh, it -- his whole demeanor became just -- just the way he was with me became really important. I started to really like him even over the fact that he had the girls and the drugs. But, I mean, he was treating me like my father had never had. And, uh, one way or another, I kind of -- I adopted him as my dad. Now, he didn't know it. We never talked about it, but I can see looking back that I -- I gave him -- I gave him the loyalty that I had taken from my father who had abused me, and I put it in a very misplaced place. I -- and it was a big, huge mistake, but I did, because I was treated as if I mattered. And -- and that -- that's what --

ATTORNEY HART: And I know that you've talked to previous Panels about those causative factors, but it seems to me that's also what you talked to Mr. Rovere about. Would you agree?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I -- I -- I -- yeah. I -- I guess I would. I -- I don't -- I don't remember ever saying, “Well, now this was a causative factor,” and talking about it. I might not have, but it could have come out. It could certainly be seen that way. Uh, so --

ATTORNEY HART: Thank you for correcting me, and I appreciate that clarification. What I meant is that it seems that you were attracted to things that Manson offered that you then described to Mr. Rovere and that you have described to previous Panels as some of the contributing factors for why you ended up in the Manson Family.

BRUCE DAVIS: Absolutely. That was -- that was the greatest attraction, and -- and the fact that --

ATTORNEY HART: Now --

BRUCE DAVIS: Go ahead. I'm sorry.

ATTORNEY HART: Well, it's my understanding from reading the -- the investigative report that -- that occurred for the BPH ordered, that of those 31 conversations that you had with Mr. Rovere, you were not aware that they were all being recorded. Is that correct?

BRUCE DAVIS: That's correct.

ATTORNEY HART: And you never got to hear the podcast prior to it airing. Correct?

BRUCE DAVIS: I've never got to hear it, period. I -- I -- I've got to -- I got the transcript, so I -- I know what -- yeah.

ATTORNEY HART: But he didn't send you a copy of the transcript prior to airing it. Is that correct?

BRUCE DAVIS: That's it. That's true. I -- I had to ask him for it.

ATTORNEY HART: And as you sit here today, and you read the edited version of the transcript of that podcast, can you see how it seems to glamorize or call attention to the Manson Family and what was attractive to it?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. Yeah, I see that. That's pretty obvious.

ATTORNEY HART: But -- but some of those conversations did not occur when you understood that they were being recorded. Correct?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. I didn't know they were being recorded. That's right.

ATTORNEY HART: So, I want to turn a little bit, because I -- you do understand that the Manson Family and Charlie Manson, in particular, that he has a certain appeal that draws an audience. Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: That's right.

ATTORNEY HART: And you understand that someone, someone out there, could use that in a dangerous way?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah, they could.

ATTORNEY HART: I mean, if, you know you have an audience and you go out there with the purpose of trying to spread misinformation or trying to get people to get involved in something dangerous, that could certainly result in something dangerous. Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, I never did that, but it's true. If -- if I was -- if I was advertising, uh, a -- a redo of -- of -- of the Manson's family, well, of course. I -- I -- I -- I thought I'm -- I -- I think I'm pretty clear, I mean, crystal clear about don't do this, this was stupid, this was wrong. Right?

ATTORNEY HART: Well, yes, and -- but -- well, I think so. But yes. But Keith Rovere first contacted you, and when he spoke to you, it was about your Christian faith, right? About coming -- coming to Jesus, about coming to the light. Isn't that correct?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. Uh, when we first talked, he never told me the name of the podcast. Uh --

ATTORNEY HART: Right.

BRUCE DAVIS: And I would've had a big check on that. I would've wanted to know more about that, because that -- that's a creepy name. And -- and I -- I -- I probably wouldn't have done it, or I would've wanted to get some clarification about it or something. I'm not saying one way or the other, but -- but -- and he told me, he says, “We want to talk about people in prison who have done really bad things, who have now been redeemed, and they're -- and they're Christians now. And -- and I want the public to hear that these people from a -- had a bad beginning or a bad thing into crime now have turned to a good side. And -- and they need to hear that.” And I agreed. Now, uh, as -- as when the -- when the podcast actually got made, it was a lot about -- it was a lot about Manson. And -- and I think that was -- I -- I -- I'm not gonna talk about his honesty or anything. I don't know. I can't read his mind. But, uh, it -- it sounded like he was wanting to entertain his audience, that -- or the -- the -- the true crime people, uh, fascinated with this, the Helter-Skelter group or whatever all that was. So, and -- and -- and I can -- I understand it from a business point of view on his side. However, uh, I'm disappointed that I didn't understand that better. And, uh, uh, anyway, uh, it was a -- the whole thing was a big mistake on my part. I recognize that now, uh, after the fact. But, uh --

ATTORNEY HART: Okay. So, I want to understand when he asked you, and you said, not gonna get the language exactly right, but something along the lines of, “If audience members or anybody wants to ask me specific questions, you can send them to me,” or when you said, “You can send them to me, and I'll answer them,” what -- what was the purpose for you? What -- what's your purpose in answering questions related to the events?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, like I said before, I know that I didn't know everything that was going on that I was involved in. So, I'm responsible, at least on a moral level, for everything that happened. I realize that. Now, at the time, I wasn't thinking like that at all. But so -- so I just said, “Hey, if you have a question about this, ask me.” Now, I didn't say I would answer it. I just said, just remind -- let me think. Is there something that I could be refreshed on that I need to know? Uh, I want to tell the truth, the whole truth about it, and, uh, hey, help me out. So, I just asked for that.

ATTORNEY HART: So, Commissioner Brueckner asked you about this, um, incident, or someone who had written to you about this crime that occurred in England, somebody who had gotten killed in England, and it turned out you were not even in the country, even in England at that time. Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah, that's true.

ATTORNEY HART: So, is it important to you that the truth is out there?

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, it sure is, especially, and -- and this kind of sounds defensive on my part, but it's important to me that misguided information is out there about me. Right? And, uh, uh, I had -- I have no idea about these things until it came up years later. And, uh, and --

ATTORNEY HART: So, clearing up misinformation is important to you, right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Uh, yes. Yeah.

ATTORNEY HART: And answering questions that would clear things up that happened that you do remember, or that didn't happen, and you have no recollection of that would be important to you. Right?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yeah. Yes, absolutely. Uh, you know, uh, hey, the truth about what I did is bad enough, but we don't -- I don't need stuff added onto it. I mean, it's already, you know, uh, I understand people have curiosity. Uh, depending on their point of view, they want to -- to - - to add to the story on their side of -- of all the terrible, bad things I might have done. And -- and people -- they introduced people that I'd never heard of. And, uh, hey, one of these -- one of these people even had me down as the Zodiac Killer, and it went along until the FBI said, “No, he was in prison that time,” and -- and that -- that -- that came down. But -- but that's the kind of things that come up. And so, I'd just like to have it straight. You know?

ATTORNEY HART: Okay. So, I wanna talk about this idea of re-traumatizing your victims and why that is problematic. And I think that came up specifically in the 2022 hearing, but again, in January when we last met, um, for the initial part of this hearing. So, can you see that in talking about Charles Manson, that that is potentially re-traumatizing to actual victims, direct or indirect victims of the crime -- crimes? Excuse me.

BRUCE DAVIS: Well, it does re -- it does bring them into remembrance of it, and depending on their attitude, uh, if they still have a -- if they still -- I don't know. If they haven't settled this somehow in their mind, and it's still a hot issue that when you bring it up again, well, yeah, it restimulates something that hasn't been -- hasn't really been, I don't know how you say it, but the person hasn't come to, uh, to -- to some kind of resolution, uh, about the case, about the thing. And so --

ATTORNEY HART: So, as you -- I'm sorry to interrupt, but as you sit here today, would you -- do you hope that in talking about your -- both your past involvement and your exit from, uh, from anything having to do with the Manson Family, would you hope that that would help people to heal?

BRUCE DAVIS: Absolutely. That's the whole point. The point is, uh, you know, I want a person to become a forgiver because they've been forgiven, not because -- not because I deserve forgiveness. I do not. No perpetrator deserves forgiveness. Forgiveness is -- is a benefit to the victim who can cut the -- who can take the charge, the -- the adrenaline out of -- out of this issue that they might still be going back to every time they think about it, which is, you know, it's -- it's -- it's -- it's -- it's a dangerous thing. I mean, it -- the adrenaline, the anger. Every time it happens, you know, it tears down your system. And, uh, I -- I would hope that the -- the people, the -- the -- the Hinmans and the Sheas, I don't expect them to ever be happy about what I did. Heavens no, because I'm not happy about it, and -- and I'm sorry it happened, but I -- I would hope that they could see my point enough to reconcile what had happened. And -- and I -- I would hope anybody that hears this could say, “You know, maybe this Jesus stuff, there's something to it. There just might be -- it just might be worth saying, ‘Okay, God, if you're for real, show me something.’” If I -- if -- if -- if what I say could bring a person to that point, I -- I've accomplished my purpose. I'm not trying to make sure the person is another notch on my Bible. I'm not trying to save somebody. I'm just trying to give 'em some information where they might look at that and go, “I need that.” And that's -- that's my whole purpose, and -- and I'm sorry if -- if people are re-traumatized when I talk about this. Uh, I don't know what else to do. I can't stop 'em from feeling the way they're feeling. I would hope that they could come to find out their feelings could be improved. They could improve on this. Now, I realize some people say, “I'll never improve. I don't care what.” Okay. Well, that's a decision. But I hope a person could come to a -- well, I'd say a -- for -- from my point of view, a better decision to say, “Yeah, maybe I -- maybe I need to investigate this Jesus stuff and see about the forgiveness of God and where all that lies and where I'm at with it. And how am I gonna spend eternity?” Right? That's my -- my -- my big concern is I -- I'm -- I like the scripture that says, “God wants everybody.” He don't want anybody to perish, but all to repent, and I hope that what I'm doing is helping a person to rethink himself. That's repentance. Just rethink himself. And if he's been -- and -- and like the -- the people here today who -- who are in opposition, I -- I understand their anger. I understand it. If that stuff had happened to me, I'd be angry as hell, and I -- and I wouldn't be trying to get over it, and I don't expect anybody to ever get over it. But I just hope they could -- they might. There's a chance. You know, might see it and say, “Well, maybe there is something to think about.” And if that's true, then I'm satisfied that people would think about it differently. And -- and not only -- not only the people who are traumatized by the memory, because hey, Southern California was in trauma from August to October, November of 1970. And -- and when they think about it, it brings back bad -- very possibly bad memories. Uh, I had an officer who called me out one day and said, “Hey, uh, I heard you were -- you were with Manson. Right?” And I said, “Yeah, I was.” He said, “Yeah, we were -- I was really young. I was only six or seven, something like that, a young kid.” He said, “And my -- my friends and I, we didn't know what was happening. We thought you guys were getting after us even.” And they were scared. He said, “Then we found out that,” the story came to them, “Well, they were only after rich people,” he said, “and we were poor. So, we -- we -- we -- we -- we felt safe now.” And I thought about that. I said, “How many -- how many people did -- could that have traumatized at -- at that young age?” And -- and hey, it was -- it was sticking with him enough that when he got a chance to confront me about it, he sure did it. And so, and I -- but that got me thinking, well, I wonder how many people really, you know, were -- were -- were scared for real. I don't think many grownups probably were scared over a long period of time once they found out what it was. But children, man, they, you know how when we were kids, we take everything's for real. And, uh, so, it -- so anyway, I thought about that and -- and I was so sorry for -- for my part in it. And it -- and it woke me up to, man, this -- this is worse than I thought. Way worse. 'Cause I'd never thought about harming young -- young people. But -- but, um, my intention has never been -- since -- since -- since 1974, my intention has been to -- to -- to invite people closer to a relationship with God. That's my intention. And -- and -- and -- and the fact that somebody is re -- re -- restimulated on -- on bad memories, yeah, I can understand that. When I talk about it, I'm re-stimulated on bad memories. I remember it, and it's not good, but it's -- it's just a fact. And that -- that -- that -- I don't -- I don't know. I don't know how that threatens public safety. I mean, I don't think somebody's gonna go out and start a cult when I'm telling them, “Don't do it.” Uh, so, I'm kind of --

ATTORNEY HART: So, Mr. Davis, thank you. That actually leads me to really my last question. And, um, I - - you know, what this Panel's ultimate concern has to be, the legal standard that they have to be concerned about, is really public safety and whether you pose a danger. So, if this Panel were to find you suitable today, do you think that there's a risk that you would re-offend?

BRUCE DAVIS: No way. No way. Un -- unless they said if you -- if somebody just happens to be retraumatized or re-thought something that happened 50 years ago, uh, and -- and they felt bad about it, if that's an offense, well, that very well might happen. But as far as breaking the law, uh, no. No way. No way. No. And -- and I tell you what, I don't think anybody's -- anybody even thinks that that's -- that that could happen, that will happen with me. Not really. Now, there may be other issues. Right? But I don't think anybody's afraid that I'm gonna go out there and try to start another cult or -- or do something stupid. I don't think nobody -- nobody -- nobody thinks that. I don't believe it. Now, I -- I can't say. I could be wrong, but, uh --

ATTORNEY HART: Thank you, Mr. Davis. Thank you.

BRUCE DAVIS: You're welcome.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right, Ms. Hart, let's go into closing statements. Are you ready?

ATTORNEY HART: I am, Commissioner. I am gonna ask for a little bit of leeway just because, uh, I will do my best to keep it under 10 minutes, but just might be just slightly longer because I've been taking notes as we go.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: That -- that -- I -- I was actually going to say, that's fine with me.

ATTORNEY HART: Thank you. Mr. Davis does not pose a current unreasonable risk of dangerousness to society, and he should be granted parole today. This is Mr. Davis's 34th parole Board hearing. He's been found suitable seven times since 2010, and each time the Governor has reversed. In 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021, he was granted parole. Again, each time, the Governor reversed. And in 2022, I know this Panel is very aware, uh, that he was denied parole. And for those -- those reasons, I will address. Um, but as we sit here today, this is a continuation of a hearing that began in January, and it was postponed for the purposes of this Board of Parole Hearings investigation into this podcast for which he was interviewed by Keith Rovere. And we're here today, in part, at least, to consider that report that came out of the investigation and to, again, determine whether Mr. Davis, now 81 years old, is suitable for parole. As you've heard, Mr. Davis has been taught through CDCR's programs to speak openly about what the causative factors were for his crimes. And to do that, he has to discuss what was appealing about getting involved in the Manson Family, sex, drugs, girls. It was that excitement that is what appealed to him at that time. His intent and his desire is to be honest, but he also does want to set the record straight about his own involvement, not because it was minimal, not to minimize his participation, but because it is often misreported and there is a lot of misinformation out there, and that is important to him. In terms of criminal and parole history, his criminal conduct escalated dramatically and fatefully once he joined the Manson Family. The static factors of his criminal and parole history, as well as offender self-control, no doubt will and should be found aggravating. At the time, he was selfish, callous, disregarded the rights of others entirely, and Mr. Davis was not exhibiting any selfcontrol at that time. He was entirely fueled by hedonistic desires and ultimately his false admiration for Charles Manson, his desire to impress him, and his apathy. But 52 years later, we see a different man, and we've seen him for a long time now. He has engaged in decades of selfreflection and self-help work. He has been committed to his spiritual practice and to his fellow human being, and I believe it shows. He has demonstrated remorse for his criminal behavior at previous hearings, in his written submissions to the Panel, as well as here today, and he developed this sense of remorse through years of confronting the reality of all that he participated in with the Manson Family and being honest and retelling the story. He recalled an incident today when a CO remarked that as a child, he had been fearful of the Manson Family not knowing or understanding their motives and fearing becoming a victim. And this impacted him immensely for he truly saw how devastating the cult had been to so many, not just the direct victims, but the whole communities who had feared for their safety. When Mr. Davis opened his heart and his mind to this reality, things truly began to shift for him. He wrote, “As a member of the Manson Family, I am morally responsible for all the cult’s criminality. As an older family member, I influenced other members' criminality by failing to object to our crimes. I'm ashamed of contributing to the trauma of -- and fright of Southern California from August to October of 1969. Many of the Los Angeles community had the fear and trauma of feeling vulnerable as the motive for the crimes was mysterious, and so, many felt vulnerable and feared becoming a victim. During this period, I'm ashamed to admit I was numbed by my decision to use drugs and I -- and practiced apathy to protect myself against feeling the hurt and sadness of others.” He also wrote about and to his direct victims. “My lifelong sorrow is for my murder of Gary Hinman. My deep regret for the endless pain and loss my crimes still cause you, Gary's family and friends, and my remorse for depriving you the pleasures of his presence and positive influences he would've had. Gary had befriended me with kind, open-handed hospitality. I'm sorry and sickened that I betrayed his friendship when I failed to stop the others. I could have because I was the only one with a firearm. But cowardly, I coldly abandoned Gary to a tortured and brutal death. Further,” he wrote, “I am ashamed and sorry for murdering Donald Shea. I am guilty of senseless evil. My willing hand in Donald's murder deprived you of all of the benefits of his presence. I ended the benefit of his potential as a faithful provider and protector of his children and being a truly devoted husband to his wife.” In terms of programming, Mr. Davis became a Christian after a vision that he had, and thereafter, his life changed. He began programming in earnest and committed his life to selfreflection, spirituality, and positive change. To recount the list of all the programs Mr. Davis has participated in would be both time consuming and redundant, as surely, this Panel has reviewed his file as many other Panels before and found his programming to be mitigating. However, I would note that since his denial in 2022, and upon reading a mental health department paper on empathy and intentional listening, his understanding grew, and he realized he needed to understand his own pain more deeply. This opened him to his experience in the Heart program and unlocked pain and traumas that he had kept locked in in an effort to safeguard -- to self-guard against his own emotions. Willing to confront the pain and fear, he became li -- liberated from fearing negative expressions of others and was able to hear the Commissioner's comments in a productive and helpful manner seeing the ongoing impact of his conduct and his ability to address it through his own action. He has considered the impact his notoriety could have upon his transition, and to that end, has chosen a facility where he knows other people in the program, but it's not located in a major urban area like San Francisco or in Los Angeles, where the Manson Family was most active. This facility is in Modesto, and he's hoping that this will allow him to focus on his message of Christianity. I submit that the domain of programming should be found mitigating. In terms of his institutional behavior, Mr. Davis has had more than four decades free from serious transgressions and has distanced himself entirely from this behavior. There is no evidence to demonstrate any ongoing connections or desire he has to continue with any cult or other criminal group. He has accumulated a multitude of laudatory Chronos and should be recognized for his excellent institutional behavior. Craig Morton, a volunteer at San Quentin who submitted a letter of support wrote, “I can't imagine and haven't met during my time at San Quentin a more rehabilitated and deserving resident than Bruce. In my view, he poses no threat whatsoever to society and would do far more good on the outside rather than remaining within the walls of a prison. It's time for him to be released and contribute with his many gifts to society.” I would ask the Panel to note the many other letters of support from individuals who are engaged in their own healing process, but also the program staff and institutional staff. I believe the domain of institutional behavior should be found mitigating. In terms of offender change, Mr. Davis has demonstrated his change and his continued commitment to his own growth and self-betterment. Even today in admitting that his answer about his involvement on the phone calls with Mr. Rovere, that it was minimizing. Even after seven grants and seven reversals, he has not become bitter or angry. He has not blamed others, and he has reframed his own role, not as a victim of Charles Manson, but as a conscious choice maker in his own life. And to that end, he has made his life meaningful within these prison walls. He has grown and evolved as an individual, and he is ready to be a contributing member of society. He wrote, “I intend to encourage others to adopt a higher plane of thinking and being one of true purpose and significance.” I believe the domain of offender change should be found mitigating. In terms of his plans for release, they are realistic. He has been accepted to transitional housing, and it's clear that reentering society after 52 years in prison will pose significant challenges. But to that end, he has re -- researched and found reentry support, and he is ready and willing to utilize the programs and services that will be available to him at Our Time. That's the name of the program. Uh, he knows that he will need support to reintegrate into society, and he's grateful for all the connections that he has made and the offers for housing that have been made even beyond the typical six months to a year of transitional housing. Mr. Davis has an extremely robust support network, which is evidenced by the countless letters of support submitted on his behalf. His Parole Plans are reasonable and realistic, and this domain should be mitigating. Mr. Davis is eligible for elderly parole consideration, and with his age of 81 years and 52 years of incarceration, he's statistically less likely to reoffend. But further, he suffers from chronic medical conditions, and these also do serve to reduce his risk. Further, Dr. Ellins noted that Mr. Davis has demonstrated growth during his incarceration, including his conduct, improved peer relationships, support in the community, robust Parole Plans, thoughtful Relapse Prevention Plans, receptiveness to feedback provided to him by the Board, more recent involvement in treatment resources directly addressing his personality traits, and his age and chronicle medical conditions. These all serve to reduce his risk for violence. Dr. Ellins opined in 2023 that Mr. Davis represents a low risk for violence. In 2020, Dr. Mancusi found him to be a low risk for violence. Dr. Goldstein in 2015 found him to be a low risk for violence. Dr. Carmen in 2016 found him to be a low. Dr. Pritchard opined that he was a low risk for violence in 2013. Dr. Thacker opined he was a low risk for violence in 2010. And each evaluator in 1994, 1996, 1997, and 1998, opined that he was a below-average risk. He has been receptive to the Board's feedback, and he has tried to address the concerns which arose in 2022. And further, the investigation into the podcast that Mr. Davis participated in -- participated in should have made clear what we already knew about Mr. Davis, that he does not pose a risk to public safely -- safety. He only wants to talk about his transformation. That may not be what exactly got reported in the podcast, but that was his intent in participating. Knowing what he knows now about the title and how it could be perceived, how it was perceived, he likely would not have participated in the podcast. And if we, as a community, as a society, fail to remember the import of this story, I believe we run the risk of making the same mistakes over and over again. Today, I challenge the Governor to have the courage to apply the legal standard that I'm confident this Panel will apply and not let politics decide this case. Mr. Davis does not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety, and he should be found suitable for parole. I just wanna leave with two very short quotes. One is written by Mr. Dorsey, and it appears that page 723 of the 10-day file, says that “Mr. Davis is another one of the greatest yet rarest examples of darkness turning into light. One not to be written of, but experienced.” And lastly, the words of Mr. Brian Thomas, “The change from who he was to who he has become is more than drastic. It is miraculous. I can speak from personal experience, having known Bruce for over four decades and having lived in prison with him for over one of those decades. If there was ever anyone who would place a shining light upon your wisdom and decision making for release upon parole, it is Mr. Bruce Davis.” Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Thank you, Ms. Hart. Mr. Davis, would you like to give a closing statement?

BRUCE DAVIS: Yes, thank you. I'm not the person that came into prison in 1972. Uh, I am, uh, sober and in my right mind and have been for quite a while. I have a -- I have a mission to invite every human being into a closer relationship with God, and I do it through my behavior, through my teaching and preaching, through music, through everything that I have to -- to bring a person to -- well, to present a person with an opportunity to change his mind. That's my -- that's my mission. And to everybody, my -- and my ministry is right here in San Quentin at the present time for every -- for every inmate that I can talk to. I want to help people. I don't -- I'm -- I'm still kind of -- I -- I just wonder what, uh, re-traumatization, every time a person hears the story or hears anything about Manson, many people, it takes 'em back to a sad part of their life. And I'm -- I just don't -- I -- I just don't see how that is as a parole violation or how it's a felony or a danger to society. Uh, every time -- every time you hear something about your past that was sad, you feel it, of course. Uh, and I -- and I know that what I -- what I say to people and how I discuss it, yes, it's gonna bring back some sad memories for some people. I -- it's hard to believe that that's a felony and it -- and it -- and it would cause people to do terrible things. Now, I'm not saying it wouldn't, 'cause I don't know. Who knows what the future is and how people might think, but I don't believe -- I don't believe we believe that. I don't think anybody believes that when somebody has a bad memory, they're going to do something terrible. Uh, and -- and I'm certainly not trying to make 'em have bad memories or -- or en encourage them to do things terrible. I've worked hard to -- to be clear about how twisted and evil my -- my time of criminality was. And, um, I think I've succeeded in some areas, and obviously I haven't succeeded in all. But, um, I -- I have no intention of glamorizing Manson or criminality. I don't think anybody really believes that I have an intention of glamorizing this thing. I don't think -- I don't think any rational person thinks that, “Oh yeah, he wants to go out there and start a cult, tell people to do this and do that.” Uh, nobody -- nobody who is listening to what I said, uh, believes that. I certainly don't. And so, I'm a change person. I hope to, uh, to have a -- a great impact in individuals to change their life, to -- to come to repentance and not -- and not to perish. And that's -- that's -- that's my number one. And, uh, I understand that -- that the people on this Panel have different -- have -- have different pressures on them, have different things, have different considerations, different presuppositions that draw them to make the conclusions they make. And we all have those things, and that leads us to -- to what we're doing. And so, basically, I just say, I appreciate your time and your, uh, your attention. And, um, I thank you, and God bless you. Thank you very much.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. Thank you, Mr. Davis. All right. So, we're at the point in the hearing that we will turn to the family members. I see Ms. Martley, you've turned on your camera, so -- and I think you're first on my list anyway. Are you all ready to make your statements now?

KAY MARTLEY: Well, we'd like to do it in the order of Shelly, Anthony, myself, and then Debra last.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Shelly, Anthony, you?

KAY MARTLEY: Correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay.

KAY MARTLEY: And Debra last.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: And then -- and Debra. Okay. All right. So, uh, Ms. Pickford, when you're ready.

SHERYL PICKFORD: Uh, yes. So, I had written out a brief statement, but, uh, before I get into that, I just would like to give my thoughts on this process so far and what Mr. Davis has been saying. I find it extremely traumatized -- re-traumatizing and offensive. He definitely has no empathy whatsoever. He is a sociopath. I -- I -- I just can't believe he sat there and lied in January and then now that's -- that's kind of qualified as, “Oh, I -- I minimized it.” Obviously, he's glamorizing his part in the Manson Family and will continue to do so. It's -- it's completely obvious. I'm just kind of taken aback, too, by the way he says that it's the individual and the victim's own problem if they can't forgive him and they're re-traumatized as if we are lesser people because of that. And also, how -- how was he absolved? He -- he's self-absolved. That it -- that makes no sense. Anyway, going ahead, I will -- I will read my statement. My name is Sheryl Pickford. I am Gary Hinman’s niece. I go by Shelly. And my concerns about having Mr. Davis released on, uh, parole are because of the following reasons. He was involved in the torture and killing of my uncle. He was a willing participant. He was not coerced in any way. He's evil and always will be. What kind of a person befriends someone, gains their trust, and then commits these terrible acts? The answer is a demented serial killer, and that's what kind of person Mr. Davis is. He asks for mercy. Please. He's been granted the ultimate mercy of -- of getting to live, frankly, and he should have to live out the sentence that was initially given to him, and that's life in prison. My uncle was denied all of this. But, you know, instead here we are still trying to make sure that justice is served. Ms. Martley, Ms. Tate, and Mr. DiMaria have fought tirelessly for this, and it has taken its toll on everyone. Why should Mr. Davis suddenly get off easy without a care in the world? So he can tell his story and be glamorized even more? My uncle's life was casually snuffed out at a young age. I wish I could have had a chance to know him. I was just a baby when my uncle was killed. My mother, his sister, never ever spoke about him or what happened for the remaining years of her life, and she lived till she was 76. She was absolutely devastated by his murder. Even as I grew older, she refused to talk about the horror. She was traumatized. I was left with a mother whose life wasn't -- was upended, and I can't even begin to count the ways that this affected my upbringing. Additionally, my grandmother, Gary's mother, passed away shortly after the murder. My family tells me that she died of a broken heart. It was an aneurysm, basically. Gary was her only son. I cannot imagine the pain she felt. I've never -- I never got a chance to know her either. Mr. Davis is and always will be part of the Manson Family, a depraved group of people with twisted minds who brutally slaughtered innocent victims and then tried to -- to frame the killings on an entire race. He is -- Mr. Bruce Davis is a sick, sick individual. And then my question for the Board members is, what exactly do you think, uh, these wonderful gifts are that Mr. Davis has to offer that his attorney talks about? As members of this very important Board, you don't want your legacy to be that you released a serial killer from the Manson Family. That's -- that's not what you wanna be known for, because I promise you the story of the Manson Family will never, ever, ever go away. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Thank you, Ms. Pickford. Uh, Mr. DiMaria?

ANTHONY DIMARIA: Hello, Commissioner. Um, thank you. Uh, Dear Commissioner, Julie Garland and Matthew Brueckner, um, sorry that, uh, Shelly's statement kind of got me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: That’s all right. Take your time.

ANTHONY DIMARIA: My name is Anthony DiMaria. I've been asked by Gary Hinman's family -- I'll get through this. I've been asked by Gary Hinman's family to speak as a family representative. I'm also a blood relative of Jay Sebring who was killed at the hands of the Manson Family on August 8, 1969. Today precisely marks the 55th year of those murders on Cielo Drive. Weeks earlier of the same year, Gary Hinman suffered an unspeakable death lasting three days. Along with Shelly Pickford, Kay Martley Hinman, and Deborah Tate, I remind the Board that the severe nature of Bruce -- Bruce Davis's crimes extend beyond our families with pernicious cultural repercussions as outlined by the following. Our involve -- our involvement in these hearings have nothing to do with anger, hatred, or vengeance. We come out of love to speak for those who are silenced in their graves, who cannot speak for themselves. Just as a so-called Manson Family conspired, tortured, killed, and mutilated collectively, so too our families collectively suffer permanent pain and loss caused by Bruce Davis and his cohorts. Our families speak in one voice for justice. The Hinman, Shea, and all of our families have been impacted in ways too extensive to completely express in today's hearing, but I'd be remiss if I didn't address the additional suffering and impact caused by the state's endless legal detours throughout the years. First, there was the revocation of the original death sentences in 1972. Then decades of legal wranglings and political agenda have left our loved ones as they lie in their graves and our families abandoned and betrayed. We need not look any further than the youthful and elderly offender statutes. If only there were youthful and elderly victim statutes afforded to Gary Hinman, Donald Shea, and our families. In today's hearing, the district -- the Los Angeles District Attorney's office is absent, not just today, but for nearly four years due to George Gascon’s directive. For us, for all victims in these crimes, there is no longer legal support, involvement, or representation from the District Attorney's office. We are left to fend for ourselves. Our butchered flesh and blood, our families and victims' rights have been increasingly disregarded, or more accurately, flushed down the toilet. Our families have been kicked in the teeth and ripped apart by endless television interviews, magazine articles, book deals, movie deals, documentaries, and podcasts afforded to numerous Manson killers for self-promotion and profit. These media engagements were promoted with the permission and supervision of the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. This is particularly relevant today since a recent investigation, thanks to you both Commissioners, was launched into Bruce Davis's involvement into possible book dealings and his interview with The Lighter Side of Parole, uh, The Lighter Side of Serial Killers podcast. But these are all just recent examples. It follows decades of similar media engagements by Manson killers, Leslie Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins, Charles Watson, and Charles Manson. These media engagements dripped through massive slips, through massive cracks ever since the murders for over 50 years, and they got away with it. We commend you Commissioners Garland and Brueckner for your discretion and thoroughness delving into this matter. For Mr. Davis to engage with a platform whose sole focus is serial killers, not to mention its perversely tasteless title, it is clear the petitioner exhibits a shocking absence of self-awareness and/or lack of insight into his crimes. Whether or not Mr. Davis knew that he was being recorded in this has no impact. He engaged. Part of what continues to impact our families are these hearings and what is said by them and -- and what is said in them by inmates and their attorneys past and present. I commend Mr. Davis's acknowledgements in the last hearing, January 18, 2024, regarding his statements blaming the Governor and his lack of empathy in his previous 2022 hearing. Yet, it is telling when speaking to empathy at the commuted hearing, Mr. Davis never mentioned his victims, how -- how they suffered or how our victims - - our -- our families continue to suffer. He spoke of discussions with rehabilitation counselors. This is a huge disconnect and a lack of insight for the atrocities Mr. Davis committed. In fact, Mr. Davis goes on when he tells his story to the public, and he describes his crimes as what were quote, “part of what happened to me,” end quote. Again, “what happened to me,” not, “what I did.” Throughout these hearings, one of the persistent -- one of the persistent tactical distortions are the inmate’s and their attorney's contention that the petitioner's crimes occurred separately in a vacuum as if each of Bruce Davis's murders are void of any connection and/or responsibility intrinsic throughout the entire Manson Family rampage. This includes six nights separately of violence and killing. I include the shooting and attempted murder of Bernard Crowe and the attempted murder of Barbara White. I bring this up to provide accurate historical context of these crimes that is often overlooked in these hearings that clearly establishes the extensive, severe, and intentional nature of these culturally scarring crimes. Bruce Davis and his Manson cohorts conspired, targeted, extorted, tortured, mutilated, and killed as a clan. Those who slaughtered in the Manson Family shared common racist, terrorist, and violent criminal motives with sustained unified intents. It is no random coincidence that after Gary Hinman was slaughtered and a Manson Family killer was arrested in Gary's vehicle on August 6, less than a day and a half before the murders of five people and an unborn child occurred on Cielo Drive, that the entire Manson Family rampage was unleashed. Mr. Davis was an influential and powerful force in the Manson crime organization. And for the record, the Manson Family was not a hippie cult. It was a violent crime syndicate whose pervasive crimes extended over seven years, including a shootout with 36 Hawthorne police officers in 1972 and culminating in the attempted assassination of President Gerald Ford on September 22, 1975, by family culprit Lynette Fromme. I emphasize that this inmate's crimes were the very first and last killings of the entire family murder rampage that we know of. Had Mr. Davis contacted the authorities after Gary Hinman's face was slashed and his ears severed in half, 10 people would've lived their lives naturally and completely. Tragically, Mr. Davis chose to be a prime killer in one of the most notorious crime organizations in United States history. Mr. Davis perpetrated Manson murder mystique when he carved an X on his forehead and grotesquely taunted society during his trial. Bruce Davis's actions horrified the nation and caused permanent cultural wounds that impact society even today as evidenced in mainstream media, TV interviews, shows, books, podcasts, and on the internet, like the HelterSkelter Forum. The Manson mystique that emanated from Mr. Davis's crimes is eerily influential in the horrific murders of Vivian French and Jason Sweeney. Each of these cases exhibit the lingering threat and current dangerousness of Mr. Davis and his crimes, which I'll address later in this statement. If ever murders could meet the criteria as established in Lawrence, Bruce Davis's offenses embody the very definition with lethal repercussions even decades after his incarceration. As we know, but for the record, quote, Lawrence states, quote, “In rare and particularly egregious cases, the fact that the inmate committed the offense can provide an indication of the inmate's potential for future danger despite strong evidence of rehabilitation.” For the -- for the record, I'm sorry, “that the inmate exhibits a potential for future danger,” end quote. At Mr. Davis's hearing on June 28, 2019, his longtime attorney, Michael Beckman, posits that there is a, quote, “complete misunderstanding of Lawrence,” end quote, in this hearing -- in this case, sorry. Let there be no misunderstanding of Lawrence in today's hearing. Bruce Davis's victims endured unbearable torture, mutilation, suffocation, stabbings, and blunt force trauma. Mr. Davis collectively acted in concert with his so-called family to frame the murder of Gary Hinman on African Americans as a whole, and more specifically to frame the Black Panthers. The family's racial motives were twofold, to deflect blame on Gary Hinman's murder on Black Panthers after the Bernard Crowe drug burn and shooting for fear of the Panthers retaliation and to incite societal upheaval via racial coercion. These are the very definitions of severe, rare, and egregious. In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown in his definitive decision regarding Bruce Davis states, quote, “These crimes rightfully remain seared into the nation's conscious and represent that rare circumstance in which the aggravated nature of the crimes alone is sufficient to deny parole,” end quote. The petitioner and his attorneys would have you believe Mr. Davis's crimes occurred in a vacuum void of any other further societal harm and dangerousness. Sadly, I direct the Board to the horrific murders of Vivian French in 1977 and Jason Sweeney in 2003, decades after Bruce Davis's incarceration. Detective Don Ryan describes the crime scene of Vivian French's murder March 7, 1977. Quote, “As I entered the residence, I could hear The Pigs are Coming song. It was playing over and over again. When we walked in, I observed a white female, later identified as Vivian French, lying on her back. She was nude, and I noticed what appeared to be a black handled knife in her right side just above the breast. I noticed on the wall there were some things written in blood, ‘Helter-Skelter,’ and ‘All pigs must die,’” end quote. On May 30, 2003, Jason Sweeney was murdered by four teens, ages 15 to 17. The weapons used to massacre the teenager were a hammer, a hatchet, and large rocks. At one point during the attack, there was a hatchet blow so severe that it remained protruding from Jason's skull as he continued to fight for his life. During the trial, the teenage killers testified listening to Helter-Skelter over and over repeatedly for several hours before committing the murder. Let there be no misunderstanding of Lawrence in today's hearing. Bruce Davis and his crimes embody the rare, egregious severe nature as defined and continue to pose a risk to society directly and culturally as illustrated in the brutal murders of Ms. French and Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Davis's crimes have done permanent and enduring wounds to American society. The nexus of current dangerousness, direct, repercussive, cultural, is permanent, current, and deadly. I bring to your attention Shaputis. Today, Commissioner Brueckner, uh, asked why the Board would be concerned, uh, engaging with the media in a podcast. Is there any question that beyond minimization that a lack of insight into these diabolical crimes is a definitive nexus of current dangerousness? In Bruce Davis's most recent hearings, Mr. Davis goes to great length to say he cut Donald Shea but never stabbed his victim. Even in -- in January's last hearing, Mr. Davis says he cut Donald Shea. I have other examples, but, uh, Commissioner Garland, I think you're well aware of them from, uh, previous hearings, so I'll skip that. This is clearly minimization and yet again lacks proper insight into these crimes. Chiding -- citing Shaputis, “Even when an inmate states that his conduct is wrong and that he feels some remorse for his crime, his failure to gain insight of under -- understanding into either his violent conduct or his commission of the commitment offense provides some evidence of support of the conclusion that the petitioner remains dangerous and is unsuitable for parole.” Today, Ms. Hart mentions the lure of Charles Manson. In past hearings, Mr. Davis shares what he identifies as influences specific to a father figure, the lure of women at the ranch, and group acceptance. Frankly, these are common interests for many, many people throughout the world, but thankfully, very few of these individuals, if any, go out and kill innocent people in a sustained rampage and carve X’s on their face. Before I conclude, I must address statements made by Bruce Davis's longtime attorney Michael Beck -- Beckman. On June 28, 2019, quote, “Despite having his freedom snatched from him five times, he continued programming well,” end quote. He then goes on to attack the Governor stating, quote, “If the Governor chooses to play politics with my client's life again, then he's gonna have to do that, because my client is a political prisoner at this point, plain and simple,” end quote. At Bruce Davis's recent parole hearing on July 8, 2022, Commissioner Garland, you had asked the inmate, “Why do you think you're still in prison?” Mr. Davis responded, “Well, the Governors have always shifted to veto your decisions. They don't feel good about me.” Commissioner, “Why do you think that is?” Mr. Davis, “They don't feel good about me.” Commissioner, “Okay, they don't feel good about you. So, the reason you're still in prison is because the Governor's feelings?” Commissioner Garland continues, “I find it interesting that you think it's the Governor's feelings rather than something about you,” end quote. While I appreciate Mr. Davis's admission that he was defensive during this questioning, this interaction remains quite startling. Along with the other statements and lack of insight, this is yet another example of an extensive pattern that reveals a particular -- a particular wiring that is specific to Mr. Davis and his mindset. Shockingly, after 53 years of CDCR rehabilitation, the e -- the inmate made no mention of his crimes, his victims, or the hell caused by his actions, even when discussing empathy at his very last hearing on January 18. I really appreciate Commissioner Garland's question in 2022, “Why are you still in prison today?” Does it occur to any of us in this hearing today that Bruce Davis is in prison because he killed people? Plain and simple. Does it occur to any of us in this hearing today that Bruce Davis remains in prison still because his crimes were so severe and profound they shook our country to its core with permanent repercussions, that his crimes were a shock to our nation's conscious? Not only are the statements and arguments provided by Mr. Davis and his attorneys out of touch and sociopathic, they are offensive and demonstrate an extensive pattern of the inmates and attorneys propping killers into the role of victim. This is a deplorable tactic that has been perpetuated for decades now and completely lacks any cru -- crumb of insight into these unprecedented crimes. So, if there's any confusion in this matter, let there be none now. The only people who had their freedoms snatched from them are Bruce Davis's victims and all victims of Mr. Davis and his so-called family of killers. There was mention today of forgiveness. There's a diabolical, uh, diabolical. There's -- there was mention today of forgiveness, and there's a biblical sentiment that one can forgive the individual but not the crime. These are such crimes. They must be held accountable. Under the direction of Jennifer Shaffer, CDCR and BPH is specifically tasked when considering release for lifers to ask and determine from the inmate, quote, “Who were you when you committed the crime? Who are you today? What's the difference?” end quote. Ms. Hart today mentions 34 parole hearings. The victims are, our families, are impacted with 55 years of loss and suffering, 55 years in a coffin. Today, I posit to the Board that it is much more relevant and pertinent to ask some of the same questions posed by Jennifer Shaffer to the people most impacted by Bruce Davis's crimes. “Gary, who were you on the morning of ju -- July 25, 1969? What were your dreams, your life plans? How are you different now than you were when Bruce Davis held you hostage, drove off in your car, and left you bleeding out, forcing you to endure an agonizing death that lasted three days?” “Donald, how are you different now than you were when Bruce Davis and four other men ambushed you like cowards, then beat, stabbed you to death, and mutilated you like a pack of jackals? Tell us, what's the difference of living your lives naturally in their entirety, or lying in a cold black coffin for 55 years for eternity?” Commissioners, how is it possible for amends to be made for Mr. Davis when no one on this planet can make amends for his dead? Gary and Donald are just as dead today as when they were sent to their graves 55 years ago at the hands of Bruce Davis. Commissioners, I urge you to consider parole for Mr. Davis once you've paroled his victims from their graves, once you've healed and corrected the permanent wounds Bruce Davis and his crimes have dealt to American society. Our families will decide to settle things regarding these murders once our loved ones rise from their graves and live out the rest of their days. As you acknowledge the rare, egregious, aggravated nature of Mr. Davis's crimes as defined in Lawrence, how horrifically his victims suffered, the inmate’s mind-boggling minimization and lack of insight, and the permanent destructive wounds Mr. Davis has dealt to American culture, it is proper and just that you deny Mr. Davis -- you find Mr. Davis unsuitable for release for the longest period of time. I appreciate your patience.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Thank you, Mr. DiMaria. All right. Next, Ms. Martley?

KAY MARTLEY: Correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay, go ahead.

KAY MARTLEY: Okay. Hello, my name is Kay Hinman Martley. I'm the cousin of Gary Hinman, who is held captive, viciously tortured, and brutally murdered by the Manson Family in his Topanga Canyon home over three days in July 1969. Gary was a Buddhist, a talented musician, a music teacher who was working on his doctorate in social work at the time of his murder. He had a good heart and selflessly gave of himself to others. It saddens me to end that his -- it saddens me to no end that his kind, welcoming nature was ruthlessly exploited and taken advantage of by the Manson Family and led to his death. Bruce Davis was a willing participant and co-conspirator in Gary's murder and equally brutal murder of Donald “Shorty” Shea. Davis drove all the murderers to Gary's house where they intended to menace Gary into giving them thousands of dollars of money that Gary didn't have. The same night, Davis went to fetch Charlie Manson at the Spahn Ranch and brought him to Gary's house, also, then, held -- also then, Davis held a gun on Gary while Manson cut his ear in half with a sword and sliced open his cheek. Gary begged for his life over and over and asked to be spared. Instead, Manson and Davis left him to the mercy of Bobby Beausoleil and the Manson girls. They smothered him with a pillow, stabbed him to death, leaving his body to rot in the sweltering summer heat. Davis was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for Gary's murder in 1972. He remains in prison because after 52 years and 33 successive parole hearings, he's still unsuitable for release and poses an unreasonable danger to society. Davis has long minimized his role in the heinous crimes for which he was convicted, the sway that Manson held over him and his willingness to do Manson's bidding. In 2022, on the 50th anniversary of his conviction, Davis was denied parole by the Board due to his lack of meaningful insight into his crimes and his failure to take full responsibility for his action. Following that denial, instead of working on himself, Davis decided to go on a media blitz. He made two appearances on a podcast called The Lighter Side of Serial Killers in February 2023, and again in April of 2023. This podcast advertises itself as the only podcast where serial killers can call the show. In his last parole hearing in February of this year, Davis brazenly lied to the Board when he asked if he called into the podcast denying that he had called the show. In fact, he must have made at least six or seven calls to the podcast, which features Davis talking for almost two hours. In his 2021 parole hearing, Davis denied he was writing a book or had any intention to speak publicly about the Manson Family. Two years later, on The Lighter Side of Serial Killer podcast, he not only announced he was writing a book, but asked his listeners to send him questions to jog his memory about that period during which he participated in the murders of my cousin, Gary Hinman, and Donald Shea. It turns out, The Lighter Side of Serial Killing is not the only podcast Davis appears on that year. In July of 2023, he was also interviewed for a podcast hosted by a standup comedian called Tool Shed Art Club. The episode was titled The Dark Side of Laurel Canyon and promoted as a rare Manson Family conversation. For this podcast, Davis gave a video interview from prison and an excerpt from which was posted to TikTok by the host who had apparently contacted Davis directly through a prison messenger app. Through 2022 and ’23, the California Department of Corrections rolled out a program to provide inmates with tablets to make free calls to -- to a list of contacts, uh, excuse me, free calls to approved list of contacts. At San Quentin, these tablets were first made available for use in May 2023. That means in just a few weeks, Davis had already worked out how to abuse this new privilege to further promote his association with Charlie Manson and the Manson Family. Exploiting the system for his own gain is the very definition of the criminal thinking for which Davis has previously been denied parole. In addition, he shows a continued lack of judgment that Davis agreed to grant an interview to a total stranger who contacted him via the prison messaging app. Davis’s lust for attention and eagerness to promote himself and his association with Charles Manson is, uh, is proof he lacks empathy for the victims or -- of his crimes or any meaningful insight into their impact. In these parole hearings, where his goal is to convince the Board to grant him parole, Davis strikes a very different tone. He represents himself as a devout Christian who has given his life to God. But like serial killers who keep trophies of his crimes, Davis can't stop talking about and reveling in his life with the Manson Family. His appearances on these two podcasts reminiscing about Manson can only be described as giddy. If his appearances on these two podcasts wasn't bad enough, Davis also participated in a feature for a magazine called Alta that represents him as a test case for parole reform and advocates for his release. The article was illustrated by an offensive drawing of Davis posed like Christ on the cross. Two weeks after his last parole hearing in February, when the Commissioners decided his appearance on a serial killer podcast warranted investigation, Davis also provided a quote by email to Fox News for another article that further minimized his crimes. There is even a representative of the media at this hearing, no doubt intending to write another ill-advised article attempting to persuade people Davis is being unfairly treated and should be released. Let me be clearer. Davis is not worthy cause for anyone advocating for parole reform. He was a member of the Manson Family and a participant in one of the most brutal -- brutal and vicious murder sprees in living memory. Davis continues to romanticize his life with Charlie to this day. He has been in prison for 52 years because he deserves to be in prison. He is not fit for release. My family has been grieving for Gary for over half a century. Gary was 35 years old when he died, and never got to fulfill his great promise as a human being family member. At 81 years old, Davis has had the gift of a long life, a gift he denied to Gary by participating in his brutal murder. In 52 years of incarceration, Davis has clearly learned nothing. He's still enthralled to Manson and everything he represents. Davis is ego-centric, has poor judgment, no impulse control, and exhibits the same criminal thinking that landed him in prison in the first place. For this and many other reasons, I request that you deny him parole. Thank you very much.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Thank you, Ms. Martley.

BRUCE DAVIS: Uh, Ms. Garland? I need a --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Yes?

BRUCE DAVIS: I need a bathroom break.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. I -- I understand. We've been going for a long time. We will wrap up with Ms. Tate in about five minutes. Five minutes okay, Mr. Davis?

BRUCE DAVIS: Uh, well, I have this catheter.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Okay.

BRUCE DAVIS: Right? And I don't think it'll wait five minutes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. No, I -- do you need more than five minutes of a break?

BRUCE DAVIS: Oh, no. I -- I think in five minutes I'll be good.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: So, it's 11:51 a.m. Let's come back in about five minutes. We'll get started when you come back on, Mr. Davis. So --

BRUCE DAVIS: I'll be right back.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Sit tight, Ms. Tate. We'll get to you next.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: We're back on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: It is 12:02 p.m., and Ms. Tate, you can go ahead with your statement when you're ready.

DEBRA TATE: Hello. Can you hear me? Am I back on?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: You are back on.

DEBRA TATE: Yay. All right. Hello, my name is Debra Tate. I am a family representative for the Gary Hinman family. I think that Commissioners verily -- very eloquently depicted things that concerned me. Anthony DiMaria and Kay Martley addressed concerns from the past. Concerns, Kay, with the recent concerns about the podcast. Commissioners, uh, asking him why and how, and I'm gonna circle back if you don't mind to that. Over the years, it has been extremely disturbing, in particular with Bruce Davis, because he simply doesn't get it. No matter how many Commissioners or how many, uh, Deputy Commissioners blatantly tell him or imply that he should not participate in certain ways. It was suggested in the last hearing, which we discussed, that he did not show empathy. Not showing empathy is a psychological profile of a narcissistic personality disorder, a sociopathic personality disorder. And even though it has been mentioned for many, many years going into the past when you read transcripts, uh, he -- he hasn't got it. He just hasn't got it, and that is terrifying that he is still willing to break the rules when he -- the very people who can give him his freedom, he refuses to pay attention to. When he took the original phone calls from the -- the, uh, person from the podcast named The Lighter Side of the Serial Killing, which he today addressed and said he never asked what the name of it was. Well, in 31 phone calls, one would think that that could be a point, a question. As a matter of fact, if the shoe was on the other foot and it were me, I would ask a person what their intentions were from the very beginning since my release depended on it. If he truly had God and only wanted to talk about Jesus, these are things that could be ironed out prior, whether it's being recorded or not. It would be a simple fix. I'm not talking about (inaudible) However -- however, I would like to also add that that same podcaster did a book previously that's called Serial Killers in Heaven and Victims in Hell. With very little research on that iPod, he could find out exactly who these people are. The fact that he is willing to take calls or any message (inaudible) attention makes this extremely concerning. His blatant disregard for not only us, family members of victims that he of course has affected, but by the general public, minimizing the effects by the general public, it still affects all of us. The names put fear in our heart today, and I'm talking about thousands and thousands of people just as it did (inaudible). I think -- I feel -- I fear that Mr. Davis does still pose a great danger to society as a whole. I think he's not making -- he's minimizing the effect that he could have on people that perhaps he doesn't know, not us victims, that he's certainly been in the presence of time and time again. It's a much brighter, uh, broader stroke of the brush than that, but most certainly us. And he still hasn't got empathy, uh, for any of it, in my opinion. Listening to Sherry to is the newest member speaking and the newest family member to be exposed to this heinous tragedy and the upset that she experienced over and over again, the more she learns is just so heart wrenching to me. I realize that we have to put all of this in the hands of, uh, the powers that be that are -- are you, the Commissioners, uh, the Governor, the courts, uh, but I think it's very clear to anybody reading the transcript today that there are huge holes in Mr. Davis's rehabilitation. And if you haven't got it in, uh, 55 years, are you ever going to get it? Are we ever gonna be safe? I don't know. I have my doubts. I have serious doubts. Thank you for letting me voice my concerns, and I implore you to come to the right decision and denying Mr. Davis his parole for as long as possible. He needs time to try to process things further, and so far, 10 years has not been enough, 54 years has not been enough, but certainly the last 10, which he claims to be making cross -- progress through. So, I appreciate your time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. Thank you, Ms. Tate. That is the last of our speakers, this -- I believe. Right, Mr. Campion? You're a support person, not a -- not a representative.

CHRIS CAMPION: Uh, yes, that's right. I'm only here to listen.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Okay. All right, thank you. So, uh, Commissioner Brueckner and I will now disconnect. We will come back as soon as we have our decision. Uh, it's been a long day already. I -- we'll try to do that as quickly as we can. I would say we probably will be back around 12:25 p.m. or 12:30 p.m.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: We're back on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Thank you. It's 12:33 p.m., and everyone has returned from the break. Uh, Mr. Davis, this is a denial of parole for you today. Um, I think you honestly gave us very little choice in this today. I'm going to explain our decision and, um, hopefully, it will give you some suggestions or -- of things to work on. Um, our decision is based on your entire record, the transcripts and documents from prior Board proceedings, the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, um, all the documents submitted in support and in opposition to parole, as well as your testimony, the input from your attorney, and the input from the family members. Uh, we are not relying on any confidential information as it was not relevant to our decision today. I'm going to go through each of the factors the Board considers in determining risk, and I will explain whether we find them to be aggravating, mitigating, or neutral. The first one we look at is criminal and parole history. Uh, we find this to be a neutral factor. Uh, prior to your involvement with the Manson Family, you did not have a criminal record, but you did have an arrest, uh, in ’69 for delinquency of a minor, vehicle theft, um, stolen property. Uh, you also did have a federal, um, firearm offense. Overall, it didn't impact our decision, so that's why it's a neutral factor. Uh, looking at self-control, obviously this was an aggravated factor. Um, clearly at the time of these commitment offenses, you lacked selfcontrol. You were part of the mor -- murder and torture of Mr. Hinman. I involved also in murdering Mr. Shea, uh, and led -- which led to his murder. You were associating with negative peers. You were actually an influential member of the cult of, uh, the Manson Family, uh, killing people for financial gain and with the intention of creating a race war. Um, you also had as a -- a leadership role really in -- in that, um, that cult, which led to an extremely violent, um, history, and a period of history. Uh, so clearly, you did lack self-control around that time. Now, those two things are historical or static. You know, they don't change. We know that those crime -- the crime and -- and your prior history is -- happened decades ago. Um, so we know that after a long period of positive rehabilitation, those factors may no longer demonstrate current dangerousness. Um, that's where we look for the change factor. First, we look at your programming, and this is reflecting the efforts that you make to address the causative factors of your crime. We do acknowledge you've taken a lot of programming over the years. You've delved into that. You've upgraded yourself educationally. Uh, you've taken a lot of programmings -- programming that addresses that. Uh, so, we find this to be mitigating. As far as looking at the objective side of your programming efforts, they're mitigating. They're really good. Um, we do recommend that you take some programming on Criminal Thinking and Denial Management. I think that's kind of where you're getting tripped up is maybe just the mindset part of things that you need to continue to work on. Institutional behavior we find to be mitigating, as well. You've been discipline free for over four decades. You've gone above and beyond in helping and mentoring others. Um, Release Plans, we find needs to be mitigating. You -- you really don't have solid plans beyond transitional housing. You do have people that you can reach out to for support, but I would really recommend that you have something a little more solid. Uh, we'd also like to see you really think about the risk factors that you have out there. Um, you know, what is it that could trip you up if you're released into society and -- and come up with some Relapse Plans that, you know, relapse is not just addressing substances. Relapse is how do you not get back into criminal thinking and -- and criminal conduct or become a danger to the public. So, think about that. Write some Relapse Plans to address those risk factors. Uh, the final factor that we look at is really assessing offender change. You know, are those risk factors that were present around the time of these crimes, are they still present? And unfortunately, despite programming, we find that they are. Um, you do continue to express views and engage in behaviors that demonstrate the lack of change. Um, you know, you had a hearing not that long ago now. It's been about two years. Uh, that's sort of the starting point for us looking for change. Um, we -- there -- that was -- the Panel denied parole at that time because of the lack of empathy, uh, the minimization, uh, the lack of selfawareness. Um, and those are all things that you, you know, had in your nature at the time of these crimes as well. Um, we -- we really tried to give you a roadmap about what to think about, what to work on, um, and we don't see very much change. In fact, sometimes in -- in some ways I see a little bit of backtracking here. Um, the CRA is another starting point. I want to start with some of the things that the doctor mentioned, and we recognize it was a low risk rating, but the -- the salient risk factors the doctor pointed out in that Comprehensive Risk Assessment are exactly what we're talking about. Um, the doctor said, um, I apologize. Let me just -- okay. It says, “Mr. Davis is likely to encounter persistent stressors in the community, not only connected with his acclimation into society after a lengthy prison term, but also -- but also with overcoming the challenges associated with his connection with a notorious group and his life crimes. This will -- will require his ongoing attention to remain cognizant of potential destabilizers or scenarios where he is at increased risk for pursuing more unhealthy avenues for meeting his internal needs. This is particularly relevant if he were to connect with others who promote the attitudes and beliefs associated with his past associations and lifestyles.” The doctor also says that you present with challenges associated with underdeveloped empathy and the need for approval or admiration. Um, the doctor recommends, uh, “Mr. Davis should remain cognizant of the people and the organizations he connects with in order to maintain distance from groups promoting and glorifying his past associations and behaviors. Mr. Davis should continue to reflect on his underlying personality traits that might interfere with healthy goals and relationships, particularly his need for admiration and attention. He should continue to explore ways in which he can meet such needs through more productive me -- methods.” So, these are very consistent with what the last Panel talked about. Um, this shows that -- that you have to be aware of these things. Unfortunately, you've kind of gone the other directions of these recommendations from the -- the doctor. Um, as I mentioned, one of the issues at -- at the last Panel for the last Panel was the lack of selfawareness. Um, you know, why were you vulnerable to getting involved with such a dangerous cult? Um, you have to understand the impact on others so that you don't affect the, you know, you don't impact others in a negative way. Um, the Panel last time even talked about you seeming to be a bit naive about how your actions could affect, uh, the family members or the -- or society. You even said, as I recall, you know, “I would think the family would be good with me going out and -- and speaking of my redemption.” And -- and that's incredibly naive. It doesn't -- it doesn't -- it shows you don't understand the impact on them, um, and that you don't understand that talking about your crimes could have an effect on society at large. So, unfortunately, we're still seeing that today. Um, the naivete about Manson, you know, you didn't -- you thought you were getting into girls and drugs, uh, and you got involved with, uh, an incredibly, uh, dangerous cult. Right? Um, you thought you were going into these podcasts to talk about your redemption and about Jesus, and that's not what that podcast was about. So, there's something missing still in you, understanding your own vulnerability to stepping into areas that -- that you don't seem to understand. Um, another thing that -- that demonstrates the lack of self-awareness is something you said both in your last hearing and in your closing statement today. Um, in the last hearing when I asked you what it was, you know, why were you still in prison, you basically blamed the Governor and politics. And I encourage you to think about, you know, what is it about you, right? In your closing today, you focused a lot on the fact that the Panel has pressures or, you know, suggesting similar like politics or something like that, that go into this. It's not about that. We're trying to see if you would be a risk to the public, if you would be -- if, you know, all of these things that were present when you were involved with this, if they're gone, if they're going to be -- if you're going to be safe. Not just safe from, you know, killing people, but safe in society, and that's what our goal is. And again, I think we gave you a roadmap at your last hearing, and you've -- you've gone well off that path. Um, so, it's not about the Panel, it's not about the Governor, it's about you. That's what we're here for. So, I -- to me, that definitely shows also a lack of self-awareness and a lack of change. Um, but frankly, I'd say, uh, speaking, I'm sure Commissioner Brueckner will speak for himself, but to me, the biggest issue today is your criminal thinking and your dishonesty. Um, it -- that was obviously an issue at the time of the crime, as well. Um, you know, you claimed in January that you spoke to the podcaster no more than two times, and that you didn't know how big the audience was, and the investigation revealed that something far different than that. Uh, you spoke to the podcaster 31 times, uh, that you asked about the audience, and you were told that he had about 60,000 followers. Um, it means that you cared how many people were in your audience, or his audience. Um, you said that the reason you got involved was you wanted to show listeners your path to Jesus and how you've changed. As you acknowledged today after reading the transcripts of the podcast, that's not what the podcast was about. I mean, you talked about, you know, drugs, sex, and rock and roll. You talked about infotainment. You talked about TMZ and, uh, tabloid tv. You’re talking about glorifying this crime and the Manson Family and providing the public with information about that. And as Mr. DiMaria said, there have been crimes based on the Manson Family long after, uh, those crimes were committed. This is notorious, and -- and that -- you -- you can't be naive to the fact that people want to exploit that. Um, so, you say you were in there for talking about Jesus. That is not what those two hours of the podcast say. Now, that could be because the podcaster, you know, edited out some things but those are your words. It's your voice on that podcast. Um, and so, the criminal thinking part is concerning because at the beginning of the hearing today, we asked you, you know, um, why did you tell us there were only two conversations, and you went into starting to try to explain yourself, and you thought it was only two times you were recorded, and then you had another couple of things. And then finally, Commissioner Brueckner just said it again, and you said, “I was minimizing. It was wrong.” So, you even tried to get away with something in the hearing today. That's not a sign of change. That's a sign of you resorting to what you know, and you admitted later you lied because you were afraid of the consequences in January. You were afraid of the consequences because you did know that participating in this was contrary what -- to what the Panel had told you in your last hearing, and you did know that this was potentially a problem, and you lied about it. That's not a sign of change. That's a sign of you’re stuck in -- in something that could be a potential danger if you, um, if you are released. So, um, we heard today that there perhaps are other podcasts and other interviews that you've participated in. Um, obviously, you have a right to do that, I -- I think. I'm not even sure if you do. I -- I always thought that CDCR had to approve any kind of media contact. Um, but even assuming you don't need that approval, it still is concerning us that you lack self-awareness about what it is that, you know, would be safe or not in society. So, um, those are -- those are the main reasons for our denial today. As I mentioned, we did consider the low CRA. Um, we just find that the exact risk factors that the doctor did mention were potential concerns regarding your risk of, uh, violence or risk to the public, that they are still, uh, current in our minds. We did also consider the elderly parole factors, um, and obviously, we know these are mitigating. You're at an age where the risk of recidivism of violence is certainly lessened, and you've served a very long period of time. Um, but we find that at this point, even giving special consideration to those factors, it doesn't outweigh our concerns about the -- the lack of self-awareness and the -- and the criminal thinking and the -- the lack of insight, um, and minimization. So, with that, uh, let me turn it over. Well, let me wrap it up by saying, what we find today, Mr. Davis, is that you do continue to struggle with some of the same risk factors that were present at the time of these life crimes and you -- you present a risk of public -- risk of danger to the public. Commissioner?

ATTORNEY HART: Uh, Commissioner, I apologize for interrupting, but could I just ask for clarification? Are you indicating that, uh, in order to be found suitable for parole that Mr. Davis need to not participate in podcasts or any other interviews with the public?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: I am not. I am not. And I -- I would only say regarding that, that he would need to have whatever approval CDCR requires of that, and I am not familiar with that. And I appreciate you asking that, Ms. Hart. That -- that isn't the issue. The issue is the ongoing criminal thinking, the lack of understanding, um, of -- of what, you know, why he did what he did, why he continues to be vulnerable to doing things without, um, understanding the potential impact.

ATTORNEY HART: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: All right. Uh, Commissioner, anything to add?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUECKNER: Um, well, I -- it's, uh, I was gonna make a few comments. Uh, my -- my first comment, I -- I was that to emphasize that, um, you know, while there may be public safety concerns about, um, you know, what -- what you say, the -- the crux -- the decision is not about that. This decision is about, uh, the, you know, criminal thinking, uh, minimization, and -- and, um, and untruthfulness. Um, that is of a major concern. Um, and, you know, given the, um, you know, heinous, atrocious, and cruel nature of the crime, uh, you know, ongoing criminal thinking and minimization and untruthfulness is some evidence of unsuitability, and it does aggravate your risk of danger, um, to the, uh, public safety. Um, but again, while these hearings may have begun with the podcast, that -- that's not where we are, and that's not where, um, it -- it -- it -- it ended up. And one, um, um, you know, the -- I -- I think we agree that the podcast issue did come out of the blue. Um, but again, it could have been anything. I -- I -- I will say that what I saw was that you're -- you're in a tough -- you -- you know, you find yourself in a tough spot, um, you know, uh, a bit of stress. Um, you know, what -- what you say may have a -- a negative impact on your -- or -- or some type of impact, positive, maybe a negative impact on your -- on your freedom. And so, you know, how do you choose to deal with that? Do you regress to old habits, criminal thinking, minimization, or untruthfulness? Or do you rely upon your re -- your relapse prevention, your risk management strategy, and your coping skills that we hope that you've learned through, um, the programming that you've done and -- and the self-help that, um, you have done? And, um, you know, those -- those coping skills and relapse prevention skills and -- and what you've learned, we -- we -- we would hope that, um, your response in that situation would be, “I'm gonna be totally honest and open and truthful, and whatever happens from there happens.” What if your parole officer asks you a tough question in the community? What if your parole officer asks, “Have you been doing drugs,” whatever? Are you going to regress to old habits, or are you going to, um, utilize and rely upon those, you know, positive coping skills that would -- and make you successful, that would help you successfully reintegrate into the community? I'm -- I'm not here to tell you who you should talk to and -- and what you should say, um, not at all. I -- I don't -- I -- that's not our job. But if you do, have some agency. Have some agency. You should know what the -- the podcast is about. Um, you should know what the -- the target and the audience of the podcast is. Um, and -- and -- and that's where our concerns come from. Um, my last, uh, comment just would be, um, uh, I would agree with the Commissioner. Uh, continue to develop your, uh, your risk management plan, your Parole Plan, and your, um, Relapse Prevention Plans. One concern I kind of had today is, you know, what are you going to do out in the community? Because you talked about transitional housing, and I'm -- I'm sure you will be in - - in transitional housing, but after that, I kind of got the feeling it's like, “Well, I'll just kind of see where I'm gonna go from there.” And you talked about, you know, being contacted by people and you are, you know, continuously, uh, contacted by people. You talked about the person that offered you, you know, $10,000. And, you know, who -- who are these people? Who are these people? Because that -- that could very well, uh, impact, again, your -- whether or not you're able to successfully, uh, reintegrate in -- into the -- into the community and -- and stay -- and stay successful out there. Um, so, maybe, um, spend some time focusing, um, on -- on your -- the long term, you know, what -- what you would do if you are gonna live with someone, if you are gonna rely on someone. You know, who -- who are those people? How long have you known them? What are their intentions? Um, you know, what's their background? Um, that struck me as something that I, um, I think might be helpful for you to work on. So, that's all I have. I concur in the decision. Thank you, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GARLAND: Thank you. All right. This is a three-year denial. And, um, the reason for that is -- is primarily the elderly parole factors. And, Mr. Davis, you've done a lot in your time in prison, um, and -- and so, you are entitled to lower denial period. Um, again, I hope you see this as a roadmap, um, but it's -- it's up to you. This is about you. It's not about anything else at this point. So, um, you will be considered for, uh, an Administrative Review in about a year from now. The Panel -- or the -- the Board may move that up, uh, to 18 months, uh, just like they did last time. So, I know the family, uh, I just want the family to be aware of that as a possibility, and that's what our regulations and -- and laws require. So, um, with that, I definitely want to thank everybody for their patience and their participation today. And, um, it is 12:55 p.m., and this hearing is adjourned.