• Charles Manson • 2012

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. We're on the record. This is a Subsequent number 11 Parole Consideration Hearing for Mr. Charles Manson, B-33920. Today's date is 4/11/2011, I mean, 2012, excuse me. The time is approximately 9:10 in the morning. We're located at Corcoran State Prison. Mr. Manson was received in CDCR on 12/13/1971 from Los Angeles County. Controlling offense of seven counts of Murder First, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, PC 187, and the case number is A253556. There's also a multiple crime, and that is case number A267861, and that's also a Murder First, one count. This hearing is being recorded. For the purpose of voice identification, each of us are required to state our first and last name, spelling our last name. And I note --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Two counts on the second case.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Excuse me, two counts of murder on that second case. And I do notice that I do not have Mr. Manson here with me today. Is that correct, officer?

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MARIN: Yes, that's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So before I ask you some questions, let me swear you in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MARIN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. And your name?

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MARIN: L.T. -- Correctional Officer L.T. Marin, M-A-R-I-N.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Did we give Mr. Manson an opportunity to attend today's hearing?

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MARIN: Yes. I called the Segregation Unit this morning and talked to Officer Contreras, and he informed Manson that he had a lifer hearing today, and Manson refused.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. Does anybody have any questions for this officer before I let her go?

ATTORNEY LEWIS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No. Thank you very much. Thanks for your testimony. So we do not have your client here today, Mr. Lewis.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: That's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. All right. So let's go around the room and introduce ourselves. My name is John Peck, P-E-C-K. I'm the Presiding Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER ROBLES: And my name is Gilbert Robles, R-O-B-L-E-S, Commissioner.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: DeJon Lewis, L-E-W-I-S, attorney for Mr. Manson.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Patrick Sequeira, S-E-Q-U-E-I-R-A, Deputy District Attorney, County of Los Angeles.

MS. KIMBRELL: Mary Kimbrell, K-I-M-B-R-E-L-L, Litigation Coordinator for California State Prison, Corcoran.

MS. CISNEROS: Teresa Cisneros, Public Information Officer, C-I-S-N-E-R-O-S.

MS. TATE: Debra Tate, next-of-kin for Sharon Tate, victim. D-E-B-R-A T-A-T-E.

MS. CONE: Tracie Cone. I'm here for the Associated Press.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And how do you spell your last name for the transcriber?

MS. CONE: C-O-N-E.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MS. CONE: Tracie is T-R-A-C-I-E C-O-N-E.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MR. KING: Michael King, K-I-N-G, Correctional Counselor.

MS. PATTERSON: Michelle Patterson, Correctional Case Records Supervisor, P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Are we getting that?

COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Just speak up a little louder.

MS. HULBERT: Okay. Estella Hulbert, H-U-L-B-E-R-T, Acting Correctional Case Records Manager.

MR. MARTINEZ: Michael Martinez, CNN, M-A-R-T-I-N-E-Z.

COMMISSIONER ROBLES: I'm not getting that at all.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Can you step up to the mic?

MR. MARTINEZ: Michael Martinez, CNN, M-A-R-T-I-N-E-Z, Michael, traditional spelling.

MS. BUTLER: Stacey Butler, S-T-A-C-E-Y B-U-T-L-E-R, CBS-2 and KCAL-9 in Los Angeles.

MR. LARSON: Thomas Larson, Senior Photographer, CNN, Los Angeles.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Larson. How do you --

MR. LARSON: L-A-R-S-O-N.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MR. STEIN: Carl Stein, KCS, KCAL TV, LA.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And Stein is --

MR. STEIN: S-T-E-I-N.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MR. STEIN: S-T-E-I-N.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. I think we got everybody. All right. Mr. Lewis, I noticed that your client has CCCMS. Is that correct?

ATTORNEY LEWIS: It is correct. Well, not has CCCMS. He is in the CCCMS program.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's right. He's in the CCCMS. Thank you. I'm only noting that because of his 1073, indicates that he does have some disabilities. And Mr. Manson, I'm speaking to you through the record now. We have reviewed your Central File. We've reviewed your prior transcripts, and nothing that happens here today is going to change the court findings. We're not here to retry your case. We're going to accept as true the findings of the court. We're here for the sole purpose of determining your suitability for parole. Did you ever have a chance to meet with your client?

ATTORNEY LEWIS: No, I did not. I was here roughly 30 days ago and tried to interview him, and he would not come out of his cell at that time as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. So the format we're going to use today in this hearing is I'm going to discuss pre-conviction factors. My partner is going to talk about post-conviction factors, after he's been in prison, how he's been doing while he's been in prison. I'm then going to talk about any parole plans he may have. I'm then going to go to closing. I think there's no other way to handle it but that. So Mr. Sequeira will then have an opportunity to give us a close. Mr. Lewis, you'll have an opportunity to give us a close. And any family members that would like to make a statement can make a statement at that time. We'll then go into deliberations. Okay. I note that Mr. Manson signed his BPH 1002 Form, which talks about his rights, on 10/21/2011 with his counselor, T. Wyman. And I have the form right here indicating that he signed it. Both of you have looked at the Exhibit 1, I assume?

ATTORNEY LEWIS: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Signed the Exhibit 1 indicating you have all the documents.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: I have all documents. Thank you.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And I have received the documents as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Thank you. Do you have any additional documents to submit?

ATTORNEY LEWIS: None other than what was submitted to me in late mail. That's it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Do you have any preliminary objections?

ATTORNEY LEWIS: I do. Thank you. In 2008, the voters of the State of California enacted Marsy's Law, which amended California Penal Code Section 3041.5 and served to provide longer deferral periods between parole hearings and to modify the standards and considerations for determining which of the longer deferral periods would be selected by the Board of Parole Hearings Panel. The ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution seeks to bar the application of laws that criminalize conduct not criminal when done or increase punishment for a crime above the punishment the law specified at the time the crime was committed. Therefore, because we are of the belief (inaudible) that Marsy's Law is an ex post facto law when applied to my client, we hereby object to any usage of Marsy's Law as it pertains to these proceedings, because to do so would violate and offend the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution and the holding handed down in In Re Vicks, 195 Cal.App.4th, 475. Marsy's Law was enacted after the commission of my client's life crime, years after. Its usage serves to unlawfully extend those deferral periods my client enjoyed before Marsy's Law was enacted. As such, Marsy's Law threatens to increase my client's punishment for his life crime over and above the punishment the law specified at the time the crime was committed and thus is unlawful. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. I'm going to overrule. Marsy's Law is current California law.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: So noted.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And if there is a denial today, we are going to be using the denial lengths of Marsy's Law, which means we start off at 15 years, and based on his good behavior, we'll move it to three. So it's 15, ten, seven, five and three.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: Thank you, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And Mr. Manson, just for the record, if you do get a denial today, you do have an opportunity to file a 1045 Form which talks about you can do a Petition to Advance if you do some good things while you're incarcerated. You can move your hearing -- you can do a Petition to Advance to move your hearing up, not to say that we've decided, but I just want to make sure that you understand your rights. Okay. I'm going to incorporate by reference the facts of the commitment offense. I think I'll use -- I didn't see an Appellate Decision.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Not in the Board packet. I do have a copy of the Appellate Decision.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I did not have a copy in the Board packet. So I'm just going to use the probation officer's report as far as the commitment offense facts, and Mr. Manson isn't here with us today, but he also chose not to speak to the psychologist or the psychiatrist in the psych evaluation, so I think I'll just use his statements that he made in the past as far as how we look at his statement today. And we're also going to incorporate by reference his prior criminality by his CI&I rap sheet that's in the Central File. Okay. So just a quick summary of the crime. Shortly before midnight on August 8th, 1968 (sic), Mr. Manson informed his crime partners -- and I'm reading from the April 9th Board packet or Board Report -- informed his crime partners that it is, now was the night for Helter Skelter. Crime partners were directed to accompany Charles Tex Watson in order to carry out Mr. Manson's orders. Crime partners were Linda Kasabian, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel. Watson drove to 10050 Cielo Drive. The vehicle containing the victim, Steven Parent, approached the gate. Watson stopped him at gunpoint and fatally shot him. All the crime partners then proceeded to the house and gained entrance except Linda Kasabian, who stood as a lookout. Once inside, they murdered Abigail Ann Folger, inflicting 28 multiple stab wounds to her body. I'm sorry -- how do you pronounce that?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Wojciech. Wojciech.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. And that's spelled W-O-J-I-C-I-E-C-H (sic) Frykowski was killed by a gunshot wound to his back and multiple forced trauma of a blunt nature to his head. Sharon Tate Polanski, excuse me, who was eight months pregnant, was killed by multiple stab wounds. Jay Sebring was killed by multiple stab wounds. On August 10th, 1969, Mr. Manson drove his crime partners to a location of a residence of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Mr. Manson entered the LaBianca residence alone and at gunpoint tied up the victims. He impressed with them that they would not be harmed and that a robbery was taking place. He then returned to the vehicle containing his crime partners and directed them to enter the residence and kill the occupants. Crime partners, Charles Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten entered the residence. Mr. Manson drove away from the scene. The crime partners killed Leno LaBianca by inflicting stab wounds to his neck and abdomen and carved the word "war" on his stomach. Rosemary LaBianca was killed by multiple stab wounds to the neck and trunk. At both murder scenes, the crime partners used blood of the victims to write words on the wall. He also had another crime, murder first, and the victim was Gary Hinman, H- I-N-M-A-N. Am I pronouncing that right?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Hinman.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Hinman. Thank you. On July 26, 1969, Mr. Manson, along with his crime partners, Beausoleil, Atkins, Grogan and Davis, tortured Mr. Hinman by severing a part of his right ear and causing a laceration to the left side of his face. Mr. Manson wanted Hinman to sign over his property. And on July 27, 1968 (sic) Hinman was killed by a stab wound to the heart, which was inflicted by Beausoleil. As far as pre-conviction factors, he was placed in Gibault School for Boys in Terra Haute, Indiana in 1948 for burglarizing a grocery store. Mr. Manson went absent without leave from the school and was placed in the Indiana State Reformatory in Plainfield, Indiana. February 1951, Mr. Manson again went AWOL with two other boys. They subsequently stole an automobile and drove to Beaver, Utah where they were arrested. March 9th, 1951, Mr. Manson was convicted of violation of the Dyer Act and was sentenced to the National Training School for Boys in Washington, D.C. Mr. Manson paroled on May 8th, 1954. As far as his adult convictions and arrests, he had an arrest September 15th, 1955 by the Los Angeles PD for grand theft auto, five years probation. January 11th, 1956, probation violation for the Dyer Act, U.S. Marshal on March 3rd, 1956. Mr. Manson was sentenced to three years federal prison in Los Angeles. May 24th, 1957, federal prison, Los Angeles, attempted escape, five years probation. May 1st through 4th, 1959, Los Angeles probation violation, ten years suspended, five years probation. June 21st, 1960, Los Angeles probation violation, ten years federal prison, McNeil Island, Washington. July 28th, 1967, in Ukiah, Sheriff's Office in Ukiah, interfering with an officer, three years probation. April 21st, 1968, Sheriff's Office, Ventura, reproducing or possession of a facsimile of a driver's license, ten dollar fine. And on December 9th, 1969, in Los Angeles, 187 PC, murder, seven counts. Sentenced to death, later reduced to life. As far as the personal factors, Mr. Manson was born November 11, 1934 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Mr. Manson was born out of wedlock to Kathleen Maddox and has never seen his natural father. Shortly after his birth, his mother was sentenced to prison for assault and robbery. For a short while, Mr. Manson lived with his maternal grandparents and an aunt in West Virginia. Mr. Manson rejoined his mother in Indiana upon her release from prison. Mr. Manson later resided in various foster homes until he was made a ward of the court in 1947 and placed in the Gibault School for Boys in Indiana. If I'm not pronouncing that right, for the transcriber, it's G-I-B-A-U-L-T. The rest of his young life was spent in various reformatories and boys schools in Pennsylvania and Indiana. He dropped out of school at the age of nine in the third grade. He married Rosalie Willis in 1954. The marriage ended in divorce in 1956. One son, Charles, Junior, resulted from the marriage, but Mr. Manson has not seen his son since the divorce. Mr. Manson has no work skills, no military service, and a residential pattern prior to current incarceration was unstable. He admitted to using LSD, mescaline, amphetamines, barbiturates, but denied the use of alcohol. Mr. Lewis, is there anything I missed as far as pre-conviction?

ATTORNEY LEWIS: No. I don't think so. You're very thorough.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Mr. Robles.

COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Thank you. What I'm going to do right now is I'm going to go into the post-conviction factors starting from the May 23rd, 2007 suitability hearing, in which there was a five-year denial at that time. As said, this is the eleventh parole suitability hearing. Mr. Manson has a classification score of 585. Current status is CCCMS. He was transferred to Corcoran on February 5th, 1996, and he's been here since. Review of his work history, there was work history noted from December 22nd, 2010 until December 21st, 2011. He was a PM building porter. From August -- excuse me -- from September 15th, 2008 until October 4th, 2011, he was in the yard crew. It's noted in 10 -- on October 4th, 2011, he was removed from the yard crew due to disciplinary actions, which I'll get into shortly. No indication of self-help. No indication of educational upgrades during this period. No indications of any vocational training. Relative to the disciplinaries, we do note that he has received four 115s since his last parole suitability hearing, the latest being on October 4th, 2011 for possession of an inmate-manufactured weapon. He did receive a 15-month SHU term for that. That's what removed him off the yard crew. No indication of any 128s. Relative to the psychological evaluation, inmate was or attempted to be interviewed November 2nd, 2011. During that time, when attempting to do a clinical assessment or a forensic assessment, it was stated by the psychologist, Joe Reed, R-E-E-D, that inmate repeatedly interrupted. He also indicated, "You are not Dr. Madrid. You are not a psychiatrist. You are not who you are supposed to be. I was told I was supposed to be interviewed by Dr. Madrid." When told that this interview is a structured clinical interview presented in a similar manner to all inmates interviewed, he said, "I am special. I am not like the average inmate. I have put five people in the grave. I have been in prison most of my life. I am a very dangerous man." Further in the psychological assessment, he stated, "I don't care about the Board's opinion. I don't care about your opinion." We did go into the family background. The Commissioner did go into the family background and the childhood/adolescent period and the relationship history. The education section indicates that he has limited participation in public schools, having completed the third grade after leaving school at age nine. It indicates that he has a significant history of manipulative and controlling behaviors over others. For example, his significant manipulative behavior and authoritarian control over "family members" in the community setting was documented. In the mental health history, it indicates that Mr. Manson has received a wide range of diagnoses for major mental illness over the years, ranging from schizophrenia, paranoid delusional disorder, and also was characterized or opined that he had anti-social personality disorder and schizotypal personality disorder. Substance abuse history, as we went into earlier, the record indicates a significant substance abuse history, primarily LSD, marijuana, mescaline, amphetamine, and barbiturates. And it's noted that inmate has a significant substance abuse history. However, the record does not indicate the inmate was intoxicated around the time of the commitment offense were completed. It's noted that he does have a lack of participation in any substance abuse programming and also has received five disciplinaries related to controlled substances while in prison. And the current mental status indicates that cognitive and adaptive functional abilities currently appear normal during the evaluation. The diagnostic impressions indicate Axis I, poly-substance dependence without physiological dependence in a controlled environment. Axis II, anti-social personality disorders with psychopathic traits, rule out schizotypal features. And Axis III is defer to medical personnel. He went into the education history. When attempting to assess remorse and insight during the clinical interview, the inmate did state twice, "I put five people in the grave" and also stated "I'm a very dangerous man." Clinically, while limited, this indicates some degree of improved insight into his violent and anti-social behavior considering his previous pattern of denial of wrongdoing. His institutional programming, as stated, he has completed some institutional jobs. His employment history is very limited, and he has not yet obtained his GED and not participated in any self-help programs for at least the last 11 years. There was an attempt to do the analysis for potential risk using the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory, the Psychopathy Checklist Revised and the Historical Clinical Risk Management tool. Those tools were not used, as the evaluator could only obtain a limited amount of information, and they could not be scored. Other considerations indicate the inmate has received 14 CDC 115 disciplinaries for the last six years, and five of them have been, have invoked violent behavior. There was a Static-99. It's an instrument to assess sexual and non-sexual violent recidivism among sex offenders. Using that tool, Mr. Manson obtained a total score on the Static-99 Revised of low moderate range relative to other sex offenders. It's just, and it's also noted for the, during the summary for the violent risk analysis, that he has programmed in a limited fashion. He has not yet obtained a GED. He has limited job and vocational history. Once again, documents reflect no self-help programs for at least the last 11 years, and the -- concerning institutional disciplinaries, the record reflects that he has received 108 CDC 115 disciplinaries from 1971 to 2000. And the October 2000 is the possession of the inmate-manufactured weapon. In the summary of conclusion indicates that Mr. Manson clinically presents a high risk of violence in the community compared to other male offenders. Mr. Lewis, do you have anything to add to this?

ATTORNEY LEWIS: No.

COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Okay. So I'll turn it back to Commissioner Peck.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Yeah. I didn't see, I don't see, he didn't talk about any kind of parole plans, so I don't know how we're going to discuss parole plans.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: There's a letter in the file.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, but -- I know. I saw that letter. That support letter I'll get to in a minute.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But Mr. Manson didn't indicate that this is where he wanted to go.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: No. There is just a letter in the file that says that he can live with him. I can't remember the gentleman's name, but --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'll just do that now. There's a letter -- bear with me. There is a letter by an individual named John E. Ashcraft that says he's Mr. Manson's best friend and there's -- I really don't know if this is even a legitimate letter or not a legitimate letter. But it basically says that he says that Mr. Manson told him that he, that once he did not want to get out on parole, but now he wants to. And if he can, then he wants to live -- then Mr. Ashcraft is offering residence in Fullerton. But so that, frankly, is the only support letter that I have, unless you have, do you have any other support letters?

ATTORNEY LEWIS: I have nothing other than what we have in the file.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, there's --

ATTORNEY LEWIS: I will say, though, Mr. Manson is 77 years old. He doesn't need to have a job at this time. He can draw Social Security at this point if he was to get a parole date, and him living with Mr. Ashcraft would cover those parole plans, I think. I'm not going to say they're viable, because we haven't or the Board hasn't backed that letter up by, you know, investigating Mr. Ashcraft and what not, but it seems to me if he is genuine in offering him a place to live that that would be an adequate parole plan for a gentleman who is 77 years old.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: If only Mr. Manson would have said that he wanted to live with him. That probably would have been helpful.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: Yes, I suppose.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: There is no indication that's where he wants to go, so --

ATTORNEY LEWIS: That's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And he's not here for me to, for us to ask to find out where he would like to go.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: That's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So I'm just going to say that he still, even though there's an offer, that he really doesn't have any kind of viable parole plans.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: Without him backing it up.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah. Exactly. There are multiple letters that oppose his parole. I'm not going to read every letter on the record, but I'm just going to say that there are a significant amount of letters if you want to bring that up during your part, Mr. Sequeira, you can, but I would say there's probably, I don't know, 30, 40 opposition letters.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Probably closer to 50.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Fifty. I think 50 probably would be more accurate. All right. I do have an opposition letter from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. Thank you. Or I'm sorry.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Police Department.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: The Los Angeles Police Department that says, talks about the life crime and talks about some specific situations like Mr. Manson's ability to brainwash and persuade others to carry out murderous instincts makes his release a threat to the stability and safety of an already fearful community. It's the opinion of the Los Angeles Police Department that the release of Mr. Manson will create a considerable risk to the community and that his freedom is without any reservation contrary to the interest of modern society. And it's signed by, for Charlie Beck, the Chief of Police, but it's signed by a Yana -- I'm really terrible with names, so I will just spell it, H- O-R-V-A-T-I-C-H, who is the Lieutenant, the Acting Commanding Officer of the Robbery/Homicide Division of the Los Angeles Police Department. I don't know any other questions you can ask, you can answer, Mr. Lewis, so --

ATTORNEY LEWIS: I never met the man, so I can't answer any questions as to, you know, what his thoughts and perceptions --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah. I would like to, if Mr. Manson was here today, I'd like to find out if he has any insight into his life crime. I'd like to find out, you know, why he signs his name with a swastika in it. I would like to find out, there's lots of questions that I would have for him.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: I have to admit, though, Commissioner, if he did participate in these proceedings today, I wouldn't have him answer these types of questions. He wouldn't speak on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I know.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: Other than his parole plans, I would definitely have him do that, but as far as the life crime, and you know, the circumstances surrounding it, we wouldn't have even gone there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, as you know, I -- it's not that I -- it's not that -- we're not here to retry the case.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: No. I understand that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right. But I do want to know if he has any kind of understanding or insight into his life crime. Why was he involved in this? I think it's imperative and extremely important for this, for a Panel to understand if he at least understands what got him into this situation in the first place and what got him into his prior criminality.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: I understand.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. All right. And with that, I think I'll go to Mr. Sequeira.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office remains vigorously opposed to the parole for inmate Charles Manson. Charles Manson was the mastermind and leader of a quasi-religious criminal organization that believed that there was an impending race war that was to occur in Los Angeles in 1969. And this was a race war that they believed would be, would erupt between the blacks and the whites. Manson and his followers believed that this race war and this unrest was predicted through the songs of The Beatles, in particular, the White Album. In preparation for this impending race war that Manson and his followers believed were to occur, Manson and his followers began training to incite this race war, and the training was along the lines of a criminal organization. They planned these missions at night where they would go out and dress in dark clothing and they used to sneak up on unsuspecting victims in houses. They would rattle the windows. They would leave something hanging just to strike terror into ordinary citizens who were selected at random. This eventually escalated. Not only was there this training for these creepy-crawly missions, but there was also training in how to use knives, how to use weapons, and the belief was that once the race war broke out, Manson and his family and followers would retreat into the desert and they would hide and they would wait until the race war ended. And at the conclusion of the race war, they believed that the blacks would win the race war between the whites, but that the blacks were inexperienced and unable to govern, and so when Charles Manson and his followers would return from the desert, they would be the leaders and essentially rule the world. This was, of course, extremely misguided, but back in 1969, there was quite a bit of social and racial unrest in the country, and so it wasn't quite as far-fetched at that time. Needless to say, that in order to stimulate this race war, Manson and his crime partners engaged in a series of murders that were designed in part to ignite this race war. The murders were brutal. They were horrible. The type of brutality exhibited in each of these murders is horrifying, starting first of all with a Manson associate, someone who actually knew the family, Gary Hinman, was tortured over a three-day period of time in his own residence. The purpose for holding Mr. Hinman imprisoned in his own house and torturing him was that the family believed that Mr. Hinman was about to gain an inheritance, and the family needed that money to finance their criminal activities, and of course, their seclusion in the desert. So Hinman was tortured over a period of time. His ear was severed by Charles Manson to the point where it was almost completely severed, and a couple of the girls, Susan Atkins and Mary Brunner, sewed his ear back with dental floss. At the conclusion of the three-day period, they realized that Mr. Hinman really didn't have an inheritance. They did manage to have him sign over the pink slips for two of the automobiles he was owned, that he owned, and then Bobby Beausoleil stabbed him to death. At the residence of Mr. Hinman, there was writing in Mr. Hinman's blood, and the writing in his blood meant, said "political piggy," and also, there was a palm print in blood in the residence as well. The palm print was meant to represent the Black Panthers. Essentially, the crime scene was staged to blame the murder of Gary Hinman on the Black Panthers. This occurred a couple of weeks prior to the Tate-LaBianca murders. And of course, the brutality of the Tate-LaBianca murders has been well- documented, and I'll just briefly go over some of the severity of the killings. Steven Parent, an unsuspecting 18-year-old, was shot and killed in his car, five gunshot wounds. And I might point out that he was just ready to leave the residence at the time he was shot and killed. The killers, Tex Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten and company, went to the residence. They cut the phone wires. They gained entrance by also cutting one of the screens in the house and gained entry into the house. Parent was leaving just as they were about to gain entry, so he was shot and killed in the car. Inside the residence, Sharon Tate was found with a rope around her neck. One end of the rope was connected to Jay Sebring, who also had a rope around his neck as well. She was stabbed 16 times. Five of the wounds were fatal. In her blood, the word "pig" was written on the front door of the residence. Jay Sebring had a towel around his neck and a rope -- as well as the rope around his neck. He suffered stab wounds, seven stab wounds, one gunshot wound, which was the fatal wound. Wojciech Frykowski was stabbed 51 times. His scalp had 13 lacerations, and he was also shot twice. Abigail Folger was stabbed 28 times and killed. The crime scene was, you know, was as bloody a crime scene as you could possibly imagine with all these victims who had been stabbed multiple times and there was blood everywhere. And again, the writing was also, again designed, in the words of the, you know, designed to look as if blacks had committed the crime, and this was all designed to start a race war. The next night, Manson again decided that there were more killings that needed to occur, so a group of them left the Spahn Ranch and began looking for victims. Now, the ultimate victims, of course, in this instance on August 10th of 1969 were Rosemary and Leno LaBianca. However, they weren't the only intended victims that night. The group actually drove around to a couple of locations looking for people to kill. They weighed the pros and cons of killing people at different locations, but they finally settled on the LaBianca residence. When they went to the LaBianca residence, Tex Watson and Charles Manson went into the residence. They tied up Rosemary and Leno LaBianca. They also took Rosemary LaBianca's wallet. And the reason for taking her wallet was the wallet was then given to -- was taken by Charles Manson and Linda Kasabian and Steve Grogan, who left the LaBianca residence, leaving Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten and Tex Watson to conduct the killing of Rosemary and Leno LaBianca. Meanwhile, Manson, Grogan and Linda Kasabian drove away looking for more victims. They were going to do more killings that evening. They took Rosemary LaBianca's wallet, and they left it in a gas station, a women's restroom gas station, which -- where they believed was in a black neighborhood, and the purpose for doing, for leaving the wallet at that location was the hope that a black person would find the wallet, would either use the credit cards or take the money and later be caught and blamed for the Rosemary and Leno LaBianca murders. The three killers at the LaBianca residence brutally killed both Rosemary and Leno LaBianca. Rosemary LaBianca was found with her face covered with a pillowcase. There was an electrical cord wrapped around her neck. She had 41 separate stab wounds. Six of those stab wounds were fatal. Leno LaBianca was found with his face covered with a blood- soaked pillowcase. An electric cord was knotted around his neck. His hands were tied in the back with a leather thong. There was a carving fork that was stuck in his chest, and it was a two-tined carving fork, and it was embedded in his chest to the point where the two tines separated. The word "war" was carved in his chest, W-A-R. There was also a knife found protruding from his neck. He had been stabbed 13 times and had suffered 14 puncture wounds. At the LaBianca residence, it was written in blood, the LaBianca's blood, "death to pigs," "rise," and on the refrigerator door, the misspelled words Helter Skelter, and it was misspelled by -- Helter was spelled H-E-A-L-T-E-R and Skelter was spelled correctly. Again, a staging of a crime scene designed to incite a race war. Donald Shorty Shea was the ninth victim of Mr. Manson. Mr. Shea was a ranch hand at the Spahn Ranch. They believed that, it was believed that he understood or had some inkling as to what crimes the family had been involved in, and so approximately a month after -- well, actually, it was within a month -- it was on August 28th of 1969, Manson, Tex Watson, Steve Grogan, Bruce Davis, attacked Shorty Shea, hitting him in the back of the head with a metal object, stabbing him to death. His body was then buried and wasn't discovered until many, many years later. Nine extremely brutal murders in what I would describe as a series of murders committed with the intent to cause terror, essentially, domestic -- acts of domestic terror. Los Angeles County was gripped in fear of these random, senseless killings. The desire of Manson and his family was to not only cause terror within the citizenry of Los Angeles, but also, as I previously mentioned, to hopefully ignite further violence by sparking a race war. So if these nine crimes weren't horrible enough, the thought that these crimes were committed largely in part to incite further violence and cause more injuries and possibly killings to other people, is beyond comprehension. And then when you see what happened after the Manson -- Manson was arrested and prosecuted along with the other family members, the complete lack of remorse, the complete disdain for society, the girls shaving their heads and not -- Manson initially Xing, putting an X on his forehead and later changing that to a swastika. His performance in prison has been absolutely abysmal. Now granted, that Manson's prior history before committing these murders involved a significant amount of criminality, but his performance in prison, 108 115 disciplinary violations, seven violations since his last hearing in 2007, 35 of those were violent 115s. No programming in prison. He's even failed to achieve a GED diploma. No parole plans. This is a man, who by all counts, is not interested in being paroled. I believe he stated on various occasions that prison is his home. In terms of future dangerousness, I mean, it's quite clear that he does remain a danger. The psychological evaluations indicate that he poses a high risk of danger to society. If you look at all the different factors that the Board uses to determine unsuitability, virtually every single one of those factors can be found in this case and with this inmate, Charles Manson. You can go through them one by one. I won't do that, but it's clear that in every single instance of unsuitability, Manson fits the bill, and especially in terms of future dangerousness because obviously, he's 77 years old, but I think probably the best evaluation of his future dangerousness comes from his own words to the psychiatrist in his last psychological evaluation where he tells the psychiatrist, "I am special. I am not the average inmate." And this is the quote. "I have put five people in the grave. I have been in prison most of my life. I am a very dangerous man." In his own words, Manson is telling this Board and essentially the public as well, that he is dangerous and he is completely unsuitable for parole. So I ask the Panel to find Charles Manson unsuitable for parole and to make it a maximum denial of 15 years. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you, sir. Mr. Lewis.

ATTORNEY LEWIS: Today I represent Charles Manson, the most notorious inmate incarcerated in any prison contained here in the United States of America, in what possibly will be his final parole consideration hearing. During the summer of 1969, Charles Manson and his followers engaged in a course of mayhem and murder never seen before in this state. These murders shocked the conscience of most Californians, and in fact, most Americans living then and continues on up to this day. It showed us for the first time that anyone can be killed at any time and that no one was safe, even while at home. A case of this notoriety in a client as notorious as mine required outcries from the public that justice be done. As such, my client was given the death penalty for the part he played in the Tate-LaBianca murders. However, his sentence was reduced to a life sentence as a result of the death penalty being deemed unconstitutional at that time. But the state failed to reduce that sentence to life without the possibility of parole, and as a result, the State of California has held 11 parole consideration hearings for my client, and he has been denied 11 times. For a person to be deemed suitable for parole by the Board of Parole Hearings, he must engage in conduct that a reasonable person would by going to self-help related groups like NA/AA, anger management, victims awareness courses, and particularly attending AA and NA if drugs or alcohol were a contributing factor in the commission of their crime. They need to have good parole plans. They need to acquire a trade, and they need to have no current or recent behavioral problems. My client has not accomplished any of these milestones. Why is the question? Why? Yesterday, while watching CNN, I listened to Mark Geragos, Henry Byers and Alan Dershowitz just destroy the two former attorneys for George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case for commenting on Mr. Zimmerman's mental state. They were of the opinion that this was unprofessional behavior for attorneys to do so. Well, my client has been tried and convicted and has served over 30 years in prison, and I think that's the difference between the two cases from what I'm about to say. Mr. Manson has not even remotely accomplished any minimal milestones that the Board would like to see an inmate who they are considering parole to do. I cannot purport to you that Mr. Manson has a mental disorder causing his utter failure in the rehabilitation process. I'm not a mental health professional, and I have never met him, and several psychologists say that he has no Axis I severe mental disorder. But one thing is clear to me is that corrections or rehabilitation has not taken place here for Mr. Manson. It is my belief that Mr. Manson could benefit from hospitalization, given his age and his need for more geriatric care as he increases in age. He would also receive excellent psycho-social support in that type of environment. Mr. Manson needs hospitalization, not further incarceration in a state prison of this type. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you, sir. It's now time for the family statement, and if you could just say your name again and --

MS. TATE: My name is Debra Tate. I am the sister of Sharon Tate. I have been here for the two previous hearings for Charles Manson, and I am the only family member to ever want to appear. Being that Mr. Manson doesn't want to come into this room to hear the impact statement that I have prepared for him, I don't feel a need to waste the Board's time. However, with everything that I have heard in this room today, I would like to ask the Board to grant Mr. Manson his wish and deny him the maximum amount of time under the law. He clearly does not want to be released into the public, and I'm inclined to agree that he should not be released into the public for the maximum amount of time. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Does anybody else want to make a statement? The time is approximately ten o'clock. We're going to recess for deliberations.

COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Okay. We are on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. All right. The Panel has reviewed all information received from the public and all relevant information that was before us today in concluding that the prisoner is not suitable for parole because the inmate would pose an unreasonable risk of danger if released from prison. The finding of unsuitability is based on weighing the considerations provided in the California Code of Regulations, Title 15. It's a 15-year denial. Mr. Manson, and I'm speaking to you through the record right now, since you chose not to be with us today, there are, we're required by law, as far as Marsy's Law or Prop 9 goes, for us to start at 15 years and based on your good behavior, to drop it to ten, then seven, then five and then three. This Panel could find nothing good as far as your, as far as the suitability factors or -- listed in 2402, Title 15. So let's start with some things that we saw that gave us grave concern. Let's start with your disciplinary history. Since you've been incarcerated, you've had 108 115s. Your most recent 115 was on 10/4/2011 for possession of an inmate-manufactured weapon. That concerns us greatly that you're still having weapons in prison. We also note that you had a cell phone recently also, and cell phones are a huge concern to us. You can make unmonitored phone calls with that cell phone. You could be involved in criminal behaviors with that cell phone. Cell phones extremely concern this Panel. In this case, the life crime does have a difference. This life crime was especially heinous, atrocious and cruel. Multiple victims were attacked and killed. Many of the victims were abused, mutilated during and after the offense. It was truly carried out in a manner that demonstrates exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering. We have not yet, in any of our documents, seen any indication of remorse. We have no indication that you have any kind of insight into the causative factors of the life crime. You have absolutely no parole plans. You had a significant drug problem while you were in society, and this drug problem is still unresolved. You've been involved in absolutely no rehabilitative programs or self-help to address your substance abuse history. I think the statement that you made to the psychologist or the psychiatrist in the Comprehensive Risk Assessment told us a lot of what we needed to know, and I want to make sure I get this right so I'm just going to read what it, what you told Dr. Reed, and you said, "I am special. I am not like the average inmate. I have put five people in the grave. I've been in prison most of my life. I am a very dangerous man." And this Panel agrees with that statement. Any comments, Commissioner?

COMMISSIONER ROBLES: I would just like to make a comment for the record, in that this Panel is encumbered to, as in any parole suitability hearing, we're encumbered to assess suitability, and we're encumbered to assess whether reform and rehabilitation has taken place. And truly, the magnitude of this crime and Mr. Manson's lack of understanding of the magnitude of this crime and how it affected the city, the state, and arguably, the nation, his failure to articulate in any way, his failure to understand the dynamics of this crime in any fashion is very much a concern to the Panel and would be very much a concern for future dangerousness if released to the community.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. So like I said earlier, you do have an opportunity, if you do start programming, if you do start getting involved, if you do start participating in this process, like getting involved in self-help, try to gain some understanding or insight into the factors of the life crime, you can file a 1045 Form called a Petition to Advance. It'll go to the Board. The Board will look at it and see if there's an opportunity to advance your hearing, if you start really looking to get a date. The time is approximately 10:30. This hearing is concluded. Thank you all for attending.

COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Thank you.