• Charles Watson • 2016

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, this is a subsequent parole consideration hearing for Mr. Charles Watson, B-37999. Today's date is 10/27/2016. The time is approximately one o'clock in the afternoon. We're located at Mule Creek State Prison. Mr. Watson was received in CDCR 11/17/1971, Murder First, Los Angeles County, case number A253156 and Mr. Watson had a minimum eligible parole date of 11/30/1976. This hearing is being recorded and for the purpose of voice identification each of us are required to state our first and last name. And, Mr. Watson, when it's your turn, and you'll go after your attorney, after you spell your last name please give us your CDC number. So I'll start with me. Got a lot of people in the room so it seems like I probably need to be the traffic cop when it comes to everybody introducing themselves. So let us do the table first and then go to you and then go to the back of the room and we'll finish up with you over in the corner. No, right behind you, yeah. All right, so my name is John Peck, P-E-C-K. I'm the presiding Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I'm Kathleen Newman, N-E-W-M-A-N. I'm a Deputy Commissioner.

MR. DIMARIA: Anthony DiMaria, D-I-(capital)M-A-R-I-A, Jay Sebring's nephew.

MS. TATE: Debra Tate, T-A-T-E, Sharon Tate's sister.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Donna Lebowitz, Deputy District Attorney Los Angeles County.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Counsel?

ATTORNEY JAN: Oh, forgive me, Kendrick Jan, K-E-N-D-R-I-C-K, last name, J-A-N, counsel for Inmate Watson.

INMATE WATSON: And Charles Watson, B-37999.

MS. WIEHL: Lis Wiehl, Fox News Channel New York.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Please spell your last name please.

MS. WIEHL: W-I-E-H-L.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MR. GUNNING: Mike Gunning, G-U-N-N-I-N-G, BPH observing.

MS. KOWALCZYK: Leslie Kowalczyk, K-O-W-A-L-C-Z-Y-K, Victim Advocate for Mule Creek.

MR. FAULKNER: Michael Faulkner, F-A-U-L-K-N-E-R, representative for Lou Smaldino.

MS. MATTHEWS: Lynn Matthews, M-A-T-T-H-E-W-S, friend of Janet Parent.

MS. LAIRD: Erica Laird, L-A-I-R-D, Victim Advocate for Mule Creek.

MS. MARTLEY: Kay Martley, M-A-R-T-L-E-Y, representative of Debra Tate.

MS. REYNOLDS: Jillian Reynolds, R-E-Y-N-O-L-D-S, and here on behalf of the LaBianca family is Leo's grandson Tony LaMontagne.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you all for attending and we also have two correctional peace officers in the room for security purposes. Mr. Watson, can I get you to raise your right hand like me?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this hearing be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I do, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Mr. Jan, do you have any preliminary objections before we get started?

ATTORNEY JAN: No, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. We have reviewed your Central File, Mr. Watson, and looked at your prior transcripts and you're going to be given the opportunity today to correct or clarify the record. Nothing that happens here today is going to change the findings of the court. 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. We're going to talk to you a little bit about your pre-conviction factors. We'll talk about -- I like to start kind of at the beginning.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And then just kind of go in a progressive manner all the way up until we talk about your parole plans.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So we're going to try to talk about a lot of those things, move forward.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I know last time you didn't talk to us. Are you going to talk to us today?

INMATE WATSON: Oh, yes, I'm going to talk to you today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. It sounds like you're ready to talk, well --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, it was kind of unwise last time so I'm sorry for that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, well.

ATTORNEY JAN: Mr. Peck, may I make a brief statement in that regard when it's convenient to you?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Now is good.

ATTORNEY JAN: As I had mentioned pre-hearing, our office has been involved with Mr. Watson's situation since at least 1984 and we've I believe consistently made the hearings in his behalf or with him and except for the last hearing in which we did not participate. He was represented by other counsel and we have consistently wanted and encouraged Mr. Watson to fully participate and engage with the Board. And what happened last time I think was -- I don't want -- I'm not second-guessing counsel but it was certainly not consistent with what we had historically promoted in terms of what was in his best interest in his interaction with the Board. So we're back to whatever you need to hear about, we're here to talk about. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: We're excited -- we're excited to hear what Mr. Watson has to say.

ATTORNEY JAN: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You certainly have -- you don't have to talk to us if you don't want to. You don't have to answer questions if you don't want to.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: We're not going to hold you under water or anything if you don't talk.

INMATE WATSON: That's good. Okay, thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: These are non-adversarial hearings.

INMATE WATSON: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: We are -- I'm not a yeller, just so you know.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm just, you know, I ask questions.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm trying to -- the questions we ask are purely for public safety issues.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I want to see how you do and I've been working with Commissioner Newman for a long time and she's the same way. We're probative but we're certainly -- we're certainly not --

INMATE WATSON: Right. Well, I appreciate you making me comfortable.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, I want you to feel comfortable. I want you to be able to talk to us, I mean, frankly, that's what we're here to do to find out if you're safe --

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- or you're not safe.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right?

INMATE WATSON: Very good.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, good. All right, so we're going to give Ms. Lebowitz a chance to ask the Panel clarifying questions. She can't ask you direct questions.

INMATE WATSON: No, I didn't take them.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: She can't ask you direct questions.

INMATE WATSON: What, I'm sorry?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's all right. I want you to stay with me because I want -- I don't want -- I don't want you to be surprised by anything that's happened. I know you've been through one or two of these hearings.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But I don't -- I don't want you to be surprised by how we do them now.

INMATE WATSON: Okay, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So Ms. Lebowitz can ask the Panel clarifying questions, right, or questions that are of concern to Los Angeles County but she can't ask you direct questions.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay?

INMATE WATSON: Uh-huh.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So when she asks a question, right, just pause for a minute. And you know I'm not any younger so sometimes it takes a little while for it to marinate inside my head to find out, frankly, where we're going with that question or if I even want to ask that question.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Or if I even know where if that question has even been answered because if it has, I'll just answer it. If I answer it wrong I want to correct me because I don't want anything wrong in the record.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay? So just pause for a minute and let me kind of see how we're going to handle that situation.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right after Ms. Lebowitz asks questions your attorney can ask you direct questions if he wishes.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And then we'll go into closing statements. I don't know whether we're going to need long closing statements today. Usually, we have a 15 minute limit if we -- but this is kind of a different kind of case so do you think you're going to need longer than today? I know it's hard to judge because we haven't even started yet but is there anything now that you -- we can certainly calibrate that later on if you'd like to.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: I might need longer than 15 minutes but I won't be as long as I am historically known to be.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, that's refreshing. How about you? Are you thinking you're going to need a long statement at the end or?

ATTORNEY JAN: What time do they close the doors?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, this is a -- this is a 24 hour a day operation so.

ATTORNEY JAN: I believe I can keep it -- good, no problem. I think I can keep it within the 15 minutes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. And, Mr. Watson, do you think -- you think you need a long time to make a statement at the end?

INMATE WATSON: Maybe, I don't know, I'm probably going -- I've got something planned here for maybe eight minutes or so. Is that too long?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No, that's fine. Listen I don't restrict you --

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- and I don't restrict the family.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So those are the two restrictions that I absolutely do not have. Right?

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But I just kind of like to have a gauge for how long when we start hitting certain points so I know if we're going to order pizza later or not, right, for everybody.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So just to keep things moving along.

INMATE WATSON: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, any questions so far?

INMATE WATSON: No questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. Have we met your client's procedural rights, sir?

ATTORNEY JAN: Insofar as I am aware, you have.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you get a copy of all the documents you need to prepare for today's hearing?

ATTORNEY JAN: Yes, eventually, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Ms. Lebowitz did --

ATTORNEY JAN: We had a little bit of a problem.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, but you -- well, let's talk about that.

ATTORNEY JAN: No, no, it's okay. The timing was satisfactory, thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. You got it within ten days?

ATTORNEY JAN: I got it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, so you want to -- so it doesn't matter when you got it. You want to have this hearing right now anyway?

ATTORNEY JAN: Waive in the interest of -- yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Got it. Good, I'm glad to hear that. Ms. Lebowitz, did you get a copy of all the documents you need to prepare for today's hearing?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: I did but I did submit something for the ten day packet which I didn't see in the ten day packet, which I'm sure the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have seen before. It was mailed in September 2016. It is a copy of Resolution Chapter 40 from the 1977 Assembly.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: I didn't bring a copy of it with me but I can give it to the Commissioners.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Yeah, we didn't get that. It's not in the ten day packet. Sometimes we get emailed additional documents.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: We're going to let you take a look at it in a minute.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Oh, he hasn't seen it either.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: It's a piece of legislation.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You need a couple minutes to take a look at that?

ATTORNEY JAN: Is this the legislative history we were discussing earlier?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Oh, no, not from Marsy's Law. This is different.

ATTORNEY JAN: You know what, I can read it at the break. It's three pages or two pages long so it's okay. If you'd like, I can read it at the break.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

ATTORNEY JAN: Now I'm reading.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Any additional documents you'd like to submit, Mr. Watson?

INMATE WATSON: I have a relapse plan.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Sure.

INMATE WATSON: Would that be cool?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, give it to the officer.

INMATE WATSON: Oh, let's see, where is it here? Right here, it's on top.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thank you.

INMATE WATSON: I've got more than one copy if you'd like another copy.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: I haven't seen it, no.

INMATE WATSON: Would you like another copy?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Is this copy for me?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Would you mind if the DA had a copy of your relapse plan?

INMATE WATSON: I don't mind at all.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. Your date of birth is 12/2/1945. Is that true, sir?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, sir, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. You were born in Dallas, Texas, raised in Copeland, Texas, is that --

INMATE WATSON: Coatesville.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Coatesville?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, Coatesville.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, well, that's different than Copeland. Your parents were married?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Are they -- are they still with us?

INMATE WATSON: No, my father died in '93 and my mother in 2002.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Sorry to hear that. You have -- you have three siblings?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You're the youngest?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I'm the youngest but I was one of those three.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, so you have two siblings, a brother and a sister?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. I have a brother and a sister, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Are you brother and sister still with us?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, they are.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Where do they -- where do they live?

INMATE WATSON: Texas.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, good.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: It looks like you had a pretty stable family history. Is that true?

INMATE WATSON: I did. I have a very stable family history, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What kind of student were you when you went to school? I know you went to college.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, I did three years in college and I made a foolish decision and dropped out and came to California.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So your childhood and young adulthood, well, early adulthood was basically in Texas. Is that accurate?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When did you come to California?

INMATE WATSON: When I was 21.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You got good grades in school; you were an athlete?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Any serious behavior problems while you were in childhood or adolescence?

INMATE WATSON: No, none at all.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You took a magazine when you were 14. Is that true?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, that's true, from a drugstore.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: We solved that crime.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. Graduated from Farmersville High School in '64?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Went to North Texas State University?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, that's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Never suspended or expelled?

INMATE WATSON: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You left college in '67. Is that true?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why?

INMATE WATSON: You know I was kind of going to college for my parents and one mistake that I really made was that I didn't really ever have my own goals, you know. When I -- when I was born I was saving for college, you know, and so I kind of lacked in communicating with my parents and making a decision. Like I think it's really wise today a lot of children are having an option of going to a trade school while they're in high school or while they're going to college. I was more of the trade school type of kid and I just really went to college for my parents and I partied and you know, began drinking and just wasn't there for me. I didn't have any significant goals of my own so I dropped out and that's the condition I was in when I came to California without any real goals. I even enrolled in college in California out in --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Where'd you go to -- what college did you enroll in in California?

INMATE WATSON: It was, gosh, I can't even remember right now. I can't even remember the name of it now but it was a state college, California State. Yeah, California State University out in I think on the San Bernardino Freeway out there, yeah. And it wasn't long until I dropped out because, like I said, I wasn't there for me. I was just -- that's kind of the excuse I used in telling my parents say, yeah, I'm going to California but I'm going to get into college, you know. And --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What did they think when you went to California?

INMATE WATSON: Oh, they begged me not to go. Yeah, I'll never forget that day and it was really the first time that I'd ever rebelled from them. I was, you know, I was kind of a passive guy, just didn't communicate in an assertive way with them and really making known my needs and my desires of what I would really like to do. And I would have probably went off into working with cars and automotive and probably have done very well I think, you know, in that area.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why pick California?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I mean you know there's a lot of --

INMATE WATSON: I had a friend out here that was a fraternity brother in Texas and he was out here and seemed to be doing okay, had his brother out here. So I moved out and got involved with him and you know end up getting a job when I dropped out of college and matter of fact --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Was that the wigs or the --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah, the wigs. Yeah, I had the job and the college at the same time. And I dropped out of college and just started working with the wigs and eventually started my own wig shop but that didn't really work out either. And I just really was making impulsive choices and trying to please my parents and look good in their eyes at the same time so I was really just lying to them, you know, just lying to my parents.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What were you telling them? I mean --

INMATE WATSON: Well, things were going good, you know, but I think even earlier in life you know I just wasn't being honest with them.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How'd you get the money to open the wig shop?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I was working for another wig shop and I was getting paid there so with the money that I was getting paid there I eventually opened my own wig shop. And we kind of made a bad business decision of paying 20 percent for the shop, you know, right off the top and it just didn't make the money. Yeah, it was a bad business decision.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You worked at an onion packing plant?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, I did that all during college and high school actually too to save for college and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And you worked for Braniff Airline?

INMATE WATSON: And I worked for Braniff Airlines as a crew bus driver/cargo man.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That was all in -- that was in Texas though?

INMATE WATSON: That was while I was going to college, yes, sir, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you came to California. What year did you come to California?

INMATE WATSON: '67.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you came to California in '67?

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You do the wig thing for a while.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That doesn't pan out?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So then what happened after all the --

INMATE WATSON: Oh, I was living out on, actually, out on Pacific Coast Highway between Sunset and Topanga.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And I was driving home one day and I picked up Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys and, you know, I was all starry-eyed and everything. Went over to his house and that's where I met Charles Manson and the girls.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And so you know so I started staying there eventually when I, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you -- so you met Charles Manson --

INMATE WATSON: Yes, uh-huh.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- through picking up Dennis Wilson?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, through picking up the Dennis, the drummer of the Beach Boys.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I've heard of him.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, and so I wasn't working anymore. I dropped my wig shop so it was kind of like things were just kind of falling in place to meet Dennis and while he was off on tour I would begin to kind of take care of his house for him and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Were you doing that with Mr. Manson?

INMATE WATSON: No, no, they were just there that night. So they were living out, of course, at Spahn's Ranch and so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When was that? What year was that? Was that still '67?

INMATE WATSON: That was, '68. Yeah, '68. I guess that was the summer of '68. And so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How did you get -- how did you reacquaint with Mr. Manson?

INMATE WATSON: Well, he would keep coming over to Dennis' place and so you know I kept being kind of drawn towards his direction, he and the girls. And you know it was, you know, sort of you know at that time but it wasn't anything, you know, like we were going to go out and murder people or anything like that. It was really kind of a love type thing. Of course, it was just sort of a drug-induced affection. You know it wasn't really --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Were you using drugs at the time?

INMATE WATSON: Yes. I was smoking marijuana and had just started taking LSD at Dennis' house there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When did you start using drugs?

INMATE WATSON: Not really until I came to California. I had smoked some stems and seeds, as I've written about before, of marijuana just one time before coming to California, the week before. And then when I came to California I started smoking marijuana with my friend Dennis and I was on drugs for a period of a couple of years total, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When did you become more involved with the Manson family?

INMATE WATSON: Actually, when the time that I was meeting Dennis at his house and everything. He came from tour and he moved to a new location and I didn't move with him. So a friend that was living there or, actually, one of Manson's friends that was living at the house, it was an older man about 50 years old named Dean Moorehouse. He was living there so he had to go up to Ukiah to a court appearance up there so I went up there with him. And when I came back we really didn't have a place to stay anywhere because not being able to stay at Wilson's house and manage that place there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Is that you were living? You were living at those --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, I was living there, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: So we ended up just going out to live or to see about living with Charles Manson and the family out there. Dean Moorehouse's daughter was living there and she was only like 14 years old. Her name was Ruth Moorehouse and there was probably about four or five guys and or so women there at that time living in different places and on the --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Was that at Spahn Ranch?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, Spahn's Ranch, yeah. And that's when it started. Now as far as living there and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So what -- I just want to make sure I get the timeframe right. So you were at -- you moved out to the ranch?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: '68?

INMATE WATSON: Let's see, let me think. Yeah, it was actually probably summer of '68, yes, and I stayed there until December of '68.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So what was attractive about that to you back then?

INMATE WATSON: Oh, I don't know. It was just like a commune and Charles Manson he was like he had this natural charisma about him. Everybody was kind of looking up to him like he was their guru or whatever and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: He was like five-two, isn't he or something?

INMATE WATSON: Huh? Yeah, like five-two, yeah, just a little man. And so, you know, it was like everybody -- yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But what did you find -- what did you find -- what did you find -- what was it about his charisma that you followed?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I don't know. It just seems like I lacked so much, okay. It seems like he knew much more than I knew. I just didn't seem to know how things worked in life.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You're describing yourself as naïve?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. Yeah, I was kind of naïve and gullible and I liked the drugs, you know, that was there. I liked the women that were there. You know although it was a girlfriend/boyfriend type thing. What happened he gave me a girlfriend in a sense, Mary Brunner and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Odd way to describe it.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: He gave you a girl so that --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah, that --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- so tell me -- I don't -- tell me how -- okay, so, yeah. Tell me kind of how that worked.

INMATE WATSON: Well, it's like -- it's like, it's almost like he put her on me, you know, to take care of my needs or whatever, you know. And I don't know if it was his intention to draw me in or what it was but that was just -- that's just the way it was, you know. That's all I can say and so I became kind of her boyfriend/girlfriend type thing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Is that the way you looked at that relationship?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah. I looked at, yeah, like that kind of relationship there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How long were you with her?

INMATE WATSON: Until I left in December. I had a draft notice to go and -- to go to the draft board and be drafted.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You had a knee problem though, didn't you?

INMATE WATSON: And I did that with my friend. Huh?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You had a knee problem. Is that --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, I had a knee problem and I did that with my friend. David and I went down there. He got drafted and I didn't and it would been much better off if I had of.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: For all of us probably.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, really. Yep.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you came back. You went back to the -- to the Spahn property, right, after that?

INMATE WATSON: No, I -- let's see, what did I do? No, I actually --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Or is that when you went back to Texas?

INMATE WATSON: No, I didn't. I actually left Manson for three months. I thought I was kind of losing my mind. I called Dennis and I said -- no, not Dennis. I called David and I said, David, I got a draft notice. I really want to leave this place because I really just think I'm losing my mind, you know. And I just couldn't -- you know I was just -- didn't know. I just got lost in my direction, you know. Too prideful to go back home to my parents and I had a lot of fear of failure and just, you know I just needed a place to stay I guess and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Do you know what the word -- I don't mean to cut you off.

INMATE WATSON: And what?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I want to get certain things. I'm not -- I'm going to let you -- believe me, I'll let you say what you want to say.

INMATE WATSON: Right. That's okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When you grew up do you think you grew up with a moral compass? You know what a moral compass means? Did you have a (inaudible)?

INMATE WATSON: Oh, yeah. I had a moral compass. Yes, I did. Yeah, I had one. It's just that --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You knew right from wrong?

INMATE WATSON: Oh, yeah, for sure.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Parents drilled in --

INMATE WATSON: Oh, yeah. I was, you know, raised in the church and you know I didn't never -- I was just religious. I didn't ever get righteously, you know, come to Christ and born again as I am now but --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right, and I know you are but let me -- let me ask a question for a minute and then believe me --

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So when you were growing up you were going to church regularly? Your parents were churchgoers?

INMATE WATSON: As long as I was there with them. After I went off to college I didn't, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. And when you left college then you stopped?

INMATE WATSON: Well, every now and then I would have a -- have a girlfriend that we would go to church together, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, all right.

INMATE WATSON: Because it was a very religious type community. Texas in general is, you know, the Bible Belt so.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Absolutely.

INMATE WATSON: But, yes, I had a moral compass. It's just I think when -- if we want to go back to my childhood I think when my brother and sister left home my sister, of course, was ten years older than I and she had already gotten married. And my brother he went off to Texas Christian University as a -- on a football scholarship.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right.

INMATE WATSON: So here I was 14 years old right at the time of my adolescence drinking my first beer and beginning to go with the girls, of course. And so I kind of -- but I still had good morals. I mean even up to, if you -- if you talk about my morals, even up to the time when I was talking about being up in Ukiah with my friend. We had borrowed Terry Melcher's XKE and had driven up there to go to court and of course I had had some associations with Manson at that time and Terry Melcher had given me his credit card and Manson wanted to use it to fill up the school bus. I wouldn't let him have it. I said no, you know. That was my moral compass right there. I still had morals even when I was with the Manson Family up to a certain point when, you know, when things begin to go in the direction of -- that it went, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right.

INMATE WATSON: But I still had morals. No, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Do you have many girlfriends before you -- before you went to California, before you got involved with the Manson family?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I had -- I had a girlfriend in high school, one girlfriend in high school. She was actually from Peru. And then when I went to college I had about two or three girlfriends in college, yeah. But I was always a girlfriend/boyfriend type guy. I didn't, you know, I wasn't just hopping around and stuff.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So relationship instabilities?

INMATE WATSON: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you have relationship instabilities?

INMATE WATSON: No, not at all. No, I was always very kind to my girlfriends and you know the proms and opening their car door and everything, you know. Yeah, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So did you have any arrests before your --

INMATE WATSON: I had -- I had one when I was in the fraternity. We had a scavenger hunt.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah.

INMATE WATSON: And I was pledging the fraternity and I went back to my old high school and I stole some typewriters out of the high school and ended up returning them and without getting charged. I think they called it a no-bill or something like that, you know. That was my only --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Then you had an arrest for under the influence of drugs in '69, right?

INMATE WATSON: Right. About a month before the crime I had taken some, actually, it was gypsum weed. How stupid, huh? And I passed out while driving a motorcycle and I went down to the motorcycle shop to pick up this motorcycle that I had and I passed out. I pulled up -- even going down there I was passing out and I ended up in the back of a police car and took me to county jail. And I got in county jail and I was beeping and sounding like a space guy. I mean I had poisoned myself. Actually, what I did, I slowly dehydrated and got beat up in the cell and the next morning went to court and got out, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, so you were --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- was that -- was that a -- that was a misdemeanor, wasn't it?

INMATE WATSON: No, it wasn't. I didn't get convicted of anything.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Oh, it was just --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, just locked me up overnight and let me go.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Beat you up and send you on your way?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, that's about it, yeah. Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, so let's go back to '68 because I'm interested. Yeah, can you get him some water.

ATTORNEY JAN: And I just want to clarify when he says he got beat up that the system didn't beat him up. He had a little -- obviously, there was a conflict in the cell.

INMATE WATSON: No, it was -- yeah, well, I was --

ATTORNEY JAN: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify it, that's it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: That's how I took it.

INMATE WATSON: No, the officers didn't beat me up, no.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You always get beat up in jail, right?

ATTORNEY JAN: Just wanted to make certain that there's no finger pointing (inaudible) and that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No, we got it.

ATTORNEY JAN: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. All right, you ready?

INMATE WATSON: I'm good, thank you. Yeah, thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, let's go back to 19 -- let's go back to 1968.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You left, right?

INMATE WATSON: I left --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Got away from Mr. Manson?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. I went into town with Mr. Manson actually down to it was called Topanga Canyon Lane.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And he had a friend there and I don't know why he was going over there but I drove over there with him and when I was there I called up my friend on the phone and said, hey, come and get me. So it was kind of like I was escaping. I didn't even say bye to Manson or nothing. I just -- I don't know why I couldn't just say, hey, I'm leaving, you know, but I didn't. I felt that I had to run from him, you know. So I went down to the draft, got taken out, you know, didn't get taken by them. And David, I was living with he and his brother, and when he left I actually started living with a girlfriend of his in Hollywood.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And so I lived with her for three months and she was a drug dealer. She dealt just lightweight. She'd break up a kilo and sell lids of marijuana and so I did that with her for three months.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And then it was just like something was calling me back to the Manson Family. I mean it was like I was looking for answers or something and you know I lacked a whole lot then. I mean I didn't -- you know I don't mean to plead innocence here, you know, but I had really lost my way, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why'd you go back? I know you -- I know you have had to have thought about why you went back.

INMATE WATSON: Oh, I have, yeah. Yeah, that's a hard one too.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, I know.

INMATE WATSON: Because I mean here I was in Hollywood living with a beautiful lady named Rosina and you know I really wasn't working though, really didn't have a job. You know, I, you know I was just living with her and you know we'd sell a lid every now and then and have food and stuff. And I mean really in hindsight I probably had it pretty good there even though I was still just a parasite as I've been called.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why were you living the parasitic lifestyle I guess is probably --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why did you consider-- why did you continue those parasitic lifestyles that you were -- I mean --

INMATE WATSON: I know. I should of -- here's what --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm not worried about should have right now.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right now I'm wondering about insight so I want us to be clear about what we're talking about.

INMATE WATSON: Okay, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When you look back at this time in your life --

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- you seem like -- you seem like a guy that was going to school --

INMATE WATSON: Exactly.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- staying out of trouble --

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- except for the pesky shoplifting at.

INMATE WATSON: Right, right, right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Childhood stuff that is not that unusual, right?

INMATE WATSON: Exactly.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Going to college, you went out to California --

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- which a lot of people during that time did.

INMATE WATSON: Done that, right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right? Maybe some went to San Francisco, some went to L.A. --

INMATE WATSON: Right, right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- some went all over, right?

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Started at least thinking about going to school.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And then got a job.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Didn't work out.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And then you fell off the map.

INMATE WATSON: Yep, I sure did, yep.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. Well, you know I didn't -- you know this is what I've learned. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And you know through my Christian steps, through my self-awareness recovery I learned that I really didn't have a good core identity in my heart.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: You know I didn't know who I was. I didn't have any understanding that I was approved or accepted by God, for instance, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: You know I didn't know that I, you know that I had a power inside of me greater than myself, which I have now.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Okay? And I didn't know that I, you know, I was very prideful and I didn't have the humility that I have now and the respect for other people that I have now, the respect for my parents.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: I mean my parents they did not -- they were wonderful parents. They loved me until the day they died with unconditional love. Okay? And I was disrespecting them, I was being proud, I wasn't caring for them. I should have cared for them until the day they died like my brother and sister did. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: We can certainly all have a list of what you -- what you should have been doing.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, right, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But I want to know why you did what you did. That's more of my focus, right?

INMATE WATSON: Okay, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Listen, I don't mind going for a walk in the weeds once in awhile --

INMATE WATSON: Right. Okay, right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- but we're going to be here a long time if we go spend a lot of time in those weeds, right?

INMATE WATSON: Right, okay, all right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You know what I'm talking about when I say walk in the weeds, right?

INMATE WATSON: Right, I know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Foreign issues over there.

INMATE WATSON: Right, right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I want us to focus on --

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- well, first of all, let me ask you the obvious question. Have you really -- have you explored how this -- how this stuff happened?

INMATE WATSON: Oh, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm sure you have.

INMATE WATSON: I've explored. I know basis reasons of why it took place, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right. So I guess my question is what happened? Was there something that happened that made you fall, the way I described it earlier, you fell off the map. Did something happen or?

INMATE WATSON: Well, no, nothing. I think I had a significant loss, okay, and that loss was the fact that I didn't have a direction and goals in life. If I had had some solid goals, like I said before, if I had -- if I had went into car mechanics or car detailing or fixing up cars or whatever, if I had had some core identity at that particular time I wouldn't have been searching for answers. I mean I was off the map, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you were out there searching for answers?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Is that -- is that what this is?

INMATE WATSON: And I was medicating my pain, you know, from --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Drug use.

INMATE WATSON: -- yeah, from how I felt fearful of not living up to my parents' expectations, you know. And the only way I felt any sort of significance was by how well I performed, for instance, and I was not performing well. I hope we're still not out in the weeds but I'm just trying to let you know that I didn't have any direction. I had lost my direction. I don't know that I ever had any direction of my own.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Okay? Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So were you looking for direction from Manson?

INMATE WATSON: I was. I was looking for answers. I was looking, you know, why couldn't he have been a Christian brother and told me about Christ and told me about a way to overcome and overcome my drug addiction or, you know, I just met up with the wrong person, you know, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, so did you think there was something wrong with him back then? I mean you must have because you left.

INMATE WATSON: Well, yeah, I did, yeah. Well, here's what his thing was all about. Okay? His thing was all about giving up yourself, dying, okay, and die to yourself. And it wasn't only him. It was all the older members including the girls, everybody, and I was expected to die and I didn't want to die, okay, I didn't really want to die. I wanted to be my own individual, okay, even though I didn't know where that individual was going at the time because I didn't plan well and have goals and stick with my parents and, you know, honor my parents, you know. I think it's very -- the Fifth Commandment, honor your father and mother and things are going to go well with you. Things were not going well with me. You'll have a long life. Okay? I should have been there honoring them, okay, is what I'm trying to say. But here I was, you know, looking for answers from -- I had a wonderful, beautiful family back there and here I was looking at this Manson Family. I mean come on, give me a break, and I just wasn't willing to die at that particular point.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And you know I hope this helps. I don't know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No, listen we're -- I want to hear what you have to tell me.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you went -- when did you go back?

INMATE WATSON: I went back three months later and when --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So February or March?

INMATE WATSON: March.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Went back and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you're back with -- you're back with the Manson family?

INMATE WATSON: I went back to the Manson Family, yeah, and yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So what happened then? What happened when you got back with them?

INMATE WATSON: Well, when I got back to the whole Helter Skelter thing --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's what I was going to ask.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When did this Helter Skelter stuff get started?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, it started -- well, it actually started in his mind when I left him that December they were listening, or we actually were listening to Helter Skelter album December 1st or November 30th, '68. And I walked out the door with it blasting, for instance, and eventually came back, you know. So I called out to the ranch about three months later and the girls came on the phone and, you know, started calling me Tex, you know, and I never went by that name before being with them and being named that and I don't go by it now. But so I, Rosina and I, we went back out to the ranch and they had this saloon going with all the music playing. And you know here I had on all these fancy -- a fancy shirt and a coat and everything you know and they thought I was like a Hollywood guy, you know. And I just began to be drawn back in, you know, just by what was going on. And you know it was a, like I said earlier, it was just a drug induced affection with the Manson Family. That's all it was. It wasn't any kind of love like I had with my parents, for instance, or should have been having with my parents, you know. But it was drug induced I believe, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You were under the influence of drugs a lot out there?

INMATE WATSON: Well, at the Manson -- yeah, about every week you'd take LSD. Marijuana was most of the time. I was, you know --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Alcohol?

INMATE WATSON: No alcohol.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No alcohol?

INMATE WATSON: No alcohol, no. And it -- so he began to interpret all these Beatle songs, okay, and we were gullible enough -- I don't know if that's a good word or not, to believe what he was saying and the dying to yourself just continued and it just got worse and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Was there any kind of hierarchy? I mean like was there any kind of order of who ran things?

INMATE WATSON: No, not really. I was having to work myself in to the family, to be approved by the family I felt.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And who was out there? Who was -- who was the family back then when you were trying to work your --

INMATE WATSON: Well, it would have been Manson, and Bobby Beausoleil, Bruce Davis, Steve Grogan, T. J. somebody. I forget what his last name was and then a bunch of girls, you know. That was basically it. You want me to name some of the girls? Not necessarily, okay. But as far as a hierarchy there really wasn't. I think people that I felt -- I felt Bobby Beausoleil and Charlie were attracted to the same person. You know, I don't -- what's your question again? I kind of got lost.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I know. I know you did. I was just seeing where you were going to go. All right, so basically from March until August --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. Yeah, up to August, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- what's going -- what's going on between March and August at the -- what basically --

INMATE WATSON: Well, I continued to slowly give myself over to the delusional beliefs of Manson and everybody there. You know it kind of happens like this I think. You know when you don't have significant goals in your life and you don't have any direction in your life you begin to pick up the goals of people around you, you know. And then if you have all this ideology going on, Manson's delusional beliefs and that are constantly being talked about and you're feeling like -- I was feeling like I wasn't enough, that I wasn't really -- you got to realize there was a lot of group pressure and peer pressure going on at the same time. You know I think it's called group dynamics and I've looked into all this. I have studied it, how it works, so I know what got me, I think.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. So you think the group --

INMATE WATSON: The group dynamics I think that was the last thing to where when we would take drugs we would all become the same person and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What do you mean by that?

INMATE WATSON: Well, we'd look in each other's eyes and I could see me and you know we'd see each other. It wasn't -- we'd be the same person and I know that sounds crazy and it probably is crazy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You talking about taking LSD?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, the LSD, yeah, yeah. And of course you know when you give up your identity like that and I did. I gave up my identity. No one took it. I chose to do that because of my, just my lust, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Was there violent -- was there talk about violence then?

INMATE WATSON: No, I didn't talk -- no violence or anything.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When did the violence -- when did the talk about violence start?

INMATE WATSON: Two weeks, two weeks before the murders probably with the -- yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So about the beginning of August of '69?

INMATE WATSON: Something like that or the end of July I guess. I don't know, something like that, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How'd you feel about that when the -- when the talks -- what were the talks of violence? How did it start?

INMATE WATSON: Well, there wasn't really any talks about it. I heard about the Gary Hinman murder. I couldn't believe it happened you know. I just couldn't believe it and here I was four or five days later doing the same thing and, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What did you hear about it? Bring me back to that time when you found about that.

INMATE WATSON: I just heard that, you know, I don't really know what -- I tell you the truth, I put more in my -- I wrote a book, okay, and I don't know if you've read it or not. But I put more in my book about it than I even remember now. I'd have to read my book to find out what was there, what was really going on like with a lot of this. But I don't -- I don't remember any details of what I heard about it at that particular time but I know that they were trying --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Do you think they were involved in it? Do you think that --

INMATE WATSON: No, I knew they were involved in it, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So why didn't the --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you -- so you knew there was some --

INMATE WATSON: Something going on, yeah, that I didn't know, you know, I didn't -- I didn't -- they were supposedly trying to get money for Helter Skelter. Okay? And I was just hearing about it, you know, in the distance, you know so that's basically what happened.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So when did this -- when did the talk start about these murders that happened, why we're -- why we're here today?

INMATE WATSON: Oh, well, it never did start talking until the night that it happened.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Tell me about it.

INMATE WATSON: Well, I was in the back ranch house kind of in the back there and I was actually with Leslie Van Houten at that time and other people were around and laying around and stuff. And Manson came and got me and walked me up to the main ranch and said that, you know, you owe me, you know, for taking care of a drug deal that had went wrong with my ex-girlfriend Rosina in Hollywood there. And --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you owe him?

INMATE WATSON: Huh?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you owe him for that?

INMATE WATSON: Well, it seems like I felt I did. I don't think I did, no. I don't think I owed him anything.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did he bail you out or bail her or something?

INMATE WATSON: No. No, he didn't do anything except when -- what happened do you know about the drug deal that went bad?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, you know, it doesn't matter what I know. We're establishing a record here.

INMATE WATSON: Oh, okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So it's probably best to just put it on the record because --

INMATE WATSON: Okay. Well, there was -- there was a drug deal that went on between Rosina and I and some black guys that to where 27 hundred dollars were taken in kind of a drug sting type thing. And since I was involved with Rosina and the drug deal and everything and it went bad and Manson went into town and he ended up shooting one of the black guys and so he was portraying that as like he was cleaning up my business. And so when he came to me he said that, you know, I cleaned up that up for you and therefore, you got to take care of this for me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. You felt obliged?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I don't know that I felt obliged but I started to do it. You know I started in that direction. And you got to realize we didn't -- I only knew where the house was. I didn't know who was going to be there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What house?

INMATE WATSON: The Tate house at the time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And --

ATTORNEY JAN: Just a second. Are you now wanting him to proceed into the crime itself?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, forgive me.

INMATE WATSON: I don't mind doing that at all. So he told me that he had already instructed the girls what to do. Okay? And so I knew that I could not do what he was asking me to do. Now this is kind of hard on me but without -- I'd been taking methamphetamine for about -- or speed I think we called it back then -- for about 30 days and I knew I couldn't do what he was asking me to do unless I took some of that. So Susan Atkins and I went and started some methamphetamine and got in the car and started towards --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I'm sorry, did you say you and -- did you say --

INMATE WATSON: Susan Atkins and I --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Oh, okay.

INMATE WATSON: -- went and started the speed and started driving over to the house with, let's see there was Susan Atkins, myself, and Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie -- no, not Leslie, Linda Kasabian. So before we left he put his head in the car and said --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: He meaning Charlie?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, Charlie.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: He said -- he said -- he told me before he said I've already told the girls what to do and that when he put his head in the car he said remember to do something witchy, you know. I guess he had told them to write on the walls and things like that. And so anyway, I got in the car and started out and they had gotten the weapons, you know, and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What kind of weapons were they?

INMATE WATSON: It was Buck knife and just another knife, a hand knife, and a .22 buntline long, some kind of -- they call it a buntline. I don't really know that much about weapons but a long-barrel .22 pistol.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And wrapped them all up in a -- in a rag and started driving over. And then I think as we were thinking about what we were going to be doing we all started arguing about it and we got lost and we drove around about an hour, drove all the way into Santa Monica and then up the other side of Benedict Canyon. And finally got there at the place and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How was that place picked?

INMATE WATSON: I had -- Manson and I both had been there before. I had been there -- that's where Doris Day's son Terry Melcher lived and so that's where -- he's a record producer. And he had several cars and this is where we had gotten one car from to go up to Ukiah with my other friend so he was just an acquaintance of Charlie and the Manson Family and I had been there a couple of times. One time I had been there for another record producer had gotten put in jail for drugs and wanted to bail him out and I asked Terry if he would help bail him out of jail. And so I'd been there a couple of times. One time with Dean to pick up the car and then another time to ask for that money.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you knew where the house was?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, I knew where the house was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But you got lost?

INMATE WATSON: Got lost, yeah, going there. And so anyway when we got there I climbed the pole and I had some bolt cutters. Went up the pole and cut the telephone wire. I guess it was the telephone wire. The lights didn't go out so went across the fence --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Was that planned? Was that part of the plan? Was that what you were told to do or?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, that's what Manson had said to do to cut the phone wires, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, you?

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When did he tell you to do that?

INMATE WATSON: On the way when he -- when he was giving us instructions on walking up to the car, you know, from the back ranch house.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you knew -- did you know what was going to happen at the house?

INMATE WATSON: No, I didn't know what was -- I didn't even know who was going to be there. I had no idea who was there or anything.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But you knew --

ATTORNEY JAN: I'm sorry, to clarify when you say did you know what was going to happen do you mean did you intend that there would be murder --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: -- activity in the house?

INMATE WATSON: Oh, yes, I knew that there would be if there were people there. Yes, I did, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And you chose to do this?

INMATE WATSON: I chose to do that, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you establish a plan that, or Mr. Manson had established a plan that you would cut the wires and you agreed to that or did you come up with the idea of you were going to cut the phone?

INMATE WATSON: No, I didn't -- I didn't come up with that idea, no. He had -- he had come up with that idea that we should cut the phone wires first and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you know how to cut phone --

INMATE WATSON: No, I didn't know anything about phone wires. I didn't know about having to climb a pole, you know what I mean, but that's why -- that's why we took the bolt cutters to do that, you know, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you just climbed a pole and just started cutting wires?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, climb the pole and cut a wire.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. So you go up and climb the pole and you cut the wires?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah, and then I went over the fence and a car started coming up the driveway and I shot into the car, the guy in the car, Steve Parent.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why'd you shoot into the car?

INMATE WATSON: Why did I do that?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why.

INMATE WATSON: Well, just because we were supposed to kill everybody in the house, in the place, yeah. Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: So I shot him and I think I slashed him across the arm or something with a knife. Okay? I was going to go through that in my statement, matter of fact. I had had that planned to go through those things.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm tricky sometimes.

INMATE WATSON: You are, aren't you? Well, that's okay, that's okay. I was --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'd rather have you talk about it than --

INMATE WATSON: Oh, than just read through it? Okay. So then after that I went to -- we went up to the door and as I'm telling this to you I may not have all the facts right exactly because I don't remember them exactly but I have written about them, the exact about them.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You don't have to preface it.

INMATE WATSON: Oh, okay, okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Just tell me what you remember.

INMATE WATSON: So anyway, I went up to the -- I cut the screen actually in the window and went through the screen. Okay? And the girls just walked right in the door. The door was open. And I went over to Wojciech Frykowski and I kicked him and told him I was the devil and that I was there to do the devil's work. And we tied him up, Susan Atkins and I did, his hands behind his back or in front. I forget which way.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time hearing the inmate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Can you -- that's not going to work -- that's not going to work.

INMATE WATSON: Oh, that's not going to work? Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's just going to make it louder on the tape.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Can you speak up just a little bit?

INMATE WATSON: Yes. I went -- you want me to start back some or what? Just wherever --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You cut the screen door, you --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, went in kicked Frykowski and told him that I was the devil and that I was there to do the devil's work. And so the girls they went into the other room, brought Sharon out and Abigail Folger and also Jay Sebring and they were standing around. And I had a gun in my hand and Jay told me, he said I know karate, and I don't think I've ever told anybody this, but he said I know karate, just for your sake and you're over there. And that -- and I got afraid so I shot him with a .22 pistol. He went to the ground and I stabbed him. Then Wojciech Frykowski started out the door and Susan was being dragged out by him and she was stabbing his leg. I think that's the way it was. And Patricia had chased Abigail to the ground out on the lawn and I think had stabbed her. And then I went over and stabbed Abigail and then came back and stabbed Frykowski on the lawn and then went back in and Susan was there with Sharon Tate and I stabbed her.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. Okay, and then what happened?

INMATE WATSON: And then we left.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Got in the car and drove back?

INMATE WATSON: Got in the car and drove off and stopped and washed off blood and as we were driving over the hill threw the weapons out of the car and drove back to the ranch.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What did you do after you got back to the ranch?

INMATE WATSON: Got back to the ranch and Charlie was waiting and Susan begin talking to him and I can't remember exactly what the conversation was. But he got -- he asked us if we had any remorse and of course we knew we couldn't tell him that we did. And I don't know if you're aware that I told the psych at this point that we died too and I'm not saying that we were victims. We were not victims. I chose to do everything I did. You know I chose to do it for approval and to the Manson Family for acceptance, significance, whatever you want to say, really stupid, foolish choices. And but the reason why I said that we died too is because you know I had got to that place to where I didn't even -- I wasn't thinking of my parents. I wasn't thinking of anything in my past, you know. I just sort of died to myself. The whole -- the whole thing was that we were to die, you know, to ourself and to our identity and to anything about us and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why'd you write pig on the front -- who wrote pig on the front door?

INMATE WATSON: That was the girls. I didn't do any writing on anything.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What was the point of all the writing?

INMATE WATSON: Well, Manson had told them to do that. I think he wanted -- he wanted a -- he had this philosophy or this, I hate to call it a philosophy, but an ideology or whatever you want, sick I guess philosophy that he wanted to start this black and white race war and he wanted the blacks to be blamed for the crimes. And I guess he felt by writing that on the wall and stuff and rise and different things like that that was out of the Beatles' album that they would get blamed for it and start some kind of race war.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you believe that?

INMATE WATSON: You know I sort of did but now of course it's stupid.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, we'll talk about -- we'll talk about what you think now later. Let's talk about what you thought then.

INMATE WATSON: Okay. What I think now.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you believe in that starting the race war and the black and white?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Blacks will win, you guys will hide in the desert and come on back out and --

INMATE WATSON: -- I did believe it. I did believe it and it was all delusional thinking and drug induced delusional thinking. I believe that. And what can I say? I mean it was just stupid. It was just foolish. I mean I look back on it and I say how could I believe that. I mean it was just so deranged, you know. It was just, you know, now I know the truth now. You not I'm not -- I'm not operating now with a bunch of lack of knowledge, you know. I know the truth now but now is too late. I can't (inaudible) --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You guys didn't take any valuables, right?

INMATE WATSON: We did ask for money at both crime scenes. Yes, we did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You mean you asked them for money before you killed them?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But you didn't take anything when you -- I mean there was nobody left alive?

INMATE WATSON: No, I didn't. No, we didn't take no valuables, no, nothing from the crime scenes, no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, why?

INMATE WATSON: I don't know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I think except some monies.

INMATE WATSON: Huh?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Some monies?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, some money was taken, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How much money did you take?

INMATE WATSON: I think at the Tate's I think about 60-something dollars or something like that, 67 dollars or something and then maybe a few coins at the Tate-LaBianca.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. Is there anything else about that first 8/9 crime that -- because I want to go to the 8/10 crime too.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Is there anything I'm -- is there anything where -- you covered their heads or did the girls cover their heads or was there ropes or what was all the --

INMATE WATSON: I did. I actually tied a rope around Jay's neck and throw it over the beam and tied it around Sharon Tate's neck, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What was the --

INMATE WATSON: What that was about, you know, you know we were supposed to make it look as crazy or as gruesome as possible and you know we had the rope for something. I don't know what we had it for other than to tie up people maybe. Manson had, you know, given us the rope, the bolt cutters, and the knives and stuff and sent us on our way and we carried it into the house and that's just what we did with it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Were they -- were they -- had they already passed when you --

INMATE WATSON: No, I don't -- I don't think so. No, they weren't, no. You know no, they weren't, no not at all.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: They were still alive when this happened?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, they were.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How'd you feel while this was happening?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I didn't have a lot of feelings, you know. I didn't have a lot of feelings. You know I don't mean to blame it on drugs. I really don't. The danger of methamphetamine or/and speed at that time I had found out that it was called the drug of violence. And it was like instead of stabbing someone one time, which would probably kill someone, on methamphetamine you end up stabbing someone 50 times, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right.

INMATE WATSON: I've heard of people taking speed for instance in the '60s and they'd be working on their car and trying to get their muffler off and instead of hitting it two times and trying to knock it off they'd hit it 50 times and end up completely demolishing the muffler. You know what I mean?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, so if it wasn't drugs --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- if it wasn't the drugs then what was it?

INMATE WATSON: No, I think -- I think it was -- I think it was partially to do -- I don't think we -- I don't think -- I think I did on drugs what I wouldn't normally do without the drugs. I intentionally took drugs. This is how bad it was. I intentionally took drugs to be able to do what I was doing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: I will say that. And that's hard to take, it's hard to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, let's go to 8/10 then. What happened the next night?

INMATE WATSON: Well, Manson wanted to show us how to do it right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: He didn't like the way you did it?

INMATE WATSON: Didn't like the way we did it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What did he think you guys did wrong?

INMATE WATSON: Too messy, I don't know, too much hysterics in the house at the time. He wanted to keep everybody calm and do it that way. And so anyway that's what happened the second night. He kept everybody calm.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did he go?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, he went in the house.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You went?

INMATE WATSON: I went in after he had went in the first time and then I went in with him and I helped him tie up Rosemary and Leno LaBianca.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Then what happened?

INMATE WATSON: And then he left and sent the girls back in and I asked the girls, I said did he say to kill them? And he said -- they said, yes. And so they went back in the bedroom to kill Rosemary and I killed Leno while laying on the couch. And then they were all screaming back in the back bedroom and I went back and helped them kill Rosemary. Actually, they hadn't hardly did anything. I went back and killed her.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Do you think you were -- were you -- were you kind of the one that everybody looked to for direction as far as these murders?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, I think I was, yeah. Yeah, I don't think they would have done any -- just like I don't think I would have done anything without being involved with Manson, ever, of killing anybody, I don't think they would have been really involved in killing anyone if it hadn't of been for me though that night. They wouldn't have went out and killed anybody. Susan didn't want to kill anybody. I didn't even really want to kill anybody. I was just doing it out of -- to be significant and accepted and it was kind of like gang mentality, you know, of doing it to look -- to be looked up to by Manson and the women, you know. Both, you know, so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Disturbing.

INMATE WATSON: It is disturbing. It's very disturbing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What do you think your actions did to society at the time?

INMATE WATSON: I think it put fear into the very max in Hollywood and L.A. and everything around, you know. It was terrible, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, so you said it wasn't the drugs but it was the drugs a little bit. Right? I'm confused.

INMATE WATSON: Well, I just --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: It's not what I'm trying -- listen. You don't want to argue with me, really.

INMATE WATSON: No, no, no. I don't want to.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You don't. So listen to me for a minute.

INMATE WATSON: Okay, I will.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Because I want you to -- I want this crystal clear with you.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right? So this is what the question is, right?

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Believe me, we're probably going to want to know some more stuff but this is really what I'm looking for right now.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Is why would a church going country boy from Texas, right, that was going to school, that was doing all the right things in his life.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Are you with me?

INMATE WATSON: I'm with you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right? Come to California. Right?

INMATE WATSON: Uh-huh.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And then be involved in one of the most horrible crimes in the history of this state?

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Would that be fair -- would you -- would that be a fair statement?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I can address that if you would like.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yes, that's really what I'm wondering.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, okay. Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why were you involved in all this stuff?

INMATE WATSON: Right. I mentioned some of those things already about when I was growing up, the not having the significant goals. If I had sit down and had made my goals with my parents and I was able to have done what I wanted to do, okay. Not that I blame them, I would have had some significant goals and not ever met up with Manson. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right.

INMATE WATSON: And not received his goals as they were, you know, something to go out and be significant for, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right.

INMATE WATSON: And not that I was trying to be significant by doing this crime by any means okay, but in his eyes and the eyes of the family. So at that time I had -- I had laid aside any significant goals that I ever had. What this is called, it's called the Psychological of Radicalization, okay. If you -- if you want to go to the internet you can --you can read the psychological evaluation --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, so listen -- I'm already -- I'm already on parole. I'm out. Right? I want to know what you think.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. I understand. Well, this is what I think.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, talk to me. Don't teach me. Talk to me. I'm not-- I'm not part of a class. Right?

INMATE WATSON: Okay, this is what I've learned. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, tell me.

INMATE WATSON: This is what I've learned. I've learned that when you don't have significant goals, okay, you can be radicalized by a group of people with ideology that will go to extreme measures and do extreme things like we did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What else?

INMATE WATSON: And through the ideology and through the group dynamics that was taking place there at that particular time, I became this murderer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. Anything else?

INMATE WATSON: Well, anything else as far as insight into what happened here? Is that what you're talking about?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, so like I said, here we go we've got -- we've got a guy from Texas.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right?

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Comes in. You know most people would say you want me to do what?

INMATE WATSON: Right, right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I don't think so.

INMATE WATSON: Exactly, exactly, exactly. Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So why you?

INMATE WATSON: Okay. Well, let's go back a little bit further then and I've talked about this a little bit earlier, okay, as far as my core values and my core identity. I didn't have a core identity and I realize a lot of people don't have core identities and don't do what I did. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah.

INMATE WATSON: But I didn't have core values, core identity. I didn't have the power that we talk about just in the steps, the power greater than ourselves.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah.

INMATE WATSON: Okay, I was lacking in a lot of areas. Okay? I was lacking knowledge about a lot of things, okay, and I had this -- also we hadn't brought up this, the emotional aspect of it. I had a lot of anger in my heart.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why?

INMATE WATSON: Well, because I didn't feel that I was accepted by my parents. I was having to earn my acceptance all the time and I think that's even played into the Manson Family of having to earn my acceptance and by performing well. And --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

INMATE WATSON: -- so as I was growing up I began to run from them because I was fearful of failure and fearful of judgement and I was trying deeply to be appreciated, to look good in their eyes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So why not join the chess club then?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. Well, it would have been -- it would have been nice if that is what had come along at that particular time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, but there were prosocial people I'm sure in your life.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Weren't there?

INMATE WATSON: Well, you got to realize too when we were -- when we got together we were very isolated. Okay? And that's part of this whole mentality of getting radicalized for instance is the isolation that takes place and then the programming that takes place over a long period of time. Nine months in this particular case, especially the last six months before the crime of giving up yourself and dying to yourself. Not everybody meets up with Charles Manson, okay. Not everybody met up with him but most everybody that met up with him ended up dying to themselves and a percentage of them went out and killed for Charles Manson, okay. There was an ego fusion that took place at that particular time. If you read my old psych reports for instance, the doctors call it a folie a deux that took place. It means that when a -- when a greater ego or a greater dominant personality actually begins to be a negative influence on the weaker personality, such as myself the passive person, and they come together and fuse together and end up carrying out the ideology, in this case, a very extreme, delusional ideology.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you believe in the ideology that Manson had?

INMATE WATSON: Well, yes, I did. I believed in it. I believed --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You were a racist?

INMATE WATSON: No, I wasn't a racist at all. His views were not racism at all. He thought the blacks were going to be on his side to destroy society.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, except that he thought that he was going to come back and lead somehow -- the blacks weren't going to be able to do anything.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: They weren't obviously that there's --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, so he was going to be able to tell them what to do. Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Absolutely, so that has an element of racism.

INMATE WATSON: The thing about it is with Charles Manson, I met up with a guy that had a grievance against society. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right.

INMATE WATSON: And he still has a grievance against society. Okay? And he had a culprit, okay, and that culprit was society, okay, was everybody in society.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But why did you buy into it? You know listen, I already did Charlie's hearing myself.

INMATE WATSON: Oh, you did? Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: A while ago. Right, he didn't want to come but I already did his hearing.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So guess what? I already know, you know.

INMATE WATSON: You know about that. You know about Charlie, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I already know about him. Right. I'm not worried about him right now.

INMATE WATSON: Okay, okay. I know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Only peripheral.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right? Because that -- because that is the glue that binds this all.

INMATE WATSON: I know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right. So I want to know about Charles Watson.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right. I want to know why you bought into this crap?

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right?

INMATE WATSON: Exactly.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I want to know why you --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Violent is an understatement --

INMATE WATSON: It's an understatement, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- to what you did.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So we can say, yes, speed, methamphetamine does make you do a lot of things. Right?

INMATE WATSON: Uh-huh.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Believe me. I've known a lot of people on methamphetamines.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right? But I don't know a lot of people that have done what you've done.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right? I more than you can ever imagine understand gang mentality based on my training and experience.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right?

INMATE WATSON: Uh-huh.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But again there comes a level even with the gang mentality when somebody says what?

INMATE WATSON: Right. I understand.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So why you?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I was just there at that time, you know and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Let me try it another way --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- let me try it another way because you already said that -- I'm not, you know. Listen, I don't like to ask the same question over and over again because you answered my question.

INMATE WATSON: What did -- have I answered your question? I mean --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, I don't know if you -- I don't know if -- I mean you're telling me --

INMATE WATSON: There's a lot of things that played into this. You just can't take one thing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I know.

INMATE WATSON: We've got to put --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm not trying to be unfair with you. Right?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So let's go here. Why did you fall under the influence of Manson?

INMATE WATSON: I'm expected to answer. I realize that. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: If you don't know, you can say I don't know. It was crazy times but really that probably -- you're saying that you felt -- listen, I got to tell you I talked to him before in my life in the 40 years that I've been doing this crazy work.

INMATE WATSON: Recently, I wrote an article, okay, on Why the Crime. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: On what?

INMATE WATSON: Why the Crime?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: On why?

INMATE WATSON: Why the Crime? Okay, and I went through nine different things, okay, and I thought I did a pretty good job of addressing those things. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And I started out with my disobedience to my parents, okay. And I went to -- I went into my -- the seven deadly sins.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And, you know, the pride, and the greed, and the lust, and the fear, and the anger that was in my heart --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: -- okay, because of the fear. And I went on into my separation from God.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And my lack of knowledge just -- Manson he had a lot of power to manipulate us, okay, and I'm not saying that I was a victim here. I wasn't a victim. I made choices after choice after choice, okay, to do what I did. Okay, but he had a lot of manipulative power to deceive. Okay? And being the person that I was, I was very emotionally unstable --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: -- at the time just because of going through this. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And then I get into the part of the radicalization, okay, and the codependency of his influence, you know, because of us linking up together and then the drug use. I think you got to put all these things together. You can't just take one thing and say and point to just one thing. It was -- it was a combination --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You think I'm pointing at one thing?

INMATE WATSON: No, I don't think you are. I think -- you may think I am. I don't want to blame one thing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right.

INMATE WATSON: I don't blame -- I never have blamed Manson even, never have even blamed him. I have always, I mean, I mean from the very beginning when I was making little toys I put on the side of those toys blame is game. I have never blamed Manson. I've always taken responsibility for taking the drugs, for choosing to team up with him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right.

INMATE WATSON: I've always taken responsibility. There has never been a time that I haven't done that. Okay? But it was a combination of all these things that brought this to pass as horrible as it was. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You don't want to tell me what it was about Manson that you -- because that's -- that's what the question was.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, okay. What was it about Manson? Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How did you fall under the control of Manson?

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I mean, that's what the question was. I appreciate your answer.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right. But it really wasn't what I was trying to --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. It was my choices, my compulsive choices. It was just one choice after the other and he got me first of doing little things. Okay? For instance, I was working on cars. Okay? He had me building a house for him. Okay? And it was just a little by little of doing things for him that it got to the place to where the murders. That's a big step, I understand.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Building a house and then going out and doing this crime is a leap.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, it's a big step but everything that I was doing for him was to gain approval from him. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Within the family.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

INMATE WATSON: Or within that group dynamics that I'm talking about.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Let's put a hold on this conversation right now.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And let's take five.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Let's give everybody a chance to take a break.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're going to go on break. It's 2:20.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, you ready?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. We're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. We're back on the record. Time is approximately 2:40. I don't have any more questions. I'm going to turn it over to my esteemed partner to see if she has any questions she'd like to talk about.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thanks. Mr. Watson, I appreciate your openness to talk to the Panel today.

INMATE WATSON: Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: No, thank you. You know this is a difficult case and so it's really important that we understand what happened and why. So Commissioner Peck has tried a couple of times but he got a teensy bit frustrated with your answer. He was exploring the reasons why, the causative factors for this crime, and you mentioned that you had written an article that had nine points of why the crime occurred. Do you happen to have that?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I've got a copy of it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, do you mind submitting it? We'd like to review it during our deliberations.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Send it this away.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, let the -- let the DA take a look at it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: It's not on the website?

ATTORNEY JAN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you already look at it?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: I've seen the website.

INMATE WATSON: Do you want a copy of it?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's all right, we'll just get that copy.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We can share that one. She'll take a look at it and then pass it around.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: So I don't really have many questions. I did during our break -- thank you -- I took a look about what the Psychological of Radicalization is about.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thank you for that.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: But I guess the only questions I really have are about during the course of the crime. First of all, why did you say I am the devil and I'm here to do the devil's work?

INMATE WATSON: That's how mixed up I was, you know, and I think just with the -- no better word than programming that we were going through at the particular time. It kind of got to where we didn't know the difference in the devil and God, you know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Did you say that to scare these people or did you really believe you were the devil?

INMATE WATSON: Well, you know I don't know. It came out of my heart. Yeah, it came out of my heart and I didn't believe I was the devil, no.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Well, I don't know what that means exactly. It came out of your mouth through your brain. I don't know how it goes through the heart.

INMATE WATSON: Okay, there's a -- there's a concept that says out of the mouth -- out of the heart perceives what comes forth out of the mouth, you know. So you know I don't know why I said that. I really don't. Only thing I can say is that it came from somewhere, you know. I wasn't into devil worship. I wasn't into anything to do with the devil other than trying to figure out, I think, through Manson's philosophy the difference in God and the devil. I was very ignorant and lacking knowledge of really just concepts of how spiritual things worked. How mental, emotional thoughts and emotions worked together and things, you know. So, again, I don't like to plead ignorance here but I was lacking knowledge in a lot of things and I included that in one of my things there with the Why the Crime. I included that lack of knowledge --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: -- Why the Crime, you know. There's a scripture that says my people are destroyed because of lack of knowledge and I just wasn't working with the proper understanding at least to be able to stand up with Manson, you know, and what he was bringing at us.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Why do you suppose that after coming to prison you became so dedicated to your Christian faith?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I think I got back to my roots of the way I was raised. I was -- I mean, I had all the hymns memorized for instance, you know. I came back to my Christian faith. Did you say come back to my Christian faith or why did I get into my Christian faith? What was the question?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I'm not sure which one I said but I think coming back to a Christian faith is probably a better question.

INMATE WATSON: Right. I was raised -- you know, the scriptures say that you raise up a child in the way he should go and he will return to it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Right.

INMATE WATSON: Okay, and my parents began to send me different search of booklets and send people to me and telling me about Christ and eventually I was drawn back into the faith, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. Well, then that for me, sir, that kind of really muddies the water a little bit as to how you would come to participate in these crimes because you did have a strong Christian faith --

INMATE WATSON: I did.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- prior to --

INMATE WATSON: Well, I had a religion but I didn't really have a what I would call a born again experience to where I really knew God and His love.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: But when you talk about you having no specific goals are you talking about like career goals or goals in terms of your morality? What was it?

INMATE WATSON: No, I was talking about career goals, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, all right.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: So you did -- but you were -- had some pretty strong training and upbringing in your morality?

INMATE WATSON: Uh-huh, I did. Yes, I did.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I think that that was part of what Commissioner Peck was trying to get at is how did -- how did that history of yours, the raising --

INMATE WATSON: It just vanished all of a sudden.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- how did -- yeah. Well, how did that happen?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I would go back to the radicalization of just giving up anything that I had in my own ideology and trying to become something, you know, in the group itself, you know. And I did not -- I did not have a strong spirituality at all when I was growing up. I went through the motions of being in church.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: But I never did really get to the point of really understanding core identity as far as spirit and soul and body and really coming into a knowledge of how things worked, you know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. So you didn't have a core identity --

INMATE WATSON: No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- in 1969?

INMATE WATSON: No, not at all, no.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. I don't really have any other questions about the crime other than was there any point either on August 9th that you could have just stepped back and stopped?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Was in --

INMATE WATSON: There was a lot of points.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Do you recall making cognitive choices as you went along --

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- each step of the way --

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- that you could have withdrawn --

INMATE WATSON: I could have.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- at multiple times?

INMATE WATSON: And I didn't.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: And why not?

INMATE WATSON: I just felt that I had to go through with it, you know. You know I didn't really want to kill Sharon.

ATTORNEY JAN: Forgive me.

INMATE WATSON: Is that what she asked?

ATTORNEY JAN: I don't know if he's answering your question.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: He is.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, I apologize.

INMATE WATSON: You know, I don't know what kind of, you know -- it was very hard to do the things we were doing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You didn't want to kill Sharon because she was pregnant?

INMATE WATSON: Well, that and because I didn't want to kill her at all, you know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You didn't seem to have a problem killing Mr. Sebring when he challenged you.

INMATE WATSON: No, I didn't there, no.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: What's the difference?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I think the further we went into it the harder that it became and just -- it was just --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: What about the following day?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, that was very hard. None of us wanted to go on that night and it was very hard. Yeah, but we went through with it instead. I was willing to do it, you know, and you know for acceptance into the family, for significance, and, you know that -- ever since I've been incarcerated I've come up against these realizations and I remember one time just five years ago and I work on myself a whole lot. And I was just counseling with another inmate and I came to this realization that I did what I did because of fear at the time. And I went up back to my cell, and you usually don't hug your cellie, and cried in his arms. That's what I did, you know. It's all along the way I've had these realizations of, you know --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: What were you afraid of?

INMATE WATSON: -- you know and --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: What were you afraid of? You did it because of fear, fear of what?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I was just -- I was fear of failure, okay, but there was like a spirit of fear. I mentioned that in my little article here going on and --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: A sphere of fear?

INMATE WATSON: A spirit of fear.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: A spirit of fear.

INMATE WATSON: Fear, yeah. And like the Apostle Paul, he said God did not give us the spirit of fear but He gave us the spirit of love and power and a sound mind. See I was operating in a whole different spiritual sphere of -- not fear but sphere, I can't even say it. But a whole different, seemed like a whole different reality of fear and of course it starts out with fear of failure and the fear of judgement as far as with in growing up and not being able to achieve your parents' goals. Okay? But when you have all that on you, you begin to operate in that spirit and it's a very destructive and angry, hostile spirit that begins to drive you and I'm not saying anything about the devil made me do it or anything like that, please, no. But I was operating in a very evil world at the time. And I don't know if you believe in an evil world but there is an evil world out there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, but that evil world is a choice that you made.

INMATE WATSON: It was a choice I willingly chose to give myself to and that is true. I can't say that enough that I did what I did willingly. No one was forcing me to do anything. I made a conscious choice and that's another thing I said in this Why the Crime. I made a conscious choice every step of the way to do what I did. Every step of the way I made a conscious choice to do it and it was a series of choices.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: But that's not identify what you were afraid of at all. You just told me when you made the realization not long ago that fear was the basis for this --

INMATE WATSON: Right, right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- and you had to hug your cellie.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: This isn't about fear.

INMATE WATSON: Well, I didn't, you know, I didn't write -- I didn't, like I said at the very beginning of that for instance, I did not exhaust all the reasons but I did have fear of failure in there and it does have the spirit of fear in that article twice in that article there. And I was like I was driven by it, you know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions about the crime. Is there anything else that you feel is important for us to know at this stage before we move into post-conviction factors?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Risk Assessment.

INMATE WATSON: Well, yeah, I just -- I just want you to know that, you know, no one made me do this. I liked Mr. Prismage, not Mr. Prismage. He was here last time. Mr. Peck.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: (Inaudible).

INMATE WATSON: He was here last time. But I willingly chose to believe these delusional beliefs of Charles Manson. I willingly chose to believe those and to carry out these horrific crimes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: At my own choices and my own willingness and it was a series of choices. I can just go and just see them one after the other up through life that I made that ended up where it ended up.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. Well, we appreciate you explaining that and taking the responsibilities for those choices.

INMATE WATSON: Okay, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right at this point, we're going to go through the Comprehensive Risk Assessment.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right, so if you'll return your attention to Mr. Peck.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How did you get caught? I guess that's probably -- we need to close this off and then we'll --

INMATE WATSON: What I did, I went back to Texas and there was an arrest warrant. I came home one day. I was out and I came home and my parents said that my cousin had been to the house, he was a sheriff at Collin County Jail, and said they were looking for me for murder in California. And my uncle and my dad drove me over to Collin County Jail and I was locked up.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How long was it after the crime?

INMATE WATSON: That was November 30th, 1969, so what that was 3-1/2 months I think or so.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. All right, let's go over the Risk Assessment a little bit. You met with Dr., hold on a sec, Dr. Weiss (phonetic), right, or Dr. Weiss?

INMATE WATSON: I'm not for sure which way.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: 7/25/16? Remember meeting with her?

INMATE WATSON: Uh-huh. Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, good. When she talked to you about all your -- all your information that you provided was -- is that pretty well -- did you read -- did you read the report?

INMATE WATSON: There were some mistakes in her report.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What were some -- were anything substantive, factual evidence?

INMATE WATSON: Well, she called my ex-wife Kristy (phonetic) instead of Kristen (phonetic). Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

INMATE WATSON: She had in there, I think on page ten -- on page ten, she had that I said I was powerless over separating from God. I was explaining actually the first step of Christian -- of Christian step and it's actually powerless over the effects of our separation from God. In other words those effects being separated from God, there's effects there that are happening and I didn't have the power to -- over those at the time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: So and then there was one more, she said that I had a contract with God.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, I'm looking at it.

INMATE WATSON: It was actually a conscious contact with God which is the 11th step.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, but other than that it's pretty accurate?

INMATE WATSON: Other than that, it's accurate as far as I can recall.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. So the doctor thought you had an Alcohol Use Disorder in sustained remission, Hallucinogen Use Disorder in sustained remission, and a Stimulant Use Disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment. Do you agree with those assessments that she made?

INMATE WATSON: I don't really know what it means exactly.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'll tell you.

INMATE WATSON: But --

ATTORNEY JAN: He said he would tell you.

INMATE WATSON: Okay, go tell me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: It looks like you meet the DSM criteria, five criteria for substance related diagnosis. So the doctor thought you had an Alcohol Use Disorder. Why it's in remission is because, (A) it doesn't look like you've been using alcohol while you've been in prison and but there's always that qualifier of an in controlled environment.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Because a controlled environment is different and we all know there's alcohol in prison. We know there's drugs in prison. Right? But the manner of the drug is about alcohol use in prison is a lot different than it is in the community so you always have to put that qualifier at the end --

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- for all those things.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You understand?

INMATE WATSON: Uh-huh.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So do you think that you had an Alcohol Use Disorder, Hallucinogen Disorder, and a Stimulant Disorder when you were in the community?

INMATE WATSON: Oh yes, for sure. I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You had a pretty significant drug problem didn't you?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. Have you done anything about it when you've been incarcerated?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I have.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, well, I'll be all ears while you're talking to my partner.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When you talk about that.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. The doctor went over your institutional adjustment. Commissioner Newman will go over that and the doctor also went over your parole plans. Commissioner Newman will go over that so I'm not going to go over it for you. There was an analysis of historical factors the doctor did. The doctor said several historical factors relevance to violence and risk management needs for Mr. Watson are notable and reflected by his history of violence in the life crime. Mr. Watson's action in the life term offense were violent as he participated in the murders of seven victims by stabbing, strangling, and shooting the victims. Other antisocial behavior is also notable in his history although was minimal and primarily related to the possession and possible sales of drugs. Substance use has been problematic. It does appear to have been a serious problem as well as a contributing factor related to the risk for this man. Although he has not specifically expressed violent attitudes he has engaged in and condoned violent behavior suggesting a tolerance of such attitudes, at least in the past. Lack of employment was a problem for a period of time in the community. While incarcerated he has held various positions. Historical factors that do not suggest increased risk for violent re-offense include the fact that there is no indication that he experienced significant trauma. Additionally, he has not demonstrated a history of problematic compliance with supervision custody. The inmate does not meet the criteria for a personality disorder. He maintained a long-term stable romantic relationship for many years. Although he married while in prison the marriage ended in divorce. He has no symptoms of a major mental disorder. The inmate was administered a psychopathy checklist revised or as we like to say the PCL-R. Mr. Watson presented as empathetic, does not present with significant antagonism, hostility, or meanness, interpersonal dominance, deceitfulness, persistent callousness, or coldness, or entitlement. By history he has demonstrated stimulation seeking behavior as a young man as evidence by his association with Charles Manson and living a drug abusing life style. Some degree of grandiosity was observed. At the time of the commitment offense, he demonstrated callousness toward his victims. However, this has not been a persistent characteristic over a period of time. Mr. Watson lived a parasitic lifestyle prior to the commission of the crime relying on others including a girlfriend for his financial needs. He demonstrated impulsivity or being impulsive and irresponsibility as a young man. These traits have stabilized over the years. He appears to plan and consider his behavior and potential consequences. Your PCL-R score is far below the mean of North American male inmates. The doctor doesn't think you're dissocial or psychopathic, which is good. The doctor talked to you about the circumstances of the life crime that is under the analysis of clinical factors. We talked about that with you. You said to the doctor that you were influenced by the philosophical belief system of Mr. Manson and you said that you had at least anger that was in the heart on innocent individuals. You indicated the following offense that you and your crime partners had returned to the ranch and you told us today we died too. You told the doctor that. He indicated that Ms. Atkins had reported to Mr. Manson what had transpired and Mr. Manson responded by saying that the crime they had committed was "not good enough" and complained it was too messy. Mr. Watson said that after the incident he was "worn out, totally depleted and went to bed." By way of these statements Mr. Watson appeared to view himself as a victim of the crimes as well. The next day he walked around like a zombie. He said that the following evening Mr. Manson approached the group wanted them to do it again and that Mr. Watson(sic) said he was going to show them how to do it and we talked about that today, also. The doctor asked you why you became involved in the life crime and the circumstances that resulted in the commission of the life crime and you said that you were a very codependent person. "From childhood, I lacked emotional security and lacked an understanding of love and acceptance." That's a quote. Upon that meeting Mr. Manson -- excuse me -- he said that upon meeting Mr. Manson and becoming involved in the Manson Family he experienced love and acceptance. Mr. Watson said that he always tried to be the best and felt that he had not been "centered and secured." He said he wanted to feel "accepted for what I did." Upon arriving in California he felt accepted -- I'm sorry -- upon arriving in California he felt he was failing and when he became involved with the Manson Family he felt accepted. In retrospect, he was aware -- in retrospect, he was aware that this was a "false skewed way to look at things." I was trying to find my identity. I had peer pressure of family. He also said he acted out of greed and did this for acceptance. He believed that it was going to be the end of the world and that there would be no penalty. Did you believe that? You thought it was going to be the end of the world? Did you truly believe that?

INMATE WATSON: I actually believed that, yeah. You know the drugs, the hallucinogenics and the speed it just kind of -- that's just the way you end up.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. Mr. Watson added that his weakness and insecurities caused him to be submissive and allowed Mr. Manson to control his life. He went on to state, "I did what he wanted me to do. I lost control of my life in my dependence on him and the family for love and acceptance." He added, "I feel like I'm a healthy individual now." In retrospect, he recalled that at the time he was lost. He went on to recall I didn't have a good identity. I was 23 years, I was gullible, naïve, and was using drugs to medicate my emotional pain and resentment. You said I was very dependent and needy and felt like I was a failure, did not live up to my parents' expectations. You said you came to California looking to make it in life and that upon connecting with his friend David in California he began using drugs. They spent their time listening to music and going to concerts. He said upon meeting Dennis Wilson from the Beach Boys he began to hope he could work with him in the Beach Boys band. He reported having met Charles Manson through Dennis Wilson. As noted previously he lived at Wilson's home for a period of time and subsequently went to live on the ranch where the Manson Family resided. He said that he initially was living in a tent working on cars. He said that while he was there Charles Manson would, "to do his programming," which he clarified meant that he would share his "philosophy and madness." He said this involved the concepts of love and later involved Charles Manson's philosophy about Helter Skelter. Mr. Watson recalled, "this was crazy." He said he was under the influence of Mr. Manson and the Manson Family. My belief system was warped is what Mr. Manson (sic) told the doctor. He said that they shared as a family. The girls served us and Mr. Manson would sing with his guitar. Although the inmate demonstrated some insight into the reasons he gravitated toward the Manson Family, he never explained why he fell under the control of Mr. Manson other than to indicate that he felt accepted and loved. He failed to describe the details of what drew him to the group in the first place and he also failed to specify his role in the killings, tended to generalize responsibility across all of the participants. Mr. Watson said that he felt the sentence of the -- the initial sentence of the death penalty had been fair although he was relieved that the sentence was changed to life. He expressed some remorse in that the victims would still be alive if it was not for him. He said that after the crimes he thought what have I done. He came to realize that he contributed to fear and paranoia that spread throughout Los Angeles and the world. He talked about how the victims had, "lost their future, their childbearing, their careers and their futures. Their family lost loved ones. The community was driven to fear." He said that the police and coroner were affected and he added that he had read documents to gain insight about the harm caused to the family. With regard to substance abuse, Mr. Watson did admit that he had a problem with substance use in the past. He did not believe he could relapse in the future. With regard to his plan to abstain from future substance use he described strategies and a realistic relapse prevention plan. It is notable that he has actively participated in substance abuse programming. And the doctor thought that clinical factors that did not aggravate your risk for violence include the fact that you've been emotionally behaviorally stable in the past year and you haven't acted or expressed any violent ideation or intent and there's no ongoing evidence of an ongoing major mental disorder. And the doctor said that you have overall followed the rules and regulations of the institution. The doctor took into consideration elder parole. We're going to take into consideration elder parole also. Elder parole in California is we give great weight to your age, your current age and the length of time you've spent in prison. You're currently 70?

INMATE WATSON: Seventy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Seventy and you've been in prison for a long time.

INMATE WATSON: Forty-seven years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Forty-seven years. All right. The doctor said -- I'm not going to go into your medical stuff but the doctor said you appear relatively healthy. The doctor thought you were a low risk for violence. The doctor thought you presented with non-elevated risk relative to long-term inmates and other parolees. The doctor said that although your offense was extremely violent, numerous victims lost their lives at your hands and your crime associates, it's also notable that this was an isolated period of violent behavior perpetrated by this man. The doctor said you've matured over the duration of your incarceration and has examined his behavior and mental state as it related to the commission of the crime. Hasn't perpetrated violence since the commission of the life crime. The doctor said you identified contributing factors to his murderous behavior and has worked to develop a substantial relapse prevention plan related to identifying his history of substance abuse and vulnerability to the influence of others. And that's what Dr. Weiss had to say. Anything you'd like to add to the Risk Assessment, Mr. Watson?

INMATE WATSON: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Counsel?

ATTORNEY JAN: I will during comments if that's okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yes. All right. Commissioner, post-conviction.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, so Mr. Watson we're going to shift gears. We're going to talk about what you've been doing in prison. I'm going to focus, primarily on what you've done since the last time you appeared before the Board --

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- in November of 2011. You got a five-year denial. Do you recall what the basis -- that was kind of a weird hearing. I have to be frank with you when I read the transcript it seemed so strange for you not even to be able to answer the simplest of questions.

INMATE WATSON: I'm sorry for that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Pardon me?

INMATE WATSON: I'm sorry for that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Oh no, it's no need to apologize. I just -- how did you feel at the conclusion of that hearing?

INMATE WATSON: I didn't feel very good about it. I really wanted to share and -- but the attorney wanted us to respect the families that were here and didn't feel I would be doing that by saying anything and, you know --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: But you didn't even talk about your social factors or --

ATTORNEY JAN: He was acting under specific directive of counsel at that hearing and --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: -- we've had extensive subsequent conversations. That's why he was so fully willing as before that hearing to participate with the Board. And I'm not pointing a finger at prior counsel but that's --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: No, she's an excellent attorney. That just seemed like a weird strategy, that's all. So.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But you're the one that hired her.

ATTORNEY JAN: Actually that's not accurate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, what's the accurate -- okay, so --

ATTORNEY JAN: I don't know if we want to go on -- I don't mind saying it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No I don't --

ATTORNEY JAN: No, no, listen. It's important.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, when we were here in I believe in 2001, I was here. I don't know who of the Board -- it seemed like there were three Board members at that time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm sure there was.

ATTORNEY JAN: But it was a very interesting hearing and he got a less than maximum deferral and following that, I got to tell you -- and I'm not falling on a sword -- I'm just recognizing facts. This is not my area of expertise and I suggested he bring on competent counsel and so -- not that I'm once again pleading incompetence but Ms. Montgomery came to my awareness and I contacted her and asked if she would be willing to participate in this. Mr. Watson had nothing to do with it and so she was willing to participate with Mr. Watson. However, I did not participate in forming up the plan for that hearing so I just want to clarify.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

ATTORNEY JAN: I'm the one that brought Ms. Montgomery into this loop.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right.

ATTORNEY JAN: Thank you.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Excuse me. May I just interject one thing? May we just have a statement on the record just for if anything happens in the Appellate Court that counsel believes himself to be competent to represent (inaudible) in this particular area of law?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You know something. That actually is very important.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, you know what, forgive me. My firm has been doing Mr. Watson's hearings since 1984 save the one hearing described with Ms. Montgomery present. I am a fully qualified and licensed attorney and I feel fit to discuss the matters that are before the Board.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you, Ms. Lebowitz.

ATTORNEY JAN: Thank you and I'm sorry for the misstatement.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well she makes a good point.

ATTORNEY JAN: I agree.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Go ahead.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: So anyway that brings us to today's hearing. So, it's been five years so in terms of post-conviction I want to talk to you about what you've been doing, what you've been working on. You've been busy. You know, there is so many positives really to talk about. You know, there's really just no negatives which is going to be short then.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: So you've been in prison for a very long time. You were received November 17th of 1971. How did you feel when you were sentenced to death?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I felt it was just. You know, I kind of went through a real depression when I was sent to Atascadero for three months and just dealing with, you know, the whole -- everything that was going on. And so when I came back and finished trial and got the death penalty I felt that I deserved it, you know, for what I had done, you know. And but I can't -- I also have to say that I was happy that I didn't get the death penalty and I was able to at least, hopefully, I've made some living amends over the last 47 years or 45 years when I really got serious about going forth with my life.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: You know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Well, let's talk about that because you are alive.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Right?

INMATE WATSON: Yep.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: And so your life has to stand for something.

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Right? It has to mean something. So, tell me what you've done specifically to try to repair some of the harm that you've done.

INMATE WATSON: Okay. In 1971 when I got off death row or I actually got off death row in '72, actually. I ended up at California Men's Colony and felt like I really had a chance to do something. I remember walking onto the yard and asked the officer hey, where can I get a job? I wanted to go to work and went to work in the chow hall. And there were family visiting's taking place at that time so I applied for a family visiting with my parents and my brother and I had a lot of repairing to do there because of the way I hurt them. My brother told me that he had to -- that he had to go and actually pick them up from the emotional pain that they went through, just devastating their lives. And so I really felt at first I needed to repair that and apologize to them for everything that I had brought upon their lives so I began to do that. And for about two years I just began to get into hobby and didn't really know what was wrong with me. I just -- why did I do what I did and I just -- I went to see Dr. Barkley (phonetic) in '72. Almost immediately when I got on the yard there was a couple of -- couple of guys I met that became friends that took me over to see Dr. Barkley and I got into his group called Bibliotherapy. It didn't have anything to do with the Bible. It was just reading books and sitting around in a big circle and talking about them. S, I began to -- the next four years with him, I was really able to begin to look at some things that brought me to prison and --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. Well, I'm talking about living amends.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I know you're going to get there eventually.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: So let me ask you specifically.

INMATE WATSON: Okay. Yes, uh-huh, yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I want to know you have created unquantifiable harm in your life.

INMATE WATSON: Yes, right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You have hurt a number of people that you --

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- just one couldn't even count.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You've created fear in a community.

INMATE WATSON: Exactly.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You've brought so much sadness to people through your actions. So what have you done specifically to make amends for those kinds of harm?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I think I put myself in a position to start making amends when I really became honest with God and accepted him into my life in 1975. And from that point on, I began to look for ways that I could really reach out to people. And a man by the name of Chaplain Ray contacted me and we wrote a book and put over a million copies actually in the prisons and for other men to read my testimony and how --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: How did you get connected with Chaplain Ray?

INMATE WATSON: He came to visit me in 1975 and wanted to share the gospel message with me and he did.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: And what was your purpose to write the book? Did you feel like that was salacious in some ways?

INMATE WATSON: Well, no, I didn't really come up with the idea myself to write the book. He came up with that. He had this big -- the late Chaplain, he died in '96, but he came up with this idea that we could -- well, he was already writing a lot of books about infamous inmates --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Sure.

INMATE WATSON: -- so that they could share their testimony to help other inmates come to Christ. So he wanted to do my testimony book and we actually ended up getting the testimony book out in 1978 and over the years of his ministry he put out over a million copies into the prison for free and giving them to prisons -- prisoners too. I think that's some way of making living amends there because I know a lot men that came to Christ and I was also able to use that book myself to include a ministry that we started called the Dying Love Ministry of giving them out to hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Is that a -- what's the C3 Charity --

ATTORNEY JAN:01(c)(3)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thank you,01(c)(3) Charity.

INMATE WATSON: It was up until 2004.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: What happened then?

INMATE WATSON: Well, 2003 my wife she divorced and so she was actually running the ministry on the streets and putting out the books, and tapes, and (inaudible) like that. So --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: That became a little controversial for you here in prison. Is that right at a certain point in terms of you having Board of Directors meetings here and things like that?

INMATE WATSON: Well, we had them done in CMC, not here at this prison.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Well, my -- the Board of Directors there was just a couple of people and my wife would just come in and visit and we'd just talk about the ministry.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Why did that become a problem? Why did you have to stop having those meetings here?

INMATE WATSON: I'm not for sure. I think, I don't know how that came to light. It came to light someway with the warden down in CMC and he stopped that, didn't want that happening.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: There's a great deal of information in your Central File under the miscellaneous section --

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- about a man named Nelson that was instrumental in having those meetings ceased. Why was that important to him?

INMATE WATSON: He became a Victim's Advocate for Doris Tate and he didn't (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Sorry.

INMATE WATSON: Okay. But anyway they knew each other. But anyway, I don't mean to put blame or anything like that on Doris. I would not do that but he just for some reason began to lobby against me and began to write negative books and things about me until he died in 2005.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And so, you know, it was just sort of an attack on our life. When my son went to OAU (phonetic) for instance, he had cameras there and called the press and gotten the local press in Oklahoma that my son was there. So you know, there was just, you know, I don't mean to go into a lot of that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: That's okay. That's all right because I asked the question and I asked it because I didn't know. What was the main reason for you to start ALM?

INMATE WATSON: The main reason was to put out the testimony, the book.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: And when did you start that?

INMATE WATSON: After I got married, my wife and I.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: The kids were raised up in it too. They really learned and grew up in the ministry and learned computers and really helped them a whole lot too, you know. Well, why I started was after I came to Christ I -- and a lot of people started writing and they were happy that I had gotten saved and I began to put out a little newsletter of about a 100 local newsletters and I'd do that from prison. Just when someone would write, I would put it in the newsletter. So after I got married the outreach grew and so we became, matter of fact, Kendrick's dad started our 501(c)(3) ministry.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And we began to run a little nonprofit ministry, my wife and I.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. I'm going to ask --

INMATE WATSON: At the -- at the approval of the counselor by the way of the institution.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, I'm not insinuating at all that you've done anything wrong.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: That is not my -- and I am not a Christian person.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: So I am not sharing any of your feelings regarding --

INMATE WATSON: I understand. I understand

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- the impact that that would have on a person's life. I am not making any judgements of that. I'm just telling you my perspective. So the only reason I'm asking this because I told you I was only going to focus on post-conviction since your last hearing --

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- and this information goes way back.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: It relates to how you make living amends. Okay? And I'm very interested in knowing how you make living amends. I don't -- I want to understand how you consider the Abounding Love Ministries as making amends because I see it at a huge benefit to you and your family. So can you tell me why this is truly altruistic and not self-serving?

INMATE WATSON: Well, it wasn't -- there was no financial gain really in the ministry. It was real small first of all and everything that we got, like the books for instance, they would come to us free and we would give them out free.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: How did they come free?

INMATE WATSON: From Chaplain Ray, the one that put the book out.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Did he have a financial investment in it?

INMATE WATSON: He had a nonprofit ministry called International Prison Ministries. It's still -- it's still there under his family.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Where we can still get books if we want them. We don't give out books now anymore but they can read them off, you know, the internet. But it never was a for-profit type way of working. My wife actually was supported by my family up until the time they died and when they -- my mom died in 2004, that's when she divorced me. Actually, 2002, in 2002, because she wasn't getting anymore income from my family and she married someone else, you know, so that's what happened with my wife. But back to the living amends, everything that we did in ministering to other people around us was, I feel, a living amend and helping other inmates basically. At that time I wasn't helping a lot of people in the greater society because they didn't really -- they wasn't who we were really making amends to. But I feel you can make amends -- I make amends everyday walking the yard for instance now. I mean, I can tell you incident after incident where I have guys that are really off their rocker that I'm ministering to now and trying to help straighten their little -- I mean Charles Manson is out on the yard actually, you know. One here the other day matter of fact.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right. Mr. Watson, thank you. I'm going to redirect you.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. Let's talk about what you've been doing. First of all, your disciplinary history is exceptional. You've had one 115 that was in 1973 for securing favors. You received some contraband from a staff. It was nothing too nefarious. It was an avocado, a cantaloupe, I think some sticks of incense.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I don't think that we have much concern about that 115. You have three 128A counseling chronos. Again, very minor disciplinary infractions and here the last one happened in 1983 so your disciplinary history is exemplary. You have done an exceptional job in educating yourself. You're extremely fortunate to be able to go to college.

INMATE WATSON: Finished college.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Yeah, so you got a Bachelor's Degree in Management and you graduated with highest honors and there's some information in your file about additional college, the independent college program in 2010. So what were you studying at that point in time?

INMATE WATSON: Well, 2009 I got a job as the hazmat man for B yard so I felt I needed to upgrade some training.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Oh, okay, so the FEMA things that you were doing on hazardous materials is that related to that time?

INMATE WATSON: Right. Yes, to my job. Yeah, so I wanted to be able to --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right. Well, there's numerous certificates there through that. I know that being the hazmat porter is not a fun job. Whenever anything's gross in the prison you have to clean it up, right?

INMATE WATSON: I had one this morning, matter of fact.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, we don't want to hear about it. All right. You've had some vocational training. You did office machine repair, data processing. You've been a hazmat porter since February of 2009. Prior to that, you were a porter for a very long time from '93 to 2008. You were a good worker. You always get excellent job reports. You have been called a model inmate so many times that, you know, I just stopped really looking at those chronos. You have participated in a lot of programs. Most of them are Christian programs, Mending Body of Christ, Chaplain's Study Circle, Celebrate Recovery, Self-Awareness and Recovery. You participated in the crime victim's week, the Steps A Spiritual Journey, Grace the Power of Love. You did a domestic violence course since the last hearing. CGA, Acts of the Apostles, Life Skills, Spiritual Principles, the Prison Apostles, How to Cope with Depression, Life Recovery Bible, Why Grace Changes Everything, Overcoming Emotions that Destroy, Conflict Resolutions, Houses of Healing, Foundations of Faith, and Sons of Solomon. Those are what you've done since the last hearing and there are more so you stay busy. There's book reports in the Central File that you did for consideration for the Parole Board. One is on Overcoming Emotions that Destroy. One is about addiction. In it you indicate that your addictions are or were alcohol and drugs, sexual addictions, approval dependency, the need to please others, and dependency on toxic relationships and general perfectionism. This book report is not dated and I'm wondering when you wrote it if you recall.

INMATE WATSON: I think in 2011 or '12, something like that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: '11, so it's been a little while. Do you remember this book specifically? Do you remember what you wrote in it?

INMATE WATSON: Not specifically, no, I don't.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Not specifically.

INMATE WATSON: Which one -- what's the name of the book again?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Oh, the name of the book is Serenity.

INMATE WATSON: Serenity. Okay, yeah I remember that, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I just read the first paragraph.

INMATE WATSON: Right. Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Is that accurate do you believe that those were your addictions?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, I don't know that I had a sexual addiction. I don't think I had one of those but --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: No, I don't know. You wrote it so I don't know if you did or not.

INMATE WATSON: Well, that's kind of like this. But you know I had enough partners to I guess I say I did, you know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, let's talk about how you've addressed your addictions. Shall we?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Because you -- I'm not even going to ask you about the steps because I know that you know them far better than he and I do.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: So I'm going to have some faith there. But let's talk about these addictions, the drugs and alcohol. We know that you weren't a big or drug or alcohol user until you came to California and then your use really accelerated cumulating with these crimes. So after the murder of the LaBiancas what happened with your drug use then? Were you continuing to use drugs every day until your arrest or did you de-escalate?

INMATE WATSON: No, I de-escalated.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Why?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I just ran out, matter of fact. I would have probably continued if I'd a had drugs but I didn't have any drugs after that. We had went to the desert and there wasn't any drugs there --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Right.

INMATE WATSON: -- and then I went back to Texas and I didn't have any drugs so.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I'm going to ask you a question. Your lawyer's probably not going to let you answer it but you know there was a lot of other criminal behavior surrounding your participation with this crime family. There was a lot of theft offenses going on so that you could, you know, get dune buggies, supplies, weapons and take them out to the desert and such. There was an additional murder that I don't know if you were charged with, Shorty Shea. That was after the crimes you were convicted of so what do you -- and I don't want you to talk specifically, if you don't want to. But describe for me your thoughts about continuing in this criminal enterprise, basically. The Manson Family was a criminal enterprise. Right? It was -- all the girls were out there stealing cars, right, to get you guys --

INMATE WATSON: That's a little bit over the top.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: No, is it? Okay. All right.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Well tell me what it was really like?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I --

ATTORNEY JAN: Hang on just a sec.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Yeah.

ATTORNEY JAN: Because I want to be cautious here and this is something we had great discussion about prior to the hearing and had a brief discussion with counsel. Mr. Watson is happily willing to engage in conversation and give this Board everything it wants.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Oh, I see.

ATTORNEY JAN: But I want -- but I want --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Counsel, are you afraid that relates to some -- the tapes?

ATTORNEY JAN: Listen this is the key. We're here so you can understand the crimes. The crimes are the most repulsive set of crimes in my book in the history of this state. Okay? No question. He's been convicted and rightly so. He was sentenced to death and rightly so. For whatever reason, he's benefitted by a change in the rules, you know dictated by the Supreme Court saying hey, you know what, we're going to give these fellow life, a big possibility and that's why we're here. But the one thing that I want to be cautious about so that at least I can appear (inaudible) is that we not start discussing ancillary concerns that don't relate to the subject crimes. His involvement and his history but things that either, and this is problematic for me, things that might incriminate him by his comments or his lack of comments or might incriminate others by his comments or lack of comments. And the reason that's problematic is, (A) he has a Fifth Amendment and you guys can't say, oh gee, your refusal to discuss those things we can hold against you. However, the failure to give you sufficient information on which to determine on whether or not he is suitable remains a factor. However, and he's an inmate, and when he talks about a crime committed by another inmate then he becomes something than just an inmate, he becomes a target and that's a problem. That's why I want to be very, very cautious about this --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: -- this is my concern, not his.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: No, no, you're right. I respect that and you're right, so. We're not going to -- I'm not going to pose any questions like that. I am only trying to get an understanding of these causative factors. I mean we were trying to pin down those causative factors earlier in the hearing. Much of it went to the drug use so I want to explore when that started to de-escalate and, you know, the part of the post-crime activities out in the desert somewhat relates to that. If you want to talk about that, I would say go ahead. If you don't want to talk about it that's okay too because there's no evidence of drug use after prison, okay, but it's just something we want to explore. Okay?

INMATE WATSON: What happened --

ATTORNEY JAN: Hang on just a second.

INMATE WATSON: All right.

ATTORNEY JAN: And I'm going to permit him to talk about his drug use. I hope not to be the insulation between what you're trying to seek and what he's willing to give but, in other words, I don't want to stop that flow of information. And drug use is important because he even said earlier I took drugs that night in order to be able to do what I was supposed to do or what I was going to do. So drugs played a factor in so many ways he'll discuss that. But if it's the deescalation of drugs it's okay. If it's the general criminal behavior of folks out there I guess it's okay to give a general description but really anything more than that becomes problematic for the reasons I described and really I hope that you won't hold my insistence that he limit his comments about the post-crime environment, you know, out there where there were other crimes. I don't care if it was some woman stealing a car, or someone selling drugs, or someone manipulating the gentleman that owned the ranch, you know, and I've read some of these things. I'm not really well versed in all of the features of the crime or the actions of the family but these are all crimes and if he's giving up information about post event conduct of others it is genuinely problematic.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: See you said you weren't good at this area of law so now you've lost your credibility. Okay, we respect Mr. Watson's rights so I understand.

ATTORNEY JAN: No, in view of that you want to -- listen, you heard what I had to say. If you want to tell these folks --

INMATE WATSON: I was just going to make the comment that after the murders -- trying to remember what happened -- the day after the murders my friend called the ranch, okay. My friend David that I told you about when I came to California initially and my mother had called him and said that she was worried about me. So I told Manson, I said my mother called and said the FBI was at her house looking for me and so what happened then was that's when I went to the desert because he wanted me to leave. Okay? So that's when my drug use ended right there once and for all. I never had any drugs after that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: As far as my drug use is concerned.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. As far as your drug use was concerned is there a but to that?

INMATE WATSON: No, no.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: No but. I don't even know what point I'm trying to make here. I'm just trying to say that's when my drug use ended.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: It was a quick cold turkey deescalation when you went to the desert.

INMATE WATSON: Right, yeah.

ATTORNEY JAN: Is that what you're saying?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And I told him that because I didn't want any more murders. I didn't want nothing -- and there wasn't any more.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Did you experience any -- what do you call it when you quit cold turkey?

INMATE WATSON: No, none at all.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Symptoms?

INMATE WATSON: None. No, I did not. I was basically on hallucinogens, you know, and the meth. I was only on -- I keep calling it meth it was really called speed back then but I was only on that for a month and, you know so the others were hallucinogens and marijuana which I think is the gateway to hallucinogens, by the way. I don't want to legalize it if I can put that out there.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, all right. All right, so in prison you have been involved in step recovery programs.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: No indications that you've used any drugs or alcohol in prison.

INMATE WATSON: Never have.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You've complied with all the rules that were expected of you. You've upgraded educationally and vocationally. You're a good worker. What do you feel like you still need to work on in terms of who you are, who you are becoming while you're in prison?

INMATE WATSON: I still think I have some fear problems to be quite honest. I was fearful of coming here today, you know. So and I think what gives me power over that is to know who I am. I have a real good identity. Like I told the psychiatrist, I feel that I'm greatly loved today and I'm accepted and I don't have any problems as far as knowing that I'm forgiven. I believe I'm forgiven today. I sit here forgiven, I believe. And I really feel good about myself but I still have a little problem of being fearful and I think it's because of my crime because of what I did, you know. It haunts me at times. And it's not easy -- it's not easy to sit here and share it. It's very humiliating.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I'm sure. Your crime haunts me and I didn't commit it.

INMATE WATSON: I know. Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right, so questions about post-conviction?

ATTORNEY JAN: No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: No. All right. Do you want to talk about your parole plans?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I have basically the same as I had last time except I don't have anything in Los Angeles.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And I didn't feel that Los Angeles would want me back in Los Angeles so I have the same parole plans with Teen Challenge and they're not just for teenagers there for all --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Right.

INMATE WATSON: -- all ages.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I always thought that they should change that name because it's like --

ATTORNEY JAN: Their average age is over 30.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: But I've been in contact with them for several years now and we're also talking to them about some employment possibly.

ATTORNEY JAN: I can give you some insight. I don't know if the letter was received by the Board or not but I have been in contact with -- my father represents Teen Challenge in several places in Northern California, in the Bay Area, and in other states. And I've spoken with the gentleman, I think, at the Bay Area and he has specified that they're more than happy to receive him. And after a period that is the norm inside their program where he goes through, you know -- effectively, it's not approve of but it's, you know, it's come in and begin to understand how you're reintegrated and things like that. That if everything is satisfactory he would be employed there or could be employed at the Teen Challenge.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: As what?

ATTORNEY JAN: As an administrative assistant.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: Or whatever is available and it's quite important, I think, that everyone understand that he's not looking to go out and wield influence. He's a 70-year-old man. He's trying to communicate ably and maybe using some terms that are problematic because of their, what I would call, more scientific or technical nature but he's a humble guy and he does not intend to go out and project into the community. He wants to go and he wants to cooperate with whatever it is that Teen Challenge would invite him into in their normal course and if he can stick around and be employed it would merely be in support of the administrative side of that ministry or a custodial effort or something on those lines. Nothing where he's going to be out banging a pulpit and encouraging folks to come down and you know, it's not happening.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: Now that doesn't mean that he is not amenable to meaningful sharing what he perceives as a testimony of religion, okay. And it's not, I've got to tell you, when he sits there and tells you he feels forgiven, I don't expect that anyone here, maybe there are some that do, but I don't expect anyone here has forgiven him. The system hasn't forgiven him. In his mind, God has forgiven him and that's it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: I'm not trying to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, we're not in the forgiveness business over here.

ATTORNEY JAN: Actually no, and you're actually not in the mercy business either.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right.

ATTORNEY JAN: That's not the point but what I'm saying is thank you for the reiteration and it's not saying that either. So I think I interrupted. Forgive me for going afield.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: That's okay. I wanted to ask you about the assault in 2013. So what happened there?

INMATE WATSON: Well, just someone that I didn't know. I was up on the tier washing my clothes out in the sink and on the second tier, second story, and he was a porter, actually, ex-EOP and he was just sort of hovering around me at the sink and had a magazine rolled up. And he asked me if I knew about Kabala and I said no, I don't know anything about Kabala, you know. Real nice to him, I'd given him a milk and things like that before. And so it was at unlock time, eight o'clock in the morning so I washed my clothes out and had to wring them out and started down the tier. And the next thing I knew, it he was on my back stabbing me with a paint brush, sharpened paint brush and I guess you probably seen where he stabbed me and everything. And then, of course, I didn't react to it. I didn't think he could hurt me, you know, and not that I'm not unhurtable but he was a real small guy and I didn't know he had a paint brush, you know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Did you think he was punching you?

INMATE WATSON: I thought he was punching me, yeah, in the back.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Was he trying to lift you over the tier?

INMATE WATSON: He was trying to throw me off the tier, right, and I just hung on kind of for dear life and waited until the officers got there.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You had submitted a request to transfer, I think, to Chino prior to that?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I had thought about it. I think Chino would be probably less safe for me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Well, you withdrew the request after this assault.

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I did. Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Do you think that you were attacked because of the notoriety of your crime or just because this fellow was just EOP and --?

INMATE WATSON: I think he picked me out. I talked to a counselor about it and she said that she was part of the investigation and that he said that it was because of my notoriety of the crime.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, has that happened before?

INMATE WATSON: No. I've been fortunate.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Yeah.

INMATE WATSON: I've been protected actually.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: By?

INMATE WATSON: By CDC.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right, so back to your letters. We are inundated with input on your case.

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: There are many, many, many, letters in opposition. I'm just going to note those for the record. There's no way I could ever put them on record. It would be just safe to say that there's a lot of opposition to your release. There is a lot of support for your release too. Those letters I will put on the record. You have -- not all of them. I saw you freaking out there for a second.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah.

INMATE WATSON: Let me say. I just -- I just asked people that lived in the area of the halfway houses that I was thinking about going to, to write. I didn't ask many people to write, actually. I just --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. We appreciate that. But nonetheless you do have a significant amount of letters and they are very supportive and they're from, frankly, all over the country. So let me ask you about your ex-wife. You're still on friendly terms?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Right and your children they're adults now?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, they are.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, did they write letters or no?

INMATE WATSON: Well, my oldest son did. I didn't -- I didn't really ask the other ones to write. We're all in very good relationships though. We're on the phone all the time together and, you know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: My older son wrote one for me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You've been in prison since you were 23 years old and you're0 now. Right? What do you think would be the biggest adjustment to living in the free world?

INMATE WATSON: I have to get used to using a cellphone or computer, you know. I've had some computer training but I really, like I told the psychiatrist before this psychiatrist, Ms. Caoile, I think. I've really stayed in touch with the outside even though I've been inside through my children, through my wife, through ministry, through correspondence. I correspond with a lot of people, even through the television set. I've tried to stay really connected in any way that I can so but going out would be a big adjustment still. Even though I've stayed connected in some ways, I mean, I've been here taken care of for 47 years and, you know, to go out there and take care of myself, now. You know, and, you know that's --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: In my opinion, you've had a very full life for somebody who has spent almost 50 years behind bars. You've been able to raise a family, get an education, learn skills, make friends, start a business, write a book, have a movie. Right?

INMATE WATSON: A little video tape, you know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Little video? Okay. You've had a full life.

INMATE WATSON: I have and I really feel fortunate and the same time sort of saddened because my victim's didn't have a life. They didn't have a life, you know. I don't know why things happen like that other than what I did, you know, destroying their lives.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right, before I pass it back to Commissioner Peck is there anything else you want to know about your plans for the future?

INMATE WATSON: No, I can't think of anything else.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: I want to add one thing because I don't know what the Central File says on it but he continues to have family support. I reference specifically the Teen Challenge as, you know, a direct facility for taking him in and providing, you know, a living space and those type of things and hopefully some form of employment but he maintains good relationship with his siblings and his four children. And so there continues to be substantial family support which would be available in the outside world as well so I want you to understand those things.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, thank you. So if you'll return your attention to the Chair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Ms. Lebowitz, clarifying.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Pardon me, I would just like to offer one thing and that is that the ten-day packet had approximately four thousand pages of -- in the -- in the ten-day packet and I would estimate that at least9 hundred of those pages were letters in opposition or signatures on a petition.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I believe there's over ten thousand signatures in opposition to release contained in that packet.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you. In addition --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Which is why we're not reading those letters on the record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Right, but I wanted to -- I wanted to address the enormity of that and also that they came worldwide as well.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, that is true.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you. Yes, okay, so, Commissioner, may we take a break --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: -- before I start with my questions?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Sure.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, let's take a quick break.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: The time is 3:50.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You ready? We're on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thanks. Ms. Lebowitz?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you. I've been asked to inform the Panel that the number of signatures on the petition equals at least 100 thousand that were submitted.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, another reason why we're not going to read them on the record.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Exactly, but I just wanted to clear the record.

ATTORNEY JAN: I demand you read them.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: If we do, I hope everyone clears their calendar for a week.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Okay. Thank you. Could Panel please ask the inmate what he meant when he said that Bobby Beausoleil and Charles Manson were the same person?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: That's a good question. Yeah, what did you mean when you said Bobby Beausoleil and Charles Manson were the same person?

INMATE WATSON: Well, they kind of walked in the same authority it seemed, you know. Kind of looked up to them, you know. That's kind of what I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you thought that Bobby Beausoleil had a leadership role with the same -- I mean, were you talking about a leadership role with Charles Manson or a philosophical belief or what? I mean what?

INMATE WATSON: In line with. You know, I was just like the new kid on the block, you know and so, you know, I just kind of saw him and Manson, they both played the guitar. And you know I just saw them as kind of -- him already arriving at some place that I'm supposed to arrive, you know, by dying to all my inhibitions and ego.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You played -- you played an instrument?

INMATE WATSON: I didn't, no.

ATTORNEY JAN: He had a long way to go. But this was with regard to the topic of hierarchy inside the Manson Family, I believe, was when he made that comment.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: It was but I want to make -- that's what I thought it was too but again, sometimes the way your client responds to a question, I have no idea what he means. Right?

ATTORNEY JAN: Yep.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So and I mean no disrespect.

INMATE WATSON: It's my interpreter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No, I don't need an interpreter though. You know something, God love you. I need you to tell me. You have a way of responding to questions, right, so if you can just say -- you know what the word definitive --

ATTORNEY JAN: You're a smart man.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Just be a little more definitive.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right? And I understand. Remember --

INMATE WATSON: I'm trying to understand myself.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- I'm the GED Commissioner so you got to keep things clear to me. Go ahead.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Okay, so I'm not as, really, understanding as the Commissioner, so I'm not really understanding what his answer was. Is the answer that he had the same belief systems and that he was on the same level of power as Charles Manson?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's what I asked. We're going to try it again. Right?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Yes, please.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole if we get -- what did you mean by that? Did he have the same power level? That's more of a yes or no question.

INMATE WATSON: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, so you definitely -- so he definitely -- Charles Manson was definitely the leader?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Bobby Beausoleil was what? What was he? What would you consider his -- a leadership role, a guitar playing guy, or just another guy that was --

INMATE WATSON: I think it was a leadership role, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, so you then said --

INMATE WATSON: And then another guy named Brook Postson (phonetic) he was a leadership role, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Paul Watkins, not Brook Postson. Paul Watkins.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So when you said those did you mean philosophically? They both had the same belief system.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. I think so. Yeah, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So was that what you meaning to most? They had a belief was similar when you responded to that question?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I felt they did. Now I don't know that they did. I felt they did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: You know because like is say, I was just arriving and observing what was going on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So when you said they're the same person you thought they believed in the same -- they had the same philosophical beliefs.

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's what you meant when you answered that question?

INMATE WATSON: Right. I thought they were --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm trying not to lead but.

INMATE WATSON: -- thought they were the closest probably, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you. On your website, I'm sorry, on the inmate's website on the home page on the left-hand side it has a clear title that says Manson's Right-Hand Man Speaks Out, that advertises his second book. Two hundred questions asked and answered. Could the Panel please ask the inmate why he entitled this Manson's Right-Hand Man and was he Manson's Right-Hand Man?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Good question. Can you respond to that?

INMATE WATSON: How I got the title was a catchy title and the cellie that I was living with at the time, I won't mention his name, won't bring him into this.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

INMATE WATSON: But he gave me the title. Okay? But I think what he was saying is that I was Manson's Right-hand Man on the night of that murder, on the night of the murders.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, what are you saying?

INMATE WATSON: That's what I say.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Are you saying you're Manson's Right-Hand Man?

INMATE WATSON: Not now, of course not but, I mean, then I was -- I was his go-to for those two crimes, you know so that's --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: But why would you continue to identify yourself that way?

INMATE WATSON: I don't identify myself that way really. I just -- I think you have a catchy title.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: And how is it catchy though?

INMATE WATSON: Well, people will want to read it and hopefully get the message that the book gives out. You know about -- and really the book actually gives a lot of insight into what was going on during the Manson Family. It talks about the -- it talks about Manson. It talks about the cult. It talks about the drugs. It has ten chapters. It talks about the victims' families and what I feel there about that and on and on. It talks about forgiveness and the death penalty and things like that and --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You have somewhat the mixed message though about that sort of notoriety, like on one hand you don't want the notoriety of being Manson's Right-Hand Man but then you advertise your book as such.

INMATE WATSON: Well, my main purpose -- there's a thing called a hook.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Yeah.

INMATE WATSON: Okay, and you have a hook order to get someone to read the book to get the message.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I see.

INMATE WATSON: So that's the only -- the reason I would use something like that. I would never identify myself now as Manson's Right-Hand Man. Matter of fact it says former Manson Family member for instance on my website.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When was the -- when was the website?

INMATE WATSON: The website started in 1997.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Does it still say that?

INMATE WATSON: Former?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No, does it still say Manson's Right-Hand Man?

INMATE WATSON: In advertising the book because the book was published in 2004.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right. So does it still say on the -- do you know what it says on the website?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Does it still say --

INMATE WATSON: Yes, yes, it's the book.

ATTORNEY JAN: That's the name of the book, title.

INMATE WATSON: That's the name of the book.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Manson's Right-Hand Man speaks out.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: That's the name of the book. An insightful two hundred plus question interview with ex-Manson Family member --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: -- Charles "Tex" Watson.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, that's just to hook someone into reading the book, to hopefully get the message of salvation, actually, and Christ.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Could the Panel ask the inmate regardless of what he believes now did he believe himself to be Mason's right-hand man during the end of '68 and through '69?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: He just answered that and said he did as far as the crime goes. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: The night of the crime, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Otherwise, I didn't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: The night of the crime?

INMATE WATSON: The night of the crime.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But other than that you didn't think you were Manson's right-hand man at the --

INMATE WATSON: Not at all. I was trying to be. Yeah. Yeah, that was the thing. I was looking up to all these other guys and the women that were almost like the guys, you know, some of -- some of the women that wasn't even involved in the crime, you know so.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Okay. And this book was it actually updated in 2012 or has it been updated since?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Has your book -- when was the last time your book was updated?

INMATE WATSON: Which book?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: The right --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Manson's Right-Hand Man.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: -- Right-Hand Man.

INMATE WATSON: No, it hasn't been updated.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, so it was --

INMATE WATSON: It's never been updated.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right, so just 2004 was when it was?

INMATE WATSON: 2004, I think it was the copyright.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: So if the first page of the books says updated in 2012 that would be incorrect, the on-line version of the book?

INMATE WATSON: I don't -- I didn't know it said updated.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I think he answered it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Okay. The Comprehensive Risk Assessment says on page 6, I think, that you discussed the murders with each of your children when they were six years old. Why did the inmate discuss the murders when they were only -- with his children when they were only six years old and did the inmate -- what understanding of the murders did you think that a six-year-old would have?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you understand the question?

INMATE WATSON: My children -- that may be a misrepresentation on my part in that I didn't discuss the murders with the children. They wanted to know -- coming into visiting they wanted to know why I was here? I even wrote a brochure on that telling my boys about my past. And so we -- I put it to them in a way that a six-year-old could understand, that dad did a horrible thing in the late '60s and that he's now suffering the consequences of what he's done. And then it went into -- but daddy's been forgiven by God, you know, through Christ and so they asked. That's why I did it. They wanted some answers of why they were coming to see me in prison so I -- my wife and I we gently gave them an explanation that a six-year-old could understand.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you.

ATTORNEY JAN: And may I ask for the reference in the report?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: It was actually on page 4. I made a mistake.

ATTORNEY JAN: Thank you, pardon me.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: On the Comprehensive Risk Assessment on page 13, it states that the inmate expected to or would like to have some sort of security detail if he were released. My question is who does the inmate expect to pay for the security detail and what kind of security does he wish to receive?

INMATE WATSON: Did it say security detail?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: It says, actually, it says -- I want to make sure I get this right. You stated that it would be real challenging primarily due to the high notoriety of this crime. He said that he would hope to receive some security so that his family would not have to deal with the consequences, the notoriety -- is that what you're talking about, Counsel?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Yes.

INMATE WATSON: I basically meant just at the halfway house of being at a secure location, you know. Not no protection or anything like that but just a secure location, you know, and I think most halfway houses are fairly secure, you know. Rather than just being out --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm not sure about that, to be honest with you.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah. Well, that's what I was talking about just the secure location. Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: On the inmate's web page under the heading of Helter Skelter, it is written, "The Manson case has taken on a life of its own. It does not deserve all of this attention." My question is why not?

INMATE WATSON: Well, because it's a simple question and the answer also is simple in that we're just so undeserving. I'm undeserving, okay, to have all this attention placed upon me, you know. It's not that the crime and the case doesn't deserve everyone being here today and the anger at the crime, that's deserving. But I'm not for sure exactly what I wrote there. Could you read it again, exactly?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Can you address your --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Just make sure you talk to the Panel, sir.

INMATE WATSON: I'm sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's all right. Could you read that?

INMATE WATSON: Could you read that again?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Yes. "The Manson case has taken on a life of its own. It does not deserve all of this attention."

INMATE WATSON: I don't really -- I can't really -- I'm not saying anything negative about the outcry of the crime when I talk about that attention. It is -- deserves public outcry to the max like it is here today, okay. That's not what I mean in that. Okay? Other than that, I don't know what I mean there. Do you have any --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You can respond.

ATTORNEY JAN: May I? Thank you and pardon my intrusion into this but I was in Las Vegas on a case a few years back and they had just then opened up this Fremont Street experience. It's, you know, downtown and there are all the lights and it's all -- everyone jumps out of the casinos and looks at it or you run out of your hotel and you look at it. And I'm listening to it and there's loud music going and people are staring at it and, you know, some of them in a haze and some of them quite rational. And suddenly across the screen, running up and down that Fremont Street, is Charles Manson's face and people cheered. Okay, now all these folks represent people that have been ill effected, dramatically ill effected by this crime. But these people are caught up in this spectacle of this crime and the perpetuation of it --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Wait a minute, who's these people?

ATTORNEY JAN: Not these people. Forgive me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I want to make sure -- I want to be clear what these people we're talking about.

ATTORNEY JAN: Forgive me. If I'm being inarticulate, forgive me, you know and I realize the record reads differently than, you know, it doesn't show my hands, you know indicating you folks. I understand your concerns about this case. I can't have a full depth of the appreciation --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Wait a minute we're getting off his answer. I know.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: I'm asking of the inmate.

ATTORNEY JAN: I'll explain in my point. So forgive me but this is the thing when he's saying he doesn't deserve all the notoriety there is a silly TV show on this. It's based on these crimes now and it makes a spectacle of these crimes. It revisits them and it engages people emotionally and it thrills them in some sordid way.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I think --

ATTORNEY JAN: That's what it doesn't -- that's what it doesn't deserve.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I think he answered the question.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

ATTORNEY JAN: So you let me in, all right. Thank you for your courtesy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No, the point -- the point was this. I mean, I not trying to set you up or -- I'm not trying to --

ATTORNEY JAN: I don't feel set up. I made my point.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I know.

ATTORNEY JAN: And my point is that it's sensationalized and that is inappropriate and it's not a matter of this setting but -- I think that's his point.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

ATTORNEY JAN: Thank you.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: And that's counsel's argument --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I know.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: -- but I'm more interested in the inmate's answer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah. We're all.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: At this point. Thank you. Okay, during the Commissioner's questioning the inmate talked -- said something about he heard about the Gary Hinman murder in the distance. What does that mean and how did he hear about the Gary Hinman murder?

INMATE WATSON: Well, the --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Wait a minute. Remember I said wait? Let me think -- let me -- let me marinate these kind of questions here before we start getting into that.

ATTORNEY JAN: If you could repose that, I would appreciate it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what we're doing here with this. It's not a charge that he was -- it's not a crime the he was charged with. What --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: My purpose in asking -- well, I don't really want to give away my argument. My purpose in asking is not to commit him or convict him for uncharged crimes or charge that he was not present. I'm asking for a reason and in my argument it will become evident but --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, the problem is this is that I don't -- we have -- the thing about it is this. We have -- I don't want to say unlimited power over here but we wield a pretty heavy sword sitting on the parole board that we can say answer the question or else you may not get a parole date. Right? What I don't want to do is wield that sword to him under unnecessary or unfair scrutiny for something that he may know about and may cause him legal -- so let me -- let me try this but we are walking carefully when we do this. What did you mean by that?

ATTORNEY JAN: And by that forgive me. Can you clarify?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, what did you mean by you heard about the --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: It in the distance.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: In the distance. Remember that?

INMATE WATSON: All the -- there was a lot of areas of Spahn's ranch, you know. There was -- I was living down at the tent one time, you know. There's a house back on the back forty like and there was the ranch up here and people were living at different places.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: So it's not like everybody was together all the time, you know, and, you know, so I heard about some of things that were going on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How'd you hear about it?

INMATE WATSON: I don't even remember. It was -- it was just sort of -- when I heard about it, actually, it was unbelief. I couldn't believe that it was happening that they were trying to extort money from Gary Hinman. I didn't know him myself but I just couldn't believe it, you know, so.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Could the Panel ask the inmate if the person he's calling Rosina is the same person that's also named Luella?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Is Rosina Louella?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Okay. Could the Panel please ask if the inmate was interested in money why did they not stop before they killed Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca when Mr. LaBianca told him that he would go to the store to get them some money?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Can you respond to that?

INMATE WATSON: I don't think the whole motive was money.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, so you testified to that earlier that it wasn't money.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, it wasn't money. Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You were trying to cause Helter Skelter. Is that what it was? You were following Manson's orders trying to cause a race war.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Could the Panel please ask how much money was taken in on the sale of the books?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Do you know how much money was made -- a sale -- the books that he wrote?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You know how much money you made on your book sale?

INMATE WATSON: I wasn't -- I wasn't the owner of the book (inaudible) --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I think the question was very specific. How much money you made?

INMATE WATSON: I didn't make anything.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: How much money the corporation took in?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How much did the corporation?

INMATE WATSON: The corporation gave out all the books free. Any books that we got, we gave the books out free. It was a non-profit corporation. We gave them out to all inmates see and they were purchased by Chaplain Ray. He purchased the books.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you don't know how much money was made of this? Do you know how much money was made off this?

INMATE WATSON: There was no money made off the book.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I know there wasn't -- there wasn't any money made for you off these books.

INMATE WATSON: No, the book was published for prison ministry only.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: It wasn't published for --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So nobody made any money off these books?

INMATE WATSON: No, no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right.

INMATE WATSON: Nobody made any money, no.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: When the inmate talked about having a stable family was he talking about his own family, his blood family, or the Manson Family?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When you were talking about the stability of your family.

INMATE WATSON: Oh, that was my blood family.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: In Texas, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: May I have a moment, please?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yes.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: When the inmate talked about 27 hundred dollars being taken from Mr. Crowe, who took that money?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Who took the 27 dollars (sic) from Mr. Crowe?

INMATE WATSON: Twenty-seven hundred dollars from Mr. Crowe?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah.

INMATE WATSON: T.J., his name is T.J.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Who is T.J.?

INMATE WATSON: Just a Manson associate.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Was the inmate with T.J. when T.J. took the money?

INMATE WATSON: I was with T.J. Yes, I was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You were? Did you -- so was that -- were you part of taking that money?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I was.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: May I just have one more moment, please?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Of course.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: I have no further questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Do you have questions for your client?

ATTORNEY JAN: Thank you. If I could just have a minute?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Of course.

ATTORNEY JAN: You probably know this stuff but I want to ask and may I ask him directly? May I inquire --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Oh yeah, you don't need to go through me, believe me. There's a reason why we have the DA go through it because of procedures.

ATTORNEY JAN: All right. I just want to clarify a couple of things. The drugs that you smoked, I'm just going to call it pot instead of marijuana, okay. You smoked pot one time in Texas. Is that correct? Just one time?

INMATE WATSON: Just one time.

ATTORNEY JAN: But while in Texas, prior to coming to California, at age what 21?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: You consumed alcohol. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Did you consume alcohol to excess in Texas?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, and then you came to California and when you were in California began to regularly use pot. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: And what would -- I realize you came in '60 is it '67 you came in or '68?

INMATE WATSON: Came in prison? '69.

ATTORNEY JAN: No, no, forgive me. When did you come from Texas to California?

INMATE WATSON: August '67.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, and at that time you began to more regularly or commonly use pot. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: That's true.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, how frequently did you use pot in that first year of your -- let's say the first year of your being here?

INMATE WATSON: Probably every other day or weekly.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, and at some point, I don't know if it was prior to or after meeting Manson, you began to use LSD. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: That's true. After I met Dennis Wilson, yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, so it was after you met Dennis Wilson. Was the first day you met Dennis Wilson though the first day you also met Manson?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, so about the time you met Manson you began to consume LSD?

INMATE WATSON: That's true.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, and would you consume it as available?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: And how frequently do you think in the first -- that was in '67, as well. Is that right? so before moving to Spahn Ranch how frequently do you think you consumed or took LSD?

INMATE WATSON: Not many times, really. Probably -- I really can't recall but I would say probably five times, probably.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Something like that.

ATTORNEY JAN: Now there were other hallucinogenic substances you took or used or consumed other than LSD and forgive me, I'm not -- I don't recall them particularly. Was it rosewood seed?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I used that once.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, peyote?

INMATE WATSON: Once.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, anything else?

INMATE WATSON: I used the synthetic cannabinol which was marijuana, synthetic marijuana.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, and any -- was there any other hallucinogen that you used prior to moving out to Spahn Ranch?

INMATE WATSON: No.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, and then you moved to Spahn Ranch?

INMATE WATSON: Uh-huh.

ATTORNEY JAN: Did you continue to consume rosewood or any of those other things?

INMATE WATSON: No.

ATTORNEY JAN: After you moved to Spahn Ranch you consumed acid?

INMATE WATSON: LSD, yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: LSD and you continued to smoke pot?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Is that correct? Did your consumption of pot increase when you moved to Spahn Ranch?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, it increased.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, can you give us some idea of how frequently you used pot after moving to Spahn Ranch?

INMATE WATSON: Every day.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, and did your consumption of LSD increase after you moved to Spahn Ranch?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, we took a lot of LSD.

ATTORNEY JAN: Can you give us an idea of how frequently you used LSD after moving to Spahn Ranch?

INMATE WATSON: Probably about every other day.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay. I've never consumed any drugs other than prescriptions so I don't want to sound like I'm the naïve guy here but you can help us understand what it is that LSD did to you in terms of the way you felt or the way you thought?

INMATE WATSON: Well, you begin to -- you begin to experience it physically in that you can see into your skin and when you look into the mirror you just see your -- you just see -- you just hallucinate on yourself and your pupils are completely dilated. There's no color to your eyes anymore. It's just all black and you're living in a delusional world. There was this one drug called Orange Sunshine that where about half way through the trip, we would call it, would be like a freight train came through your mind. You could hear it coming and you could hear it going, you know. And I mean I really have some very weird things to say about that drug.

ATTORNEY JAN: Well, is it a form of LSD?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, it's a form of LSD. Yes, and it's called Orange Sunshine. Yeah, but anyway I became paranoid. I felt -- I thought -- I walked for about six miles on it one time or more than that, maybe and an airplane come over you'd think it was crashing. I went walking down the street with a couple of the girls and as we were on that drug I took a couple of kids off the sidewalk and the lawn and put them under a bush to protect them thinking that everything was caving in. And you know, it's LSD is, you know, it just -- it just puts you into a delusional world, you know, and I lived that for a long time.

ATTORNEY JAN: How long would the effect of taking LSD last? Was it a short-term effect or would it be hours or would it be days? I don't know.

INMATE WATSON: It would be about hours.

ATTORNEY JAN: Around the time of the crimes you were consuming LSD and pot still. Is that correct on a frequent basis?

INMATE WATSON: Right.

ATTORNEY JAN: Is that correct? And about 30 days prior to the first night of crimes you also began to consume amphetamines or methamphetamines. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: Uh-huh.

ATTORNEY JAN: Can you describe the way that methamphetamine made you feel when you consumed it?

INMATE WATSON: Well, you just feel like you're just wide awake. It's, you know, it keeps you driven. You know you're just driven with it and all these drugs will make you very paranoid. It just takes you kind of into a paranoid, fearful world and I guess it was a way to escape and to just not deal with reality.

ATTORNEY JAN: Now after you use methamphetamine, when you come off of methamphetamine, did you feel a sense of physical exhaustion or weariness?

INMATE WATSON: Physical exhaustion and also you just kind of feel like you -- whatever you do on it you just can't believe you've done it while you were on it, you know. It's just, you know, it just kind of takes over your whole being. It's a -- I don't know it takes over your motor skills, motor functions and I know I often said I felt like a mechanical man when I was on that.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, but --

INMATE WATSON: You know.

ATTORNEY JAN: That's sounds like in a way that you're shucking some responsibility for this. Earlier you said, and I made note of it because I thought it was so interesting, you consumed meth before leaving for --

INMATE WATSON: The crime scene.

ATTORNEY JAN: -- the first night of criminal -- the first murders. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: Uh-huh.

ATTORNEY JAN: And what you said is I intentionally took drugs to be able to do what I was going to do. I believe that that's what you said. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: I did.

ATTORNEY JAN: So using drugs enhanced your ability to commit the crimes. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: That's correct.

ATTORNEY JAN: And you're not blaming --

INMATE WATSON: No, I'm not blaming.

ATTORNEY JAN: -- the conduct of the crimes on the consumption of drugs.

INMATE WATSON: No, I'm not. I never have. I've always took responsibility for taking them.

ATTORNEY JAN: You know someone asked about societal impact. Are you aware of the whole change in the mindset of Southern California, you know, about the time that these crimes were committed?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I am.

ATTORNEY JAN: They generated fear. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I am. You know all the doors were locked and burglar alarms were installed and dogs and people went out and bought guns and, you know.

ATTORNEY JAN: But you recognized your responsibility in causing that shift?

INMATE WATSON: Yes. Yes, I did.

ATTORNEY JAN: The reason I ask about the meth is that Dr. Weiss referenced on page 15 of 20 her Comprehensive Risk Assessment, Mr. Watson said that after the incident, forgive me, he was worn out, totally depleted and went to bed. And is that consistent with coming down off meth?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: And is it -- was the -- do you feel that the viciousness of the attack, the physical exertion as well as the depravity of the attack also contributed to your being exhausted?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, so you're not -- you're not in any way suggesting you were a victim --

INMATE WATSON: No.

ATTORNEY JAN: -- of the night of these crimes?

INMATE WATSON: No, not at all. No, I chose to do exactly what I did including taking the drugs.

ATTORNEY JAN: You're the victimizer?

INMATE WATSON: I'm the victimizer, yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: These are the victims?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, yes, sir.

ATTORNEY JAN: Now you also said that you would not have done that on -- the quote is, "I would not have done that on my own and that you had been influenced by the philosophical belief system of Mr. Manson." Do you recall saying that to the psychologist?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay. Sometime in 1969, I believe, and just correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Manson got a copy of some Beatles' album and it had the song Helter Skelter on it. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: That's correct.

ATTORNEY JAN: Is that about the time he developed this imagery about the race wars or was that before that?

INMATE WATSON: I wasn't with him for three months after that so while I was gone he developed a lot of that, I believe. And then when I came -- when I went back to the ranch after three months everybody seemed to have developed that whole delusional imagery from the Beatle's album and I seemed to have a lot of catching up to do to find out what's going on here.

ATTORNEY JAN: But you did that and you bought into it?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I did.

ATTORNEY JAN: Now Mr. Peck asked a question earlier about the criminality in this group of people and when the concept of, you know, the night of the crimes came to your understanding. You became aware of that, you know, according to Manson needing to take place. And I think you said, and correct me if I'm wrong, it was the day of the event. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, the day of the event.

ATTORNEY JAN: And you mentioned that a couple of weeks prior there was this scuttlebutt or somehow you heard about another gentleman having been murdered. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: I don't know how long it was. I was thinking it was only about five days but I don't --

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: -- really know how -- it was very close, you know.

ATTORNEY JAN: Mr. Peck says you're right and I'm wrong. So I appreciate that. Thank you. But up to five days prior to the night of the Tate's murders, what was -- was there a discussion of murder and doing bodily harm to folks other than this thing with this drug deal that Manson, you know, participated in?

INMATE WATSON: Well, there were skits that Manson would go through of trying to scare people and stuff like that but there wasn't any indication that anyone was going to be murdered.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

ATTORNEY JAN: So the criminality of this group there was stealing something here and there, conning someone out of something, you know. Sending some young lady to manipulate a gentleman who owned the property and things like that. That would be the criminal conduct that you might have seen around the Manson Family prior to let's say five days before the Tate murders?

INMATE WATSON: Well, the Manson Family, you know, they had -- I never did use their credit card myself but I think they had had some credit card illegalities going on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: But there was some theft?

INMATE WATSON: Had some theft and things like that, yeah, but no murders.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: Nothing talking about the murders or anything like that.

ATTORNEY JAN: So Mr. Peck was engaging you earlier and there was some -- there was a gap between what he was asking and the information you were giving. And the information you were giving, I think, it might have been a little bit confusing in some ways. And you went back and you explained your family life and you know -- you know, kind of what prompted things and you were giving this big picture answer. But he wanted to know why in the world does -- why in the world does this kid come out from Texas and become involved not just with the Manson cult, the Manson Family, but why do you suddenly twist in your seat and become a murderer? And so, you know, a point I have is up to five days prior to this event these folks were strange folks but they weren't murderous people?

INMATE WATSON: No.

ATTORNEY JAN: But you became engaged with them, right?

INMATE WATSON: But I have --

ATTORNEY JAN: Did you adopt Manson's -- I don't know if it's a philosophy or if it's a prophecy or if it's a -- I don't know what it is.

INMATE WATSON: I --

ATTORNEY JAN: You became engaged in that.

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Over a number of months prior to the night of the murders.

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I did.

ATTORNEY JAN: Right?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Is it fair to call what Manson, you know, it's a common use of the word, is it fair to call the people that followed him his cult members?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Do you feel you were engaged in cult-like behavior?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, for sure.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, can you give us a little bit of insight into what that means from your mind?

INMATE WATSON: Well, we were believing in a belief system that was from Manson. We had isolated ourself and we were God's people or whatever and maybe not God's people but we were the people of, you know that were the chosen people for whatever, you know and here everybody else is outsiders.

ATTORNEY JAN: Manson held himself out as being some sort of a savior, right?

INMATE WATSON: Right.

ATTORNEY JAN: A god-like figure.

INMATE WATSON: Right.

ATTORNEY JAN: Correct?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: And you inside -- I'm just going to call it the Family, okay, so inside the Family people began to adopt that as their perception as well.

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Right? But whether it's Charlie Manson or it's Satan or it's God or it's anyone else telling you to do something, you still elected.

INMATE WATSON: I willingly went out and did this of my own choosing and for reasons that were totally foolish.

ATTORNEY JAN: I guess the one word that came to my mind earlier when Mr. Peck was asking you questions is when he said why did this happen? I thought, well, because you were willing to allow it to happen.

INMATE WATSON: Exactly.

ATTORNEY JAN: Is that fair?

INMATE WATSON: That's fair. I was willing to let it happen and I participated and did it.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay. Ms. Newman asked earlier about -- you described that you had this spirit of fear and she was trying to, I think, understand that more fully and I was not content with your response.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: It's not that it was superficial, it's just that it was difficult to understand. All right?

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: So I'm going to ask you -- I'm just going to ask you three things that come to my mind and then I'm going to ask you if you have anything in addition to that that you would be afraid of. And I understand this is against your backdrop of your family and coming to California and so forth but did you have a fear or rejection?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Fear of rejection by the family? That is the, forgive me, fear of rejection by your family?

INMATE WATSON: By my family.

ATTORNEY JAN: Did you have a fear of rejection by the Manson Family?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I did.

ATTORNEY JAN: Did you have a fear of failure?

INMATE WATSON: Fear of failure.

ATTORNEY JAN: Did you have a fear of failure in an inability to carry out the crimes that might have been a tiny piece of that which motivated the conduct on the nights of the crimes?

INMATE WATSON: We were fearful of Manson and what he -- how he saw us, you know.

ATTORNEY JAN: Were you -- was there any fear of physical harm?

INMATE WATSON: He did put a knife to my throat one time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: He did what?

INMATE WATSON: He put a knife to my throat one time.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: But -- go ahead.

ATTORNEY JAN: No, that's okay you said but I was just going to say was there a fear -- we can come back to that.

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: The knife. That's fine. But was there a fear of the loss of that feeling of acceptance that you had come to know inside the Manson Family? Was it a part of the motivation, that was part of the spirit of fear that you suffered?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: Is there anything else that we can understand, I guess, in more lay terms about what it was that you feared when you described this spirit of fear that you were laboring under?

INMATE WATSON: No, not at this time. I can't really say anything.

ATTORNEY JAN: I'm sorry because I'm going kind of fast (inaudible). You know, in -- I think it was in Ms. Weiss's report she wrote that you were generalizing responsibility for the crimes and today you described that Manson had told the girls what to do. I think that was your description, told the girls what to do but you had knowledge that -- did you drive the car to the crime scene?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I did.

ATTORNEY JAN: You drove?

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

ATTORNEY JAN: And when you got there you got out and you did something that Manson hadn't told the girls to do. You got out and cut the telephone wires.

INMATE WATSON: That's exactly right, yeah.

ATTORNEY JAN: Then when someone was leaving the estate you shot him.

INMATE WATSON: Exactly.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, I mean, Manson didn't tell the girls to do that, did he?

INMATE WATSON: No, no, no.

ATTORNEY JAN: And then you directed the conduct of the girls inside the home. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: That's correct.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, so you're not generalizing responsibility?

INMATE WATSON: No, not at all.

ATTORNEY JAN: You were the captain on site?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I was prepared to say that here even, you know.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay, but you don't generalize your responsibility.

INMATE WATSON: No, not at all.

ATTORNEY JAN: You're not trying to shirk any responsibility for what you've done?

INMATE WATSON: It's sometimes very hard for me to sit and go through the crime. It's just very difficult and so usually when somebody asks me, you know, about the crime I tell them to read the book, you know. I don't -- I don't really like talking about it so even with the psychiatrist and it was very hard for me talking to her about it. And you know so it's painful so I think that's -- I wasn't doing to ever shirk accountability because I've shared that everywhere as far as what I've actually done just like I shared with you here today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Got it. Let's get to the questions.

ATTORNEY JAN: I don't think I have anything further.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Let me ask you a question.

ATTORNEY JAN: Me?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Not you, him. You're already suitable for parole. I'm good with you. Do you believe Mr. Manson was the messiah?

INMATE WATSON: No, not at all, no, no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, I mean I was listening to the questions your attorney was asking you and it seemed like there was a belief that you had, right, that you thought, that you believed in his philosophy. Is that correct?

INMATE WATSON: I didn't even know what messiah meant back then. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, then let me rephrase that.

INMATE WATSON: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you think he was some kind of -- receiving some kind of divine messages that he knew what was happening? That he -- that this whole, big, giant Helter Skelter plan was a viable plan, was a realistic plan or?

INMATE WATSON: I didn't think they were divine but here's what I did do. When I was out in the desert after the crime I called my mother up and told her I had met Jesus just like she had always wanted me to.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And you were talking about Mr. Manson?

INMATE WATSON: Mr. Manson, yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you thought -- by that statement that implies that you thought that he was the messiah at that time, right?

INMATE WATSON: Well, yeah, but in my limited view of who I knew the messiah was. I mean I didn't know anything about the messiah. I didn't really know anything about Jesus. I just knew that Mr. Manson was in my limited ability to even know anything about the messiah, you know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: Would you like me to follow up on that?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No, I don't.

ATTORNEY JAN: All right. Enough out of you, huh?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Not enough out of you. It's just that there's certain things that I want to cover right now and then I'll let you cover everything that you want to cover in close. You talked about skits so that really peaked my interest over here.

INMATE WATSON: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And it made me wonder what kind of skits were you doing?

INMATE WATSON: Well, what Mr. Manson -- every night everybody would get together in a big circle and he would -- his whole thing was to take the fear away from you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

INMATE WATSON: And so that you would die to any fear so he would have someone or a chair put in the center of the room, for instance, and then everybody would begin to holler at that person and put all their fear into that person, for instance, to get rid of their own fear. I mean it was silly things like that, you know, that he would do and things that he would sing. It was kind of a time of deprogramming, like I've shared before, that he would get us all together and do that with his guitar and different things he would go through.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How long -- how long did that go on? Did that go on the whole time you were there?

INMATE WATSON: Well, it went on for several months, yeah, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Did you also go out into people's homes in the night?

INMATE WATSON: I never did myself.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Was that also part of deprogramming?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, it was but -- yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Why wouldn't you participate in that?

INMATE WATSON: I just never was asked to go do it or I wasn't, you know, at the right part of the ranch to do that. And some of the stuff is overblown too as far as what's been reported, you know, so.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What's overblown?

INMATE WATSON: Well, I don't know that -- I don't know -- I never knew of anybody really that they did that with even though it's been said that they did. Okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So in other words your testimony would be then you don't know that people did that or --

INMATE WATSON: No. I don't know that people actually did that but it was rumored that they did and that they were but I didn't see anybody doing that ever, yeah. Matter of fact, I do remember one time of us driving around and he was going to do that and I went up and rang a doorbell, you know. And you know I had that in one of my books, matter of fact. So you know I knew --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You did participate in something then.

INMATE WATSON: Well, I never did see it done as far as going in houses is what I'm talking about while people were sleeping and things like that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, what did you think you were doing when you were driving around?

INMATE WATSON: Yeah, well, this is part of the deprogramming of being able to, you know, to get rid of your fear and stuff you know is what I'm saying.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. Any follow-ups? Follow-ups?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Follow-ups, counsel?

ATTORNEY JAN: A moment please. I'm trying to recall what it was that you were discussing with him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Messiah or skits.

ATTORNEY JAN: Oh, yeah, SIA (phonetic) thing. Listen, did Manson describe himself as being Jesus?

INMATE WATSON: You're asking me that question?

ATTORNEY JAN: Yes.

INMATE WATSON: No, not really.

ATTORNEY JAN: Okay. I didn't -- I was under a misimpression.

INMATE WATSON: No. No, he didn't.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Why would you tell your mother that you met Jesus?

INMATE WATSON: Well, because we were -- there was talk about say for instance the devil and Jesus and things like that but we never did actually think you know that Manson was actually Jesus Christ. You know we didn't think that. But you know we had a very skewed understanding of who Christ was, you know. So it was just -- and when you're on the LSD and you're trying to figure all this stuff out it just it becomes very muddy, you know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: That wasn't very clarifying. I'm sorry. That's all I have, thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Ms. Lebowitz, do you need a minute for close or would you like to take a --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Oh, no, I'm ready.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Go ahead.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Okay. Obviously, the issue here today is whether or not the inmate poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office believes that this inmate does and opposes a finding of parole suitability today. Our position is based upon the following reasons. First and foremost, in the Lawrence decision, the Lawrence court stated that in rare cases the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole even where there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness. I could go on for two hours and talk about the brutality and the enormity of this crime. The Panel has indicated through its questioning and throughout these past few hours that they understand the enormity of this crime and the brutality of these actions. However, because I do like to make a record, I would just like to brief in stating some of these facts. The purpose for these crimes was to start a civilization-ending race war and this is the definition of domestic terrorism. The whole community, the whole state was fearful and shaken that these people could come into their homes and do that to them. The murders were meant to instill fear in everyone in the whole community and the crimes were designed, as I said, to start a race war. This crime family stole money, robbed, and murdered a man named Gary Hinman to start or to fund their activities. They stockpiled weapons. They prepared vehicles in order to make their getaway. Inmate Watson was one of the people that actually worked on the vehicles so that they could accomplish this getaway after they made -- after they slaughtered people in Los Angeles. They moved their supplies to the desert. They went to the Tate house. Inmate Watson was the leader, as he told you and the reason he was the leader was because he was in fact Manson's right-hand man. And when he boasts about it on his website it's not that he wanted to be, he was because Manson's philosophy were that men were kings and women were there to serve him and men. So that it doesn't make sense, it's really conflicting in the evidence that Manson would tell the girls what to do and give them the instructions rather than having the man be the leader because if women were given the instructions that would be completely inconsistent with Manson's philosophy. Watson goes in and he cuts the phone wires and he disallows the possibility of any cry for help from any of the people in the house. They brought guns, they brought knives, they brought supplies. They meant business. This wasn't something that was not thought out. As a matter of fact, evidence in most of the records show that Inmate Watson was responsible for teaching classes about how to kill people and shoving the knife in and ripping it up so that they were sure to be dead. Mr. Parent drives up to the see the -- to see the groundskeeper, Mr. Garretson executed, four bullet holes right in his body. Watson goes in and he slits the screen. The evidence is conflicting that the doors were open because, in fact, the doors were locked and they needed a way to get in and that's why Mr. Watson split the screen -- slit the screen. They entered and they brutally murdered five adults and one unborn child. They were supposed to leave a mark, do something witchy, leave a message. They left a message, "pigs" in blood, in one of the victim's blood on the door. And why did they do that? Well, one story is they wanted to make it look like a copycat murder from the Hinman murder so that -- so that Beausoleil and Davis would not be suspected. But what it was, was this was a common plan. This was a -- this was a unique, full thought out plan that they were going to blame the blacks to start this race war and so in blood with the Pink Panther (sic) sign and the pigs in blood on the wall. It was part of the domestic terror plan.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Black Panther.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: What'd I say?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Pink.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Excuse me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We know it wasn't the Pink Panther. It's okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: May the record reflect black. They left their mark. They changed their clothes in the Tate residence, Tate-Polanski residence. They washed out their knives. They disposed of their guns but Helter Skelter wasn't stimulated enough and so if what Mr. Watson is saying is true that he felt horrible and that he felt depleted and he was so horrified at what he did why then did he go out the next night to kill more? And they went with a lot of the family members on that night. They drove around and they looked for someone to kill, another indiscriminate killing. They went to a church. Ms. Linda Kasabian was driving, given orders by Manson. They went to a church. Thank goodness the church was locked because they planned on killing the minister. Then they drove around and they went to another house and Manson got out and saw photos of children and he thought well, children are going to be part of this massacre but not tonight. So what did they do? They wound up on the driveway on Waverly Drive next to the LaBianca's and they knew that driveway because they had been in the house next door at a party previously. They went in and they also -- another person was spared that night. A random motorist who was driving next to the car on the road and but for the fact that the light turned green, he would have been shot by Charles Manson. Manson went in, tied up Mr. LaBianca with Inmate Watson leaving Mr. LaBianca defenseless to assist himself and his wife. They went back out and got the girls and what did they do? They slaughtered the LaBianca's. Twenty-six stab in Mr. LaBianca, 14 puncture holes in Mr. LaBianca, carving the word "war", another part of their message of domestic terrorism. And I would also like to point out that at the Tate-Polanski house Mr. Parent was shot four times. Sharon Tate was stabbed 16 times and hung, five of which wounds were fatal. Jay Sebring stabbed seven times. He was smashed in the face with a gun and he was shot once. Wojciech Frykowski, 51 stab wounds, hit 13 times on the head, two gunshot wounds. Abigail Folger, 28 stab wounds. This is not something that well, you know I just couldn't stand up to him because I was fearful and I didn't have a choice and I didn't have good morals and I didn't have direction. This was a cold, calculated plan thought out not just two weeks as the Inmate Watson has told you, but months before these killings. In order to perpetuate this plan, the three people that didn't enter the LaBianca house went in the car and Linda Kasabian, after they stole Mrs. LaBianca's wallet, planted it in a bathroom in an area that was predominately African American. They wanted somebody of African American descent to find the wallet, use the credit cards, and be blamed for the murders further stimulating this Helter Skelter civilization-ending race war. Then they went out to Venice and Linda Kasabian was supposed to knock on the door of a man that she had known romantically. But purposefully, she saved another life and she knocked on the wrong door but they would have killed that man too so this was a plan to indiscriminately massacre people in Los Angeles and this was not just something that they thought about the night before. If any case deserves to be considered under the Lawrence criteria, this is one of them. If the Panel believes that this is not the case that fits the Lawrence criteria, then the People offer several other bases for denying parole finding a nexus of dangerousness from this inmate. I'd like to point out that the inmate has no insight into the gravity of his offenses. He does not understand that killing witnesses in order to shut them up, such as Shorty Shea. He does not understand that trying to kill witnesses (Barbara Hoyt) by feeding her LSD is part of this crime family terrorism plot. He does not understand the impact of his statements upon the victims' families who are sitting here because when we first started out this hearing what did he say? When he was talking about meeting Manson he says well, and I'm going to quote this. When he talked about when he began to meet Manson he says, "Well, it wasn't like we were going to go out and murder people." You have victims' families here. How insensitive is that when that's exactly what they wound up doing? He lacks credibility. He flat-out lied to this Panel about several things but I'll point out a few in particular. Number one, he's referred to the -- he's referred this Panel several times to his book that he wrote and the book appears on his website. There are several instances of lying but I'll point out one in particular and then I'll point out some more. When I asked the inmate who took the money, who took the 27 hundred dollars in the drug deal he said it was T.J. Now remember, he's referred you to his book several times and I'm talking about the first book. On page 60 he's talking about the theft of the 27 hundred dollars and he's talking about his girlfriend Rosina/Luella. And he's talking about getting the money and it says, "When Crowe threatened violence to her if I tried to cheat them," because they were going to cheat them -- the plan was to cheat them out of the money and this was a drug sale on behalf of the Manson Family to fund their criminal activity. When Crowe threatened to her -- strike that. "When Crowe threatened violence to her if I tried to cheat them I gave him one of my Texas grins and drawled that they should know I'd be coming back when they had my girl. I don't remember whether I really thought that they would hurt her or not. There was no reason to believe that he meant what he said but it didn't much matter to me what they did to Luella as long as I got the money for Charlie. They gave me the cash and I went straight into the front of the apartment and straight out the back and T.J. and I were off to the ranch." Crowe gave him the money. T.J. didn't commit that theft. And just like he was dishonest with you when he told you and minimized his conduct in that situation he's minimized his conduct in his participation in these murders. Talking about the underlying cause of the crime he told you it was the drugs, but it wasn't the drugs and he really emphasized the fact that I take full responsibility for my crime and he said that several times. But he couldn't answer the Panel's questions because every time the Panel asked him questions he would talk about what he learned or he would cite to his book or he would cite what he -- what a Christian principle was and that's not answering the questions. He talked about his drug usage and he talked about the underlying cause of the crime and, again, here's something that lacks -- shows that the inmate lacks complete insight into what he did. In the second book, Manson's Right-Hand Man, it's really a question/answer format. And in one of the questions the questioner says can you summarize the underlying cause of the crime. And I don't have the page number but he has headings so it's well organized. You can look at it. And the answer is, to sum it up, this, "rebellious act evolved from a corrupt value system," everything he told you, "wrong beliefs and a lack of personal identity and self-worth combined with Manson madness, meth violence, and being driven by demons." Now what I'm most concerned about with are two things. Number one, the lie about the meth violence, which I'll get to in just a moment, but the fact that he called it a rebellious act. This was a massacre and his belief system tells him now -- he tells you that the book hasn't been revised but when you look on the website, on the book page it says revised 2012. This reflects his current belief system. Now let's talk about the meth violence. The evidence at trial and as shown on the Appellant Decision as in WatchDox and the C-File indicates that the inmate testified at trial that he did belladonna root on the day of the Tate slaughter. He didn't call it slaughter, I am. And he ingested LSD on the day of the LaBianca slaughter. Now nowhere in this testimony from the time right after the murders does he mention meth or speed. I don't know where it comes from but it doesn't come from the truth. He talks about the cause of his -- the causative factor of his crime as drugs but he experimented with drugs when he was in college. He experimented in drugs when he was living with his friend selling the wigs. He experimented with drugs when he lived with his other friend after the wig shop closed. He experimented with LSD when he lived with Dennis Wilson. So Manson, and what he's led you to believe, feeding him drugs is really not a causative factor because it's something that he was doing way before he met Manson. Now I'd also like to talk about his self-help in terms of the drug usage. And in the CRA the clinician wrote down what his quoted, misquoted according to the inmate, what the steps were. But the first step the inmate told the clinician was to admit that one is powerless over effects of separating from God. Now if narcotics and drugs were the cause of the inmate's crime then one would think that he would say he was powerless over drugs. But that's not part of his equation. His equation is God and his equation is his beliefs. But in order to truly understand the causative factors, if in fact they were drugs, he needs to have a program that says he is powerless over drugs, not powerless over his separation from God. I'm almost finished. There are several other facts indicating that this is a terrorist organization and a crime family but I won't go into them now. But there's one thing, my last issue I'd like to address and that is that I would like the Panel to consider the following theory. The inmate describes in his book the reason that he joined a cult and it was the same reasons that he talked to you about. The lack of identity, a strong spiritual identity, the lack of direction and spiritual meaning, the lack of acceptance and the lack of love or acceptance from his family. Those were the reasons that he joined the cult. Now my theory, and I submit to you that these are the same reasons that he found Christianity for all those same reasons. And so it's not different. It's the same and so who is to say that next week he's not going to find another importance in some other philosophical belief because he, at some point, feels lack of identity, lack of direction, lack of acceptance. Now he talked about the fact that he has a strong identity and I would like to propose the opposite. That this man continued to tell us that he was weak, that he was fearful, that he didn't get accepted from his family and that's why he chose Manson. And he had identity from Manson. He had identity from doing the things that Manson asked him to, ludicrous things that Manson asked him to but he did them and he got identity from being part of that family. He now is a born again Christian and his identity is not from within himself but it's from the identity that he gets from Christ. And my point is, is that that's not self-identity. His history is to look for others for his identity and if you have no identity you have no strength. And if you have no strength, you have no ability to say no. And who is to say that he's not going to say yes to another person with whom he identifies? And I think based upon all of those reasons that I have indicated that there is a nexus to current dangerousness and; therefore, a denial of suitability of parole and I would request for the lengthiest time possible, at the very minimum, five years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Counsel? You need a break or --

ATTORNEY JAN: I just need to understand the format.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: Because I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Are the victims' or victims' representatives going to present (inaudible)?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Here's what is going to happen. So you're going to make your closing statement, basically articulate, I assume, why Mr. Manson (sic) in your opinion is suitable for parole.

ATTORNEY JAN: Mr. Manson is not suitable for parole.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: God bless it, thank you. That was very -- I very much apologize.

ATTORNEY JAN: Mr. Watson.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Mr. Watson, thank you. Sorry, we've been talking about him all day so.

ATTORNEY JAN: It's okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you're going to articulate why your client's ready, suitable for parole. Then he will make his statements and then the family members will talk for as long as they want.

ATTORNEY JAN: I just wasn't aware of the order of things so now I understand. I got you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: The victims will go last and then we'll break for deliberations.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Then afterwards, we'll call everybody back in and we'll make a decision.

ATTORNEY JAN: Thank you, okay. Wow, I have lots of things to say and I'll -- tell me when I get to minutes and then I'll try and wrap up. I'm not at all shocked except by one thing that counsel said and I'll save that for the end. But to start with, and I may have made this clear right from the outset, he's blessed by the state to be here. By all rights, he should be dead. I believe in the death penalty and that's what I believe. Okay? I'm here because my dad retired and I'm here because I think the system itself now needs to consider the rules for itself. And there's an awful lot that can be said about the crimes but there's nothing that counsel can say, there's nothing that the victims can say that can change the crimes. They are -- they were and are horrendous. They're entirely indefensible. They were brutal, they were silly, and I don't mean to minimize by saying silly. That which motivated these things whether in the mind of Manson, or in the mind of Watson, or in the mind of the ladies, it was absolutely silliness. It was -- it was deranged. There was no logic to it. There was no sound thought behind it and somehow these foolish people are caught up. And you, you know, listen, cults happen and dominant minds exist, and inferior or subordinate minds exist, and codependence exists, and shared psychosis exists and that's what we see here. There's no question that every one of these willing dupes shared Manson's psychosis. Now were they capable of overcoming that shared psychosis and deciding not to commit these crimes? Absolutely. I don't know if Mr. Watson described it but I've read and counsel has so often referred to the book that I think I can probably refer to the book I never read until just recently. It says look we drove around trying to figure out what to do and where to go and eventually, you know, our decision was made and we went forward with the commission of these crimes. Yeah, they could have backed out at any time. They could have said hey, listen why don't we run down to the bus station and get on a bus and go and they knew it. Every one of them knew it. Some of them were too weak to mention it. In fact, every one of them it appears was too weak to mention it but it doesn't mean that they weren't willing participants because they absolutely were. And when, you know, she describes, you know, terrorism which I think is a -- in 1969 I don't know that we understood the concept of terrorism. I mean I was nine years old in 1969. I'm a grandfather now. Today I understand the concept of terrorism. Okay? But this is a bunch of buffoons, murderous buffoons, following a cult leader and he came up with this radically psychotic, crazy idea and they bought into it. Why? That was the question you asked. Why? Let me tell you there is no good explanation. There is zero explanation that will satisfy you, or you, or me, or any of those here because there is no good reason. Now I will tell you that he was willing, and he was stupid, and he was young, and he was on drugs, and he had this fear that he described, and he had this rebellion that he described, and anger that he described. And let me tell you, it was a confluence of all these things, these factors or these circumstances that allowed his willingness to participate to be evidenced. But each of those factors, and we can pick on one at a time and that's okay. Let's pick on drugs. Hey, Stoopnagle (phonetic), you're not supposed to use drugs. Don't blame the drugs. Don't tell us about using LSD or belladonna or pot, you know. That's just drugs. Oh, look at them, okay, it's drugs. But we all realize and you know we've all had family members, maybe extended family members or we know folks that have been involved in drugs. And let me tell you, they become fools for drugs and by drugs. Our society is being decimated and burdened by them. So yeah, we can point at drugs. They don't blame drugs. He can't blame drugs. He acknowledges having ingested drugs so that he could commit the crimes. He knew in advance he was going to commit them but he said hey, listen; I got to make this effective. So yeah, drugs had something to do with it but he's not blaming drugs. Okay? And he's not blaming his folks, you know. And gee, I didn't have a concept of where I was going. I didn't have a plan for my life. I wanted to be a mechanic and I didn't have a job as a mechanic so I went out and killed people. That's not what he was saying. He's saying that he didn't have an awareness and, you know, the sense that is necessary to recognize where he is. To see that he is in the midst of this confluence of factors, and events, and circumstances and he just went along for the ride and he was willing and happy and you ask him to explain it and he can't. He's not just some hey-see (phonetic) that came out from Texas. He arrives here, you know he's gone to college a couple years. He's had some girlfriends. He's had some alcohol, he's had some pot. By the way, it was apparently one use of pot before he arrived and he gets here in California. I mean I was born a hundred miles from where these things occurred and man, he's faced with a whole new world. And you ask why is he is a parasite? This is a parasitic lifestyle. Right, yeah, I figured out that I don't have to rely on my folks and I don't have to have a job. I got a girlfriend that will sell drugs and we can sell drugs and we can make money and we can make a living and we can just have a happy ole time. And you know what? Whatever virtue of work ethic had been instilled in him by his parents he suddenly said, humph, this ain't so bad. I'm in California now. I'm taking -- I've been taking on a lifestyle. That's what it was. It was a lifestyle change and it was -- and it was the willing giving up of his morals, which you described, his moral compass. His moral compass eventually was thrown out the window, his work ethic. It's so easy. Listen I live in an area where there are lots of kids that use pot and I know one kid and he's a very gifted kid. I've known him for two years and he hasn't done one positive thing in two years but he smokes pot every day. And let me tell you, it controls his life and so I don't blame him for that. I blame the fact that where'd your work ethic go, son? You got your way through high school. Let's get it in gear, you know, but it's so hard. Well, this is just another of those factors that came together to create the environment in which he was a willing participant and made a cognitive decision to commit these crimes. Now when you say he's not under some cult-like effect in connection with Manson, obviously, there was some influence of Manson in the making, in the conspiring together of these crimes, the coming together of these folks for the commission of these crimes. I get that and Manson was a -- listen anyone that thinks that we're going to go live in a hole in Death Valley for 150 years the guy is psychotic. Well, how is it that some 23 year old, or 21 year old, or 19 year old folks -- I was going to say kids but then they're folks -- buy into this? I mean how silly, and sordid, and stupid, and foolish is that, okay? So yeah, it was -- it was a cult-like environment. I get that but he's not blaming that. And so when you say he -- when counsel describes that he doesn't have insight let me tell you, and I want to save a little bit about his Christianity for the end. Okay? But you spend 47 years in-house, 45 in California custody and you have individual psychotherapy, you have group psychotherapy, you have counseling, you have programs and this institution or the state provides those resources and he availed himself of those resources. And he came to understand things and you know what when it first started in his relative youth he was glib. Uh, you know, I'm saved. You know Jesus loves me. Ha, ha, it's all great you know. And let me tell you that doesn't sell and it didn't sell to the psychologists and the psychiatrists that evaluated him early-on. And in later years, they came to understand okay, gee whiz, his conversion is real. His remorse is real. His insight is mature. Now I can sit here, and I've already gone all on about the crimes and you know I'm not trying to -- it's sound horrible to say -- I'm not trying to invite myself into the other camp by those things. Okay? But let me tell you, those are immutable. History does not change, people do and that's why we're here. And counsel cites in re Lawrence and I got to tell you, in re Lawrence is a very interesting case. It's a long case. It takes hours to read if you're really trying to get something meaningful out of it. And there's even a little bit of stuff that we can argue about, okay, in terms of interpretation. But toward the end of the case this is what the court describes. Absent affirmative evidence of a change in the prisoner's demeanor and mental state the circumstances of the commitment offense may continue to be probative of the prisoner's dangerousness for some time in the future. At some point, however, when there is affirmative evidence based on the prisoner's subsequent behavior and current mental state that the prisoner if released would not currently be dangerous, his or her past offense may no longer realistically constitute and reliable or accurate indicator of the prisoner's current dangerousness. That's in re Lawrence at 44.Cal 4th 1181 at 1219. The bottom line is we can sit here and we can talk about the crimes all day long and books have been written and people are obsessed with it. Not these folks. These folks have real, sincere injury. These are the victims. These are the personification of those victims in today's world. I get that. Okay? But we take the crime and after a point that crime is not a valid indicator alone of his current dangerousness and dangerousness is that which defines suitability it's my understanding. Okay? And we are at that point and let me tell you, if 47 years in-house isn't a sufficient period of time after which the use, the exclusive use or reliance on the heinous nature of the crime no longer should apply I don't know what is. It's one-fifth of the history of our country, 47 years. I mean it's a long, silly time. But is he deserving of it? Absolutely. Is our system deserving, however, of paying attention to what he's done in-house utilizing that which is made available to him by the state to reform his character, to recognize his wrongdoing, to develop and appreciate insight and to express remorse and those things he's done. And I'd like to -- I'd like to read not from the current CRA but from the next prior one in page.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm sorry, what year?

ATTORNEY JAN: I'm sorry. This is a cite at page 8 of Dr. -- forgive me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: It's okay.

ATTORNEY JAN: Dr., I'm not sure how to spell or pronounce the name, Caoile? Cale?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Caoile.

ATTORNEY JAN: Caoile?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I know it doesn't even look like that but that's what it is.

ATTORNEY JAN: I'm sorry. At page 8 he writes -- I'm just going to read a couple of things, three things or four things that have been written here. Through the course of psychotherapy he expressed a deep sense of remorse and was able to recognize his specific causative factors for the crimes. Now today, we get stuff that's not really perfectly satisfactory in terms of what he's saying because it's hard for us to grasp the point. But the state employs people that know this stuff and they said look, he's expressing real remorse, deep sense of remorse and he understands the causative factors. So whether or not he can adequately express them to us he's expressed them to the experts. Now going on, this was with reference to the 5/3/01 report by Dr. Roston. The evaluator noted that Watson's level of remorse and empathy was clear and deep. It's real. Does it always come off that way? Listen, after 47 years of hearing people throw around things like folie a deux and you know insight and you know psychological terms you know that the lexicon of the psychologists and the psychiatrists he's not really well equipped to use those things. Apparently, I'm not either but you get the point. But after spending time with him he said look, the guy is remorseful and it's clear and it's deep. It's evident to the -- to the doctors. Were Mr. Watson released to the community, this psychologist believes that he would try to be a model citizen and would probably succeed. This psychologist would predict unequivocally that he would not resort to violence. That's the same cite on page 8. Now you know I don't -- we're in an awfully difficult setting and the job that the two of you have is incredibly difficult because although you have three thousand pages of stuff to go through really you're distilling this man's life down to a few hours and it's very difficult. But the folks that are in-house here, those that write the good chronos, those that have sat with him in therapy, those that have sat and counseled him, those that have done the CRAs describe almost universally, as far as I'm aware, that he's a thoroughly decent guy. He's a very -- well, I shouldn't say very -- he's a low risk for violence. I don't what the full standard gradation is but he's a low risk for violence, especially low among inmates. And all we have is this institutional setting to, you know, to discriminate within, you know. In other words, to understand. And what you mentioned earlier, you know that given these circumstances he's relatively a low risk. In these confined circumstances he's not using drugs and all these things. But you know what, these are the only circumstances we have and the system has to be held accountable for that which it provides and affords these people and the benefits they gain from those things, those psychotherapies, those counseling, those restorative programs and so forth. But at page 18 of the next prior report the second to last paragraph, he, meaning Mr. Watson, accepts full responsibility for the commitment offenses, expressed profound remorse and empathy for the victims and their families. He demonstrated excellent behavioral and impulse control throughout the course of his incarceration. Mr. Watson has not exhibited a need or exciting or stimulating activity but by all accounts has demonstrated an ability to devise and accomplish long-term goals as evidenced by his educational/vocational upgrading, institutional employment history, participation in self-help groups, and the development of comprehensive parole plans. And you know I think that those things stand true today. I have to tell you as an aside there is some difficulty with, you know, parole plans because I think at one point the Board said, you know, we don't have anything -- from the county from which he hearkened but that's an almost impossibility I think with this case because of the nature of it. And as to this confluence of factors, you know it's not just some neat, innovative argument or sloppy, innovative argument from counsel. Here is what the doctor wrote in the next earlier CRA. Consequently, it seems that a combination of factors came together over a relatively short period of time that culminated in the commitment offenses. Specifically, Mr. Watson's fragile ego and dependency needs made him vulnerable to the influence of Manson and the cult-like mentality of the Manson Family. His underlying anger and resentment, need for acceptance, drug use, and the adoption of delusional belief system contributed to his capacity to commit the multiple murders. However, in terms of Mr. Watson's institutional history by all accounts he has shown notable progress and growth during the course of incarceration. Now last thing, and I'm sorry to be so verbose, I want to talk about what counsel said. I know she's not attacking the institution of the church. I know she's not attacking the Bible. I know she's not attacking God, otherwise, we should all duck. Okay? That's not the point. But this institution provides a chapel. This institution provides chaplains. This institution provides Christian step programs, all right. And let me tell you, programs like Teen Challenge are the most effective programs in the world when they supplant the dependency on drugs and the codependency with others with a relationship with God. All right? And we have a country based on it, we have two thousand years, four thousand years of Western Civilization based on it. Let me tell you, the Bible is true, okay, God is real. And his relationship it's not forgiveness. It's not forgiveness from the folks. Frankly, I wouldn't forgive him if I were sitting in your chairs. All right? Forgive me, I'm referring to the victims, forgive me. And this Board, as we earlier briefly discussed, ought not forgive him. That's not the point. He's not here asking for mercy. He's not here asking for grace. He's not here asking for forgiveness. He cannot make amends, he can't. Why, because the immutable facts they don't allow for it. How does he make daily amends? He tries to be a decent guy today by what he knows today and that he chooses a relationship with God, which is justified in my book in every circumstance, is not akin to the delusional, shared psychosis that he and Manson and the other members of the cult were participating in. Okay, and it's -- I know counsel meant no offense what is a terribly offensive thing to say. All right? And especially when this institution and this state allows for restoration and rehabilitation through these means, through chapels, and chaplains, and ministries, and self-helps, and Christian steps and he availed himself of those things. And today, however hard it is to believe, he's a decent guy. He's a wretched, foul murderer and that's the fact but people change, facts don't. And he has changed and he has changed consistently over time and he's found a path to balance in his life. He ministers as he can. He is a positive influence on those with whom he has interaction and as a -- you're looking at the clock. But as of today, 47 years out, the heinous nature of the crime, and I'm sorry, I meant to go through the, you know, the entire code but I didn't do that. But the heinous nature of the crime no longer qualifies as a reason to keep him here. And it's like, and I'm not trying you to anything but, Ms. Newman, what you said is look, there are really just no negatives in his in-house or institutional behavior pattern. There really aren't and the guy's a servant. He's out cleaning up toxic waste and he's been doing it for years. He's 70 years old, you know. The good news is people change. The bad news is what he's done can never change. And with that, I suppose I should stop talking. I appreciate your ear.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

INMATE WATSON: And your consideration.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Mr. Watson?

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Would you like to make a statement?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, please.

ATTORNEY JAN: May I have just two seconds?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah.

ATTORNEY JAN: Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You ready?

INMATE WATSON: Yes, I'm ready.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Go right ahead.

INMATE WATSON: Okay. I want to begin my apologizing to the families for these murders, for the enormous pain that I've caused.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Mr. Watson?

INMATE WATSON: Yes?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I'm sorry, you're not allowed to look at the victims.

INMATE WATSON: Oh, I'm sorry.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You can address them but --

INMATE WATSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- you need to keep your eyes on the Panel looking.

INMATE WATSON: Okay. Sorry about that, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: That's all right.

INMATE WATSON: For the enormous pain that I've caused for taking the lives of their loved ones, Steve Parent, Wojciech Frykowski, Jay Sebring also known as Thomas Kummer, Abigail Folger, Sharon Tate and her unborn child Paul Richard, and Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. I took their most precious possession and that was life itself and no family should have to go through or suffer a loss like that and then hear rumors in town that the press was blaming them in some way for what had happened and it was their fault. I also apologize for causing tremendous anguish and distress and suffering. I took their dreams, I took their visions for life and their careers. For instance, just one person, the first person that I killed (Steven Parent). He was on his way to college, 18 years old on his way to college and I'm sure he would have graduated. He would have had I'm sure a marriage and kids and even grandkids by now at 65 years old. And he was into electronics. I'm sure he would have just loved the electronic age and technology age and just sharing all that with his -- with his kids. I mean you know I took everything, you know from his life that -- and pleasures that I've had with my children and he hasn't. I took a lifetime of experiences and memories from not only them but from their families and the hugs, the kisses, the childhoods, the school and graduations, the marriages and children, vacations, family reunions. And what I did I replaced all these with funerals and great loss and unbearable grief. What I've done -- I haven't hid from what I've done. I've actually five years before I came to the Board hearing I intentionally asked someone to send me the Wikipedia pages of all the family, all the victims that I destroyed, and I went through those and I read them and it was just unbearable. And when I went to the psych and saw the psych, for instance, the next day, and I didn't know that she was coming the next day, I just could not even hardly talk to her it was so unbearably painful for all the things that I had done because I really digested how much I took from each one of these dear people. And I just -- I just want you to know that I'm deeply sorry for the pain that I've caused to this day and to their families and friends and especially those that are here today. I apologize to those who came upon the bodies the following two mornings. I even knew the maid that was at the -- well, I guess, no, that was somebody else. That was when Terry lived there actually so she wasn't the one I don't think that came up on the bodies. But you know they must have been terrified and from the emotional suffering that was because of me, you know. And I apologize to the people that responded to the crime scene and the taxpayers and as we talked about here today, to the whole city of Los Angeles for the -- for the fear that just ran rampant throughout the entire area of Los Angeles. And actually, entirely around the world and society around the world as the news began to spread. Also when I apologized last time it seems like I was insensitive in my statement about a t-shirt that one of the family members' relatives had seen at school of Manson on the t-shirt. And it wouldn't have been on that t-shirt I'm sure if it hadn't a been for me, you know, of my actions and carrying out those murders. I apologize also for the pain that I've caused my family and my friends, which has also been devastating, not near the like of what's happened here today. But and also for even the ex-Manson followers for my negative effect upon their lives while I was there with them because there's certainly been some negative effects. And I'm sorry that at the time I wasn't a man of greater character and able to resist this act that I went out and did and the temptations of carrying these crimes out. Through faith in God's grace and many self-help groups, as we talked about here today, I feel I've done and tried to do as much examination as I possibly can. I've had my family and friends send in all sorts of different things that I can learn greater insight about why I did what I did. I wanted to know from the very beginning when I showed up in prison and I've worked on that now for 45 years of trying to -- trying to figure that out and I feel that I have gained insight of why this selfish, greedy, emotionally insecure man I was at the time made such compulsive choices for what I did. And but all this insight that I feel that I have gained no way diminishes the fact that I have caused such great pain to so many people. And I knew what -- I knew -- I was an adult at the time. I knew right from wrong and I chose to do wrong. I chose to go out and commit these crimes in order to gain acceptance, and significance, and respect that were outside social norms just totally. So here's what I take responsibility for. I take responsibility for conspiring to kill whosoever was present at the crime scene, for my foolish and reckless choices, the act on the conspiracy. For being the leader at the crime scenes, for climbing a pole to cut the phone wires on the first night, for shooting and stabbing Steve Parent and Jay Sebring to death. For tying Jay Sebring and Sharon Tate together around their necks with a rope over the beam. For kicking Wojciech and stabbing his to death, for stabbing Abigail Folger and Sharon Tate to death thus causing the death of her unborn son. For tying up and stabbing Leno and Rosemary LaBianca to death, for carving "war" on Leno's stomach after he was dead, for demanding money from the crimes both nights, and for giving directions to the women while carrying out the crimes. I've admitted responsibility now for 47 years first with my attorney in Texas in 1969. We sat down and recorded tapes that you brought up here. And so at the trial also I admitted and testified at my trial of exactly what I did, for the lives I took and for the physical and emotional devastation that I caused. I've admitted to psychs exactly what I've done over and over for years and to my counselors and here at the hearing today. I've had no problem I don't feel in being responsible for what I've done. Since my incarceration I've been dedicated to turning the selfish, fearful young man I was into a compassionate and sincere person that I am today. Along with the changes I've made, the support of my family and friends and solid parole plans will insure that I succeed on parole and be an asset to the community. I sit before you today undeserving, to say the least, though I do believe I'm suitable for parole. I've done everything necessary including a relapse plan to insure a successful parole. I would just hope that the way I spend the rest of my life, whether it is in prison or not, the victims' family could in some way see that I do understand what I did and that I'm trying every day to live a responsible life and be a positive example. I know I can't change what I've done in the past but I hope to make living amends in my everyday life. Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you, sir. Let's give everybody a chance to hit the restroom before we hear those statements.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. We're going to take a recess. It's 5:52.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, we're going to go on record. We're on record. The time is 6:07 p.m.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. So if you could just introduce yourself, spell your last name and make your statement. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong person.

UNKNOWN FEMALE SPEAKER: He's going to say. It's okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry.

MR. DIMARIA: My name is Anthony DiMaria. It's D-I-(capital) M-A-R-I-A, nephew of Jay Sebring. These are, to say the least, and bear with me if it gets difficult because it probably will. These are troubled waters for many of us in here today and I would be remiss if I didn't state that I feel profound sorrow for all of us involved and great sorrow for Mr. Watson. For decades, for nearly my entire life, I've always wanted to know everything I could know about my uncle. I read a lot of information about him, a lot, and probably a lot more misinformation about him. So I appreciate Mr. Watson addressing some of what he remembers in the Cielo living room. In addition, I'd like to quote from Mr. Watson's testimony circa 1971 because it describes the actions of Jay and the last moments of his life. This is from the transcript. "Question: What happened when the other people came into room? Answer: As I recall, I was pacing back and forth behind a sofa jumping up and down making weird noises when Sadie yelled out watch out. I turned and emptied the gun on the man coming after me. Question: Was this the man on the sofa? Answer: No, the other man. Question: What happened next? Answer: I went around to stab him and one of the other women was already stabbing him." That's the end of that. In additional testimony from Mr. Watson he described Jay as, "the guy running after me," before shooting. I encourage everyone to find this testimony because after so many years of narrative and sensationalism it is imperative that we see things as they are. And to Mr. Watson's attorney's point, indeed there has been a profound amount of sensationalism since the murders and it is a direct manifestation of his client's crimes. Today's hearing will be the third hearing and the upcoming hearing on the 29th, December 29th for Patricia Krenwinkel will be the fourth parole hearings for our families who have all been involved in these in just over a year's period of time. And while these hearings they reopen old but very fresh wounds, I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of a man who was a profound source of love and pride for all our family. It is crucial in any matter regarding violent crime that the victim has a voice. It is the silenced voices of Charles Watson's nine victims that bring us here today. I include Sharon's son and Donald Shea. To be clear, our family's involvement in these hearings has nothing to do with feelings of anger, vengeance, or hatred towards Mr. Watson. Rather, we come out of love to speak for those who can't speak for themselves. We are not here for Mr. Watson. We are here for the nine dead. This is the 16th hearing that our family has attended and over the years there has been much discussion on drug and brainwashing influences, accountability, remorse, forgiveness, and rehabilitation. I'll address some of these. The District Attorney has addressed some of the points I planned to discuss so I will focus on the threat to society. Joan Didien (phonetic) wrote, "Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the '60s ended abruptly on August 9th, 1969, at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like a brushfire through the community and in a sense, this is true." It is imperative to recognize that Charles Watson's crimes and the Manson legacy has become a poisonous societal cancer with destructive and fatal consequences even today. I sadly call to your attention 16 year old Jason Sweeney who was murdered by four teenagers ages ranging 15 to 17. During the trial, the killers admitted listening to Helter Skelter for several hours over and over before murdering the teenager. Jason Sweeney was killed with a hammer, a brick, and a hatchet. Jude Conroy, the District Attorney who prosecuted the case states, "It is really amazing that teenagers in Philadelphia Memorial Day weekend and contemplating and incredibly violent and brutal murder is attuned to the whole Helter Skelter and Manson mythology. It is a sad testament to the twisted, brutal legacy the Manson murders have left behind so much so that it attracts, 15, 16, 17 years old 40 years later, three thousand miles across the country. It is a powerful legacy." For these teens, Charles Watson's murder rampage was exciting and an inspiration to kill. The threat of Charles Watson to society, whether immediate, symbolic, or repercussive is real and it's current. Regarding forgiveness, there is a Biblical sentiment that you can forgive the person but not the crime, that justice can still be served. Our family has never desired a letter of remorse from Charles Watson or considered forgiveness for his crimes because, frankly, Mr. Watson's crimes transcend us. The authority to forgive in this case is beyond any individual or any institution and lies solely with the nine people he massacred. It is my belief that any consideration of forgiveness on my part beyond those who have suffered directly is moot and self-serving. Regarding drug, Manson influence, and deprogramming, I want to quote Dr. Barbara Fries, M.D. Senior Examiner from the Board of Neurology and Psychiatry. "It is not defensible to say Charles Watson was influenced immediately or chronically changed by LSD or speed. No drug has ever produced a sustained psychotic state that would cause a person to carry out organized activity as in these murders with regard to the planning, the targeting, murdering, painting messages in blood, wiping the crime scene free of fingerprints, not to mention escaping capture and hiding from authorities. Psychedelic drugs do not make people do psychotic deeds." For decades, our families are impacted as certain facets of media fashion a narrative on Manson and the so-called family. But in light of the profound gravity of these crimes, it is imperative that we see things for what they are. The Manson Family was not a cult. It was a group of people who chose to avoid work, have indiscriminate sex, and get high. They thought they were manifesting social revolution as many adults believed then. This was not a group of hippies. This was an extremely organized crime organization involved in credit card fraud, grand theft auto, possession of illegal weapons, and drug trafficking. But there was a smaller subset that truly desired cultural upheaval through murder and terror. I mention this because it speaks to the narrative that diminishes the gravity and actuality of the offensives. Charles Manson is not a mastermind or a counterculture demigod with mystical powers to control. He's a frustrated man who lashed out at society in which he was a failure. Charles Watson is not a Manson follower nor is he a victim of Manson. He too was an angry individual who identified with an organization bent on mayhem and destruction. His actions for several years define him as a cruel-hearted sociopath, a determined killer. Part of what torments me all these years and today is the severity of Mr. Watson's crimes and how horribly the victims suffered. The murders that occurred on the nights of August 8th and 10th dealt seven gunshots, 170 stabbings, and 13 times a blunt object was used to bludgeon. Mr. Watson fired all seven gunshots, crushed a skull he bludgeoned times and stabbed over 100 times with a bayonet, a butcher knife, and a carving fork. Mr. Watson dealt fatal blows to all the Tate-LaBianca victims. He mutilated and disfigured victims as they lay dead. For decades, our families have been reminded of the abundance of attention and resources paid to the killers while our loved ones remain forgotten in their graves. These crimes have become a cash cow for many, many people during the past five decades evidenced most recently in the prime time show Aquarius that despicably exploits Mr. Watson's murders, sensationalizes the killers, while the victims are treated as cardboard props and the twisted packaging and selling of their own slaughter. To Mr. Watson's attorney, his point, indeed, there has been a profound amount of sensationalism since the murders but even now in this hearing we are witness to the tremendous focus and resource afforded to Inmate Watson as he petitions for release. So let us consider this. Steven Parent. Let every one of us remember when we were 18, just graduated from high school, our dreams, our lives ahead of us. And then one dark Friday night trapped in your car confused, scared by this man shoving a long barrel gun in your face. He had never met him. He just wanted to go home. Consider Leno LaBianca -- I'm sorry. Imagine yourself strapped to the chair in which you sit, your hands bound behind your back as you hear the screams of your wife in the next room. See this man mock you, taunt you, knowing all the while you are helpless to defend yourself and the woman you love. See this man standing before you holding a butcher knife and a carving fork and shove these carving tools into your abdomen and thorax 26 times. I was three when Mr. Watson committed his crimes. When my grandparents were informed that Jay was killed they called my mother in Nevada. She was 23. She was pregnant. She never had that child. She miscarried the baby due to suffering and stress caused by her brother's murder. Charles Watson and his attorney may believe that he has been rehabilitated and is a changed person but I remind the Board that Steven Parent, Wojciech Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Sharon Tate, her child, Leno LaBianca, Rosemary LaBianca, Donald Shea, Jay Sebring remain unchanged, unrehabilitated, unparoled. They are just as dead today as when Mr. Watson sent them to their graves. I urge the Board to recommend parole for Inmate Watson when you can parole his victims from their graves. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MS. MARTLEY: I am Kay Hinman Martley. I'm the cousin of Gary Hinman. I'm sorry, Martley, M-A-R-T-L-E-Y. Gary was the first victim of the Manson Family and today I'm the representative of Debra Tate. California citizens, the California Legislature, and the California Board of Parole should be aware and concerned for public safety. You must take a stand not to release any of the Manson Family individuals. These murderers are psychopaths and they cannot be rehabilitated. They are cunning, charming, and manipulative. They are also impulsive, irresponsible, callous, and prone to violence. They fit the profile of a psychopath. Of course they follow the prison rules. They do what they're told just like they followed the leadership of Charles Manson. Have you forgotten they all originally received the death sentence? Why does 40-plus years make the murders any less severe, any less punishable? Is the public safe? No. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MS. REYNOLDS: My name is Jillian Reynolds and I am here as a representative for Tony LaMontagne who is Leno LaBianca's grandson. And one of the reasons that Tony isn't here is because he's deeply and profoundly, as everyone here is, affected and when he starts talking he breaks down so I said I'll come. I want to mention that you know Tony is roughly the same age that Leno was when Leno was murdered so I think it has a huge effect on Tony. And he and I have discussed second chances many times and I have come to the conclusion that when the death penalty was overturned that was Tex Watson's second chance. He got to go on and father four kids. You know he denied Sharon the right to have her one child and it goes beyond that. It goes to the point that Anthony just made the heinousness of the crimes and afterwards while you have two dead people, Rosemary who was only 38, and Leno 44, dead you shower. You make their food from their kitchen. You eat. It's like another day at the office. It just is unbelievable and inconceivable. And so we've had many conversations about that and Tony wanted me to express to you exactly his words and this is what I'm going to read right now. These are Tony's words. "My mother was 21 in 1969 when she lost her father. As a college sophomore she dreamt of building a future, getting married, having her first child, continuing to build a family in the Italian tradition. She was home for the summer in Orange County where she lived with her mother, brother, and sisters when one phone call changed the trajectory of hers and all of our lives forever. The voice on the other end of the phone simply said your mother -- your father rather -- your father and stepmother are dead. I can't even imagine the pain my mother felt upon hearing those words. Her father was gone and she would never see or speak to him again. He would never walk her down the aisle at her wedding and he would miss the birth of his first grandchild. I am Leno LaBianca's first grandchild born four years after that day and I too have been affected profoundly by his death. I grew without ever having known him. He missed my little league baseball games, my Pop Warner football games, and was not there as I grew up to be a man to teach me how to play golf, run a family business, build a home, talk politics, or any other valuable lessons that a grandfather would teach the grandson. And here we are again today more than 45 years later discussing the fate of my grandfather's murderer. I'm disgusted and hurt by the State of California. They have stooped so low as to be hearing this convicted and admitted mass murderer's plea to get out of prison yet another time. He invaded our family home, he plundered the Tate residence and in a cold but calculated way he brutally murdered every human being in his path. He didn't care about the pleas of my grandfather Leno nor those of my step-grandmother Rosemary. He didn't listen to the crying or the screaming of those in the Tate house either, Sharon, Jay, Steven, Abigail and Wojciech. These are random killings. It could happen anywhere to anyone. It could have been your home but it happened to be mine. So please try and put yourself in our shoes and ask yourself can a man who murdered more than seven people in cold blood for no logical reason be allowed to walk free to commit murder again? Would you be able to sleep at night if he is released? I hope and pray that the level-headed judgment of this Panel will see to it that this killer stays behind bars for the rest of his life. Please do not continue to put us through this nightmare of having to relive these horrific crimes year after year in order to do the job that the state should be doing. I believe my grandfather would be proud of my standing up for him in his absence. God bless you and continue to rest in peace. Sincerely, Tony and the LaBianca family."

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MS. REYNOLDS: Thank you.

MR. FAULKNER: My name is Michael Faulkner, F-A-U-L-K-N-E-R. I'm a LaBianca family representative and I'll be reading a victim's impact statement from Louis Smaldino who's a nephew of the LaBiancas. It's extremely important all of the family and friends of the victims of these extraordinarily vicious crimes are respected for what they have bravely endured. The number and consistency of these Manson Family parole hearings is overwhelming to these victims and they are to be commended for their tireless quest for justice. We appreciate Mr. Watson speaking openly today though he says it's very painful. It's hard to imagine it could be anywhere near as painful as what Sharon, Jay, Gibbie (phonetic), Wojciech, baby Paul, Steven, Leno, or Rosemary experienced as their young lives were cut short. Lou says Charles Watson is an unrepentant serial killer and one of the leaders of the Manson Family and was condemned to death. No amount of prison time can rehabilitate a sociopath like this man. He is an immense danger to society. Our family will never recover from the loss of those he brutally took from us.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MS. TATE: And that leaves me, right?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We have one more.

MS. TATE: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: That's okay.

MS. MATTHEWS: My name is Lynn Matthews and I'm here to read a victim's statement from Janet Parent, sister of Steve Parent.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: M-A-T-T-H-E-W --

MS. MATTHEWS: M-A-T-T-H-E-W-S. "To the Parole Board, our family will always be empty without Steve. Charles Watson has broken our hearts by taking Steven away and no one can repair that. That terrible Saturday in August 1969 my mother was already very worried about Steven. He would always call if he was going to be late coming home and Friday night he never called. Saturday morning my parents went to a function at church and I was home with my brothers. By late morning, early afternoon there were men saying they were police reporters who came to the door. They barged into our house and saw Steven's high school graduation picture framed sitting on top of our TV set. They asked me is this your brother. When I said yes they started taking pictures of his picture without asking permission for even entering our house. I called my parents at church and told them there are people inside our house and I don't even know why they are here. These reporters then left and without telling us anything. I looked outside and saw many other reporters outside of our home. We did not know at that time that Steven had been murdered. We saw news reports on TV about a horrific massacre that had happened at Sharon Tate's house and we recognized Steve's car in the driveway but we still had no idea where Steve was or what happened. Later that night, some El Monte policemen came to our door. My mother answered the door and they handed her a business card that said L.A. County Coroner on it and that she needed to call them. When she realized why they were there, she fainted. This was how we found out Steven had been murdered. And the pictures taken in our living room of Steve's graduation photo were broadcast to the world. This is why I have not spoken to the media. I don't trust them at all. Charles Watson has had a good life. He's been married. He has had several children, which have been paid for by the state, but what about my brother Steve? He never had the chance to get married, to have children, to go to college. Watson has had all these opportunities. Tomorrow is my mother's birthday. She would have been 91 years old. She was my best friend and we could tell each other everything. She died at 59 years old with a broken heart. She was never the same after losing Steve. I don't care if Watson gets every degree or finishes every program there is for him. He may be a model prisoner but he is a murderer and he killed my brother. I'm so tired of the press only talking about Charles Manson but never you, Mr. Watson. That you were the one who got into the car and drove to Sharon Tate's house. You murdered my brother. You did more killing than Manson did. To the members of the Parole Board, do you think this man has enough degrees and religion to live in our society? Sincerely, Janet Parent."

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MS. MATTHEWS: As a friend of Janet's I would like to make a statement for Mr. Watson to hear. Each time a parole hearing comes up it reopens the wounds that the victims' family members are forced to live with. Nothing can change what happened in 1969. Mr. Watson, you did not show any mercy, compassion, or sense of humanity to any of these victims. But there is a way you can show mercy, compassion, and a sense of humanity to the victims' family members. If you were to permanently waive your right to these parole hearings it would guarantee you would spend the rest of your life in prison but it would also give a sense of peace and relief to these victims' family members. Dying to self and putting other's needs ahead of your own is what true Christianity is. I am a Christian myself and I hope this really might speak to your heart. Thank you, Lynn Matthews, a friend to Janet Parent.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you.

MS. MATTHEWS: And this is the picture that was taken without permission, the high school graduation picture.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you, (inaudible).

MS. TATE: I sat in this room in Mr. Watson's last parole hearing as I did the parole hearing before that and the one before that. I have been doing these, every single one since 1980 -- 1998, excuse me. I helped my mother prepare very often for these things long, much greater than my years at the time that she started, implemented the laws that allowed victim impact statements to be made. My impact statement is, I'm just going to tell you upfront, it's going to be a little bit different than other people's because I go from the heart. As Mr. Watson, not this particular attorney but his father in my first hearing with him I went through each of the actions which we are all painfully aware of and added that that summer I was in that house all summer long. I only left to pack up my family home. As a military brat, I was queen of moving a household and had just returned, had only seen my sister once but had become extremely good friends with Wojciech Frykowski and Abigail Folger. Jay Sebring I had known for many, many years and was like a big brother to me. Steven Parent, unfortunately, I did not get to know. Only after his death through friends that, girlfriends actually, that he had high school holding hands but intentions with. I have a very good idea. Same thing with Leno LaBianca and his lovely wife and Shorty Shea because I have had contact with his ex-wife and his daughter. I would like to discuss things that I heard in the room today with you Commissioners. The fact that his attorney says that it was fools that committed these crimes, fools, really? Really, fools? That's not exactly a word that I would choose to describe these people. Narcissistic at best, sociopathic, absolutely. The crib note version of a sociopath is those that do not pay attention to the rules of man or God. There is no cure for this. I have been trained, which is something that you don't know, by the Department of Parole. They wanted to take my ranch and I was interested in making my acres with four homes on it a halfway reentry facility. I speak under Marsy's Law not only in these hearings for family members but for totally unrelated things. I have the ability to forgive. I also have the ability to discern what is a sound mind and an unsound mind. I am going to tell you that a person that can manifest and interpret that kind of evil it never goes away. And I have spoken with the best of the best including the people that give each one of these individuals their license in the state of California and they agree with me that this is a impossibility. I am learning. I am learning because of the frequency of these hearings that not always are the most current, up-to-date, or scholared people are employed by our penal system. I think that's a crying shame. I think this is where we need the best of the best to decide who is going to go into society. Who is truly well enough to risk public safety and that is my only motive and I would like to remind you and beg of you please remember that regardless of what the laws may be, okay, if any one of these people come out, and I will reiterate and bounce back to parole plans. Why is it everybody wants to go to San Francisco where their crime partners are, for God's sake? Why? I've not heard enough that would convince me from Mr. Watson ever that he has heartfelt remorse to our families. It's very easy to have words. It's easier to have good deeds within the system. That is exactly what I expect out of a rehabilitative system to give you the tools that you may need. However, he's fallen short in my experience with forthcomingness on his crimes. He has fallen short on his accuracy to this Board today and I will give you the direct example and that is the beach house belonging to Dennis Wilson that the Manson Family lived in, Dennis moved. His mother, that was his mother's house, and himself, and his wife, and his small child because he could not get rid of the vermin in the house. It took the mother of his young child to come in to get the cojones to throw these people out. He has not come forth with the fact that they did creepy crawlers for almost a full year in practice on how to get in and out of people's homes. He did not mention the fact or become accountable with the fact that he was the individual that took the cord and taught them how to use bayonets to stab and kill, all right, training. I'm a military kid. Yeah, stick it in. You twist it and you lift it up, okay, yeah, bleed out slow. I would like to make note to my unborn nephew who suffocated slowly because his mother didn't have any blood in her bloodstream. He was alive for hours while these people went to the refrigerator and fed their needs. I know an awful lot about drugs where you don't both personal, and clinical, and studied. Methamphetamine doesn't make -- isn't a violent drug, it's a paranoid drug. It will, if you're artistic, it will make your endeavors in the arts greater, bigger than what you are. If you are evil, it will bring out the monster. Nobody shoved that drug down his throat ever. That was a lifestyle that he chose. And if he were to gain his freedom today, and believe me, if I heard different facts I might be willing to sit here and say let him go, truly. You don't know me that well. I would do that but those facts do not exist and all it takes is a no, things not going to the way he might want, the lack of the controlled environment in which he has been placed where he can thrive, and it's business as usual. The potential is there. It is there in a great degree. Nothing I do will bring back my family members. I would really -- my motivation is purely to keep anybody else from having to go through what we've gone through and there's a couple of ways in which this can happen. They can influence other people, even people that they don't have necessarily have contact with. There is the wild card and the elephant in the room is what about some family member that says this guy shouldn't be out and goes and gets him and then they're in the system. The only way to stop the perpetuation of violence assuredly is for Mr. Watson and all of his crime partners to stay in this institution. As a man that has God he can serve to the day he die. Susan Atkins, I was the first phone call by your department when she passed. There is still dried flowers on the crucifix hanging in my bathroom where my God sees me naked every day and I am accountable every single day too and I cried a tear for her passing and asked my God, God, the God, the creator to have mercy on her soul. You see it's not me, it's not mine to judge. I am here as a witness to try to prevent the perpetuation of violence. I have no hate for him. I would also like to tell you something that you may or may not know. My youngest -- my mother died in 1992 of brain cancer. I moved home and took care of her until the day she died. My little sister came down with breast cancer. Some of you at the Board of Prison Terms knew her for her short work, which was a total of four years. When my mother died she told me not the one with the boy, which would have been Patty, but Patty had just left her husband and needed a purpose. She was floundering not unlike we all do when we are at teenagers or at different points in our lifetime. I gave her the purpose of taking care of this. I don't like being a front person. I'm not real fond of the cameras and I'm, as my father always said, I'm a loose cannon and I am and I take that monocle and I wear it proudly. This man said in the year 2005 -- my sister died in the month of June. Sometime after that, this good Christian man said that my mother and my sister died because they had no forgiveness in their soul. I have forgiveness. It's impossible for me to forget. I'm also impossible to fool. I am looking at the hard facts. Mr. Watson, I would like you -- I would like to have meetings with you. I would like to come and visit with you without counsel. I would like you to make me understand. There are other people in this room that would like the same thing although you have never offered that. I'm extending that gauntlet to him and let's see what kind of Christian he is and what kind of Christian his counsel is. I want to see. Let me see. Let me understand. I really would like to believe that it's all okay but in my heart right now, sirs and ma'am, it is not okay. Please take that into consideration. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Thanks. The time is approximately 6:45 in the evening. We're going to recess for deliberations. Follow the officer please.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Ready?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yep.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. The time is approximately 7:30. All parties that were present have returned for a pronouncement of the Panel's decision. Mr. Watson was received on 11/17/1971, Murder First from Los Angeles County, case number A253156. Mr. Watson had a minimum eligible parole date of 11/30/1976. According to the California Supreme Court, in making a parole eligibility decision this Panel must not act arbitrarily or capriciously and must consider all relevant, reliable information available. In your case, Mr. Watson, we reviewed your Central File, we looked at the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, we listened to your testimony today, listened to what you had to say. We took into consideration as we're required the opinions of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. We listened to your attorney. We listened to the family members in order to come to a decision. We reviewed your confidential portion of your Central File but there's really nothing there so we didn't use anything that was there. The fundamental consideration in making a parole eligibility decision is the potential threat to public safety upon an inmate's release and a denial of parole must be based upon evidence in the record of an inmate's current dangerousness. Having these legal standards in mind, we find you do pose an unreasonable risk to public safety and you're not suitable for parole. So let's talk about it. First of all, we took into consideration you meet the criteria of elder parole. You're 70 years old, you've been in prison for 47 years. If anybody met that criteria, you do. You've been in prison for a long time and we took that into consideration. Let's just start with the crime. When I say your crime was horrific I'm not really using the right word. Your crime I would say changed -- and I grew up during this time so your crime made it where people that didn't lock their doors anymore they all locked their doors afterwards. They didn't feel safe in their homes anymore. People, not only in California, not only in the United States, but across the world lost their innocence to a certain level because of what you did. If there was ever a case that met the criteria of the Lawrence decision, your case does. One of the biggest -- your attorney had talked about it, the DA talked about it, I certainly talked about it a lot and one of the things that I really want to know is if you have an understanding into why you did what you did. Because I believe that if you haven't explored why you did you did, if we let you out and you have those similar circumstances you'd go right back and do the same thing. And there was a lot of talk about if you've just gone from one belief system when you were with Mr. Manson to another belief system as far as your religion. And I don't know, I don't. It's an interesting thought though. You described today that you went through a significant loss, that you had no goals, that you were medicating your pain because of not living up to parental expectations. You were searching for answers and you had no direction of your own. Well, you know I can describe four of my kids that way. I could describe probably if I went and did a poll and talked to a thousand young adults I would probably find at least seven hundred of them that would give me those same answers. So I'm just a nosy guy so that didn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. That didn't make me feel warm fuzzy. I wasn't feeling good about that answer because it didn't tell me how you could go from that kid with the good family, with the parents that cared, that was the track star and the athlete and the guy going to college, and the guy that tried to get his own business. Everything, everybody that we'd feel comfortable with to move in next door to us and go that guy's good, that's a good dude, it's a good guy, to this. So I was asking you why, why, why this? Why were you doing this? Why are you involved? And we kept on going back to this you were -- I don't want to say, I don't know. Give me the right words that he said that he was. You were involved in -- I don't want to put you on the spot but I just did.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Not having specific goals. If you sat down with your parents and would have -- you wouldn't have bought -- if you sat down with your parents and created goals you wouldn't have bought in to Manson's goals and you discussed the Psychological of Radicalization.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's it, thank you. But why? Why were you susceptible to that? Why when the violence started why -- and it's really hard for me to believe because I've doing this for a million years. It's really hard for me to believe that the day before the crime or a few days before the crime all of a sudden Mr. Manson goes to you and say hey, guess what, here's what I want you to do. And you were like, I'm good if there wasn't some sort of planning, if there wasn't some sort of guess what, this is what we're going to do because you know you climbed up a telephone pole and you cut a telephone wire. You didn't cut all the power off to the house and you didn't electrocute yourself. I probably would have electrocuted myself if I would have done that for the first time. So there must have been something where you knew what you were doing and then you knew how to get into the house. You knew how to round up all the victims, you knew how to do whatever you were planning on doing. And you know something? It doesn't make sense to me with my 40 years of law enforcement that this just happened right before this thing went down. I don't -- I thought maybe if we talked about the skits you were going to tell me about going into other houses and desensitizing yourself but you said that never happened. So how could a guy like you do this all without practice? Here's your gun, here's your knife, here are the girls, go kill people. Why? How did this happen? How could this happen? Pat answers. Maybe if a guy came in that was a gang member that lived in East L.A. that did a drive-by and he told me I had a significant loss. I had no goals, I was medicating my pain because I was (inaudible), you know, and searching for answers, right, and I shot the guy and I feel real bad about it. Maybe I'm like yeah, okay, but that's not you. That's not your case. That's not your situation. I'm not raising my voice because I'm angry or anything. I'm just raising it because I want you to -- I want everybody to kind of hear what I'm saying. I need you to dig a little deeper. I'm not comfortable with letting you out with the answers that you gave me. I would not sleep tonight. I would be worried for everyone because these are not the answers that I think the public and what the Parole Board would expect. We want to know what was going on in your head that would allow you to do this. I think you did yourself a little bit of a disservice the last time you came to the Board because then we could have kind of got you on the path then so that's my thoughts. Get more insight; get some more understanding. I'm concerned that without that understanding there certainly is a nexus to current dangerousness. Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thank you. Mr. Watson, this is such a hard case. You know we battle in so many interests here. We recognize you have an expectation of parole. That is the law. But our overriding concern is public safety and as the Commissioner just said, you know some of the things that we talked about today are very bothersome. We also considered the views of the public and just the profound sadness and sorrow in the family of the victims and their representatives. I believe you truly feel so ghastly sorry for what you did. I believe that, that that is true and I suppose if it was possible for you to trade places with just one of your victims you would do it. But the sad fact is that 47 years later you're still the boogie man in the American psyche. For you to destroy the safety, and tranquility, and sanctuary of a person's home. To burst in, to announce I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's work, and to slaughter innocent people that are in their pajamas begging for their lives it's just -- it is the kind of crime that is so inexplicable and truly, the Lawrence case identifies a case like that that it's so egregious. But that doesn't mean that it will forever be the defining mark for Charles Watson. It doesn't mean that. It means that your words today are lacking. I looked at your website and I got to tell you, you know, there was some discussion about why did you write your second book and call yourself the right-hand man of Charlie Manson speaks out. And we said, yeah, why would you do that? That's awful. And you said it's a hook. You have a message and the message has value but people will listen to your message more but there's that salacious and sensational nature of drawing your audience in through this ugliness of your crime and I think that's a mistake. I really do. If you ever want true healing to begin you have to disassociate yourself with the Manson murders. Identify yourself as a redeemed sinner. When I -- when I look there's categories of -- there's a giant photo of Charlie Manson on your -- on your website and I think that's so inappropriate. It's just my personal opinion, sir, but I think your message is pure, and honest, and good and I think it detracts from that. Sure maybe that hook is going to get some more interested weirdos perhaps that are interested in the salacious nature of the crimes but you've got to give it some peace. You talk about keeping carnage real in people's mind when you did a review of the Helter Skelter movie. I mean you're talking about the reenactment of awful, awful evil. You know even the whole physical part of murdering someone with a knife is so awful and painful. A knife slice cuts through the skin, the fascia, the nerve endings, the muscles, the arteries, the internal organs. It's an awful way to die. It's so up close and personal. When you were holding those people down you were holding and they were looking in your eyes. They could smell your breath. You could probably smell their fear. So you know I think that for you to continue to self-promote with your website with the crime is -- I don't know. I could be wrong but I think that it would give peace to the family if you could just talk about your conversion without that part of it. You have had a lot of great things that you've done in prison. I know you've helped a great many people and you should be proud of that. You lost both Commissioner Peck and I today when you were talking about the Psychological of Radicalization. You lost me too in parts of when I was asking you specific questions about living amends I was looking for more secular answers and I tried to give you a hint that I wasn't going down that road with you. But it's just a hard case. I really -- I appreciate your gains. I appreciate that you have been such a good inmate. I appreciate the way you help staff. I appreciate the way you help inmates and I appreciate your faith. I know that today is not the answer that you hoped that you would have but I would urge you to not lose faith. I think that there is a future in the community for you one day and I wish you good luck. You're welcome.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And I just want to talk about I'm not sure if it's the way you present or if it's what you believe. And, unfortunately, they don't let me read minds anymore because or else this job would be really simple, right? But so I have to use what you say, right? So you say it wasn't the drugs but then it kind of was the drugs. So again, you chose to use those drugs. You made those choices while you were under the influence of drugs. Drugs may have had an effect but they're not the reasons why you did what you did. It's just as simple as that. Study after study shows that. Now so I want you to think about that also when you're pondering and going through your causative factors. All right? So we're required by law to start at a year denial. You're elder parole. Being under elder parole that got us off the 15 year denial pretty fast. You've been in prison for a long time. You're 70 years old. We looked at a ten year denial. You know it would be hard to give you a ten year denial without having a disciplinary instance. What, 1970 what?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Three, I think.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I think '73 your prison behavior is exemplary. We did end up with a five year denial. The reason why it was a five year denial and not a three year denial, frankly, was because we're just worried about your insight. We want to give you the time to do what you need to do. You certainly have the right to do a Petition to Advance if you get the -- if you start getting the work done. You certainly have that advantage but that was the decision. We do wish you the best of luck. The time is approximately 7:45. This hearing is concluded. Good luck to, sir. It was good talking to you.