9 and 10 August was the 40th anniversary of the Tate-Labianca murders. Manson, Watson and Krenwinkle will never be paroled. Atkins has terminal cancer and thus there is no reason to parole Atkins. Van Houten is the only one who has a ghost of a chance to be paroled. Actually why was Van Houten convicted of homicide when the Labianca's were already deceased when Van Houten inflicted the stab wounds? The only criminal act that Van Houten should have been convicted of is desecration of a corpse.
40TH Anniversary Of Tate-Labianca Murders
by George Yurich 46 Replies latest social current
-
-
Farkel
From Wiki:
Krenwinkel and Van Houten found Rosemary LaBianca in a bedroom, to which she had retired while her husband had fallen asleep while reading in the living room. Van Houten put a pillowcase over Rosemary LaBianca's head, and the two women tied the electrical cord from a lamp around her neck. LaBianca panicked when she heard her husband, who had been tied up in the living room, screaming when Watson began stabbing him. She reached for the lamp and swung it at Van Houten, who fought with her and knocked the lamp away. Van Houten then held LaBianca down while Krenwinkel tried to stab her in the chest, but the blade bent on LaBianca's collar bone. Van Houten called for assistance from Watson, who entered the bedroom and took charge. Van Houten exited the room and stood in the hallway, staring into an adjacent empty room.
Watson stabbed Rosemary LaBianca several times, found Van Houten, handed her the knife, and told her to "do something." [ 1 ] Van Houten proceeded to stab Rosemary 16 times in the lower torso. The autopsy showed that several of the wounds had been inflicted post-mortem. Van Houten then wiped the premises down for fingerprints, changed into LaBianca's clothes, and took food from the refrigerator before leaving the house.
Farkel
-
-
Black Sheep
The only criminal act that Van Houten should have been convicted of is desecration of a corpse.
In that case, would you also argue that Manson shouldn't have been convicted either? He didn't kill any of them. He wasn't even present during the murders.
-
Black Sheep
BTW Lynette Fromme was released on Friday.
-
Big Tex
In that case, would you also argue that Manson shouldn't have been convicted either? He didn't kill any of them. He wasn't even present during the murders.
Good point.
George is it your position that she was wrongfully convicted?
-
George Yurich
Black Sheep: You asked if I believe that Manson should not have been convicted since he did not participate in the homicides and was not present during the homicides? No I do not believe that. I believe that because Manson ordered the homicides to be committed that he is the most culpable. But when Van Houten inflicted the stab wounds into the Labianca's they were already deceased. So if someone is already deceased when stab wounds are inflicted then how can the individual who inflicted the stab wounds be charged with homicide? That is totally illogical.
-
George Yurich
Big Tex:You asked if it is my contention that Van Houten was wrongfully convicted? Yes it is my contention that Van Houten was wrongfully convicted of homicide. Van Houten should only have been charged with desecration of a corpse since the Labianca's were already deceased when Van Houten inflicted the stab wounds.
-
Black Sheep
I believe that because Manson ordered the homicides
Prove that Manson ordered the homicides.
-
Black Sheep
It doesn't surprise me that we have a Manson Family supporter on the forum.
My JW wife has supported the rights/beliefs of several cults that have similarities to the WT. She manages to find some way to justify the similarities that eases her conscience in a way that completely mystifies me.
Although I do not believe that Charlie was guilty, I do believe that the safest place for him is 6' under.