SUBSEQUENT PAROLE CONSIDERATION HEARING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration Hearing of:
ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL
CDC Number: B-28302

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY
VACAVILLE, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 3, 2019
8:55 A.M.

PANEL PRESENT:
DIANNE DOBBS, Presiding Commissioner
JAMES ANDRES, Deputy Commissioner

OTHERS PRESENT:
ROBERT KENNETH BEAUSOLEIL, Inmate
JASON CAMPBELL, Attorney for Inmate
DONNA LEBOWITZ, Deputy District Attorney
SYLVIA ACEVES, Victim Services Liaison
KAY HINMAN MARTLEY, Victim’s Family.
DEBORAH TATE, Hinman Family Representative

PROCEEDINGS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: We’re on record now.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: We’re on the record. Today’s date is January 3, 2019. The time is now 8:55 a.m. This is the subsequent 18th parole suitability hearing for Mr. Robert Kenneth Beausoleil, who is present in the BPH Hearing Room at the California Medical Facility. Mr. Beausoleil was received on June 23, 1970 from Los Angeles County. The controlling offense in this case is Penal Code Section 187, Murder in the First Degree, arising from a conviction in case number A as in alpha, 057452, which resulted in a sentence of seven years to life. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has calculated the minimum eligible parole date to be August 4, 1976. The youth parole eligibility date is September 8, 1986, and the elder parole eligibility date is November 6, 2007. When a prisoner has committed his controlling offense as defined in Subdivision A of Penal Code Section 3051, prior to attaining 26 years of age, the Board shall give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and maturity of the prisoner in reviewing his suitability for parole pursuant to Penal Code Section 3041.5. This hearing is being audio recorded, so we are each asked to state our first name and our last name, spelling our last name, and Mr. Beausoleil, when we get to you, please also give us your CDCR number. I’ll go first. We’ll go to my right around the table and then we’ll go to the wall. My name is Dianne Dobbs, D-O-B-B- S, Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: James Andres, A-N-D-R-E-S, Deputy Commissioner.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Jason Campbell.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Excuse me.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Oh sorry.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you. Donna Lebowitz, L-E-B-O-W-I-T-Z, Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Jason Campbell, C-A-M-P-B-E- L-L, Attorney for Robert Beausoleil.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Robert Beausoleil, B-28302.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Spell your last name, sir.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, B-E-A-U-S-O-L-E-I-L.

MS. ACEVES: Sylvia Aceves, A-C-E-V-E-S, Victim Services Liaison.

MS. MARTLEY: Kay Hinman Martley, M-A-R-T-L-E-Y, victim’s family.

MS. TATE: Deborah Tate, T-A-T-E, Hinman family representative.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. Also present in the room are correctional officers. They are here for security purposes only, and they will be relieved from time to time. So, Mr. Beausoleil, before we go any further, we need to conduct the ADA review. So I will be asking you some questions to determine whether or not you have any conditions that we need to make special arrangements for to allow you to be able to fully participate today. I saw that you walked into the room without assistance. Any mobility problems?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I’m fine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: I see you’re wearing your glasses. Those working okay for you?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Um, do we have the magnifier available?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yes we do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Uh, we have a magnifier that you may use if, uh, the need arises. We’ll provide that to you in a minute. Any problems hearing anyone in the room?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Any problems sitting for a long period of time?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, depends on how long. I have — I have severe arthritis, so — you know, but I – – I should be fine for the duration of this hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So, if at any time during the hearing it becomes too uncomfortable for you to sit down and you need a break, please let us know. We are happy to do that. Um, any other conditions that you think might affect your ability to participate today?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: None.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So I reviewed the DECS database system in your case, sir, the Notice and Request for Assistance form. That is that form 1073. You signed it on November 21, 2018. It didn’t list a TABE score, but I noticed that you do have your high sch — uh, your GED, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Right, and I notice, uh, several other accomplishments, which would indicate to me that the lack of a TABE score is not of relevance to us today. All right. I also note, um — I already said that you have your GED. Have you ever been a part of the Mental Health Services Delivery System here at CDCR?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Are you on any kind of medications at this time that make it hard for you to concentrate or pay attention?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So based on your answers then, we’ll note that you do have your glasses, uh, that the magnifier is offered and that we will consider breaks as needed. Based on your answers, I don’t see any reasons why we can’t go forward with this hearing today. Do you believe that your ADA rights have been met?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And do you concur, Mr. Campbell?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yes, I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: I also see, Mr. Beausoleil, that you did sign the Notice of Hearing Rights form. That is that form 1002. You signed it on May 9, 2018, and in doing so, you acknowledge that you were given a copy of your rights for this hearing and that your correctional counselor discussed those rights with you. Is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Did your attorney also have a chance to explain to you your rights for this hearing?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You understand them?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Do you believe they have been met up to this point?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And do you concur, Mr. Campbell?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: I see, Mr. Beausoleil, that you, um, declined to conduct an Olson Review. That document is dated May 1, 2018. Is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right, and I see that you received a copy of the Comprehensive Risk Assessment on July 10, 2018.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: May I — that was the same risk assessment that was used at the prior hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Yes. It is the ris — the risk assessment authored by Dr. Levin and it is dated March 1, 2016. All right. Checking with both attorneys, did you both receive access to the Master File and the Ten-Day files?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Any additional documents today?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, I have three documents. Um, I don’t know how many copies the Panel needs?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Um, well we need the DA to have one and we can share one.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, this is first a revised, uh, parole plan, uh, which basically just removes — uh, his stepson is no longer able to accommodate him living there. He is still supportive and he submitted a letter, um, his — because he was recently married, uh, he is no longer able to accommodate his home as a place of residence. So, Mr. Beausoleil removed that from the parole plan. I believe it is otherwise the same that I submitted previously. Uh, beyond that I have two letters of support that I received after, uh, the, um, after submitting them including one from Ivan Pugh, P-U- G-H, who is, uh, the biological son of Mr. Beausoleil.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. We will take a look at that. Are there any preliminary objections today?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I do have some preliminary objections.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Go ahead.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay, um, first of all, uh, as, um, at the last hearing, I would request that Mr. Beausoleil only answer questions put forward to him by the Panel. Uh, should the District Attorney have clarifying questions, I ask that they be received by the Panel —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: That’s the procedure.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I understand that. I only make the objection because in his hearings when he do — when he had done them telephonically, there were times where there was direct communication and I would ask that that not happen here. Um, also I have, uh, a — the second point is that I have advised Mr. Beausoleil, uh, not to answer any questions about the commitment offense except to the extent necessary, uh, to demonstrate remorse or insight. Um, he — uh, is, stands by the statement of facts presented in the memorandum I submitted as well as his prior statements. Uh, it was, uh, dealt with at some great length in the last two hearings. Um, obviously if this Panel needs some clarification beyond that for, uh, purposes of insight or remorse, uh, Mr. Beausoleil is, uh, willing to, um, discuss it, but I have advised him to, uh, regarding the facts of the commitment offense, uh, to not, uh, answer any questions related to it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So that’s not an objection that’s a statement you are making.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I guess in the sense that I would object to questions related to the factual, uh, underpinnings of the commitment offense. So I — you are correct that I didn’t present it as an objection, and if that comes up, I will object as the — the hearing goes forward. Um, I would also object to the inclusion — the last Ten Day, uh — Ten-Day document that I received, um, there was some 700 or 800 pages of a petition that was submitted, I believe it was, um, that Deborah Tate had, um, started a petition online. The actual text of the petition itself was not included in the Ten-Day packet. Um, I think that is relevant. I found what I believe is the petition text online, uh, on Change.org and I have a — a copy of it here. Um, it is rife with factual error. Uh, it is very inflammatory. I — I don’t think that that petition serves any function here because none of the individuals on there, uh, know Mr. Beausoleil and given the, uh — that the statement of facts presented in the text of the petition is, uh, inflammatory and incorrect, I think that it would be, uh — that it is improper to allow those, uh – – those, uh, statements by various members of the public to come into the, um — the Panel’s decision-making process.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So I might be mistaken, but I didn’t see the portion that you have in your hand there in our documents.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That’s my — that’s part of my objection is that this was excluded from the Ten-Day Report. I just found this online.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I — I can’t even say definitively that this is the same petition that, uh — that the — the Ten-Day Report, uh, Ten-Day Packet contains, and, um, I just found this online, and, um, and Ms. Tate, I assume that, uh, if necessary we could, um, explore that. However, I — I still don’t think that it is relevant, uh, to the Panel’s decision-making process today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Well, I just need to look to see what exactly we have.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Sure.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And if I recall, I think there were just a list of names of people who signed —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That’s right. My — my conc —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: — that is a part of the packet.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: — that — that is correct and my concern is that they signed it basically under fraudulent pretenses that the — the statement that is, uh, included as part of the petition which Deborah Tate, uh, began, is factually incorrect and — and creates a – – a relationship between Mr. Beausoleil and the Tate- Labianca murders that has not been proven and does not exist and is — is nothing more than, uh —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So I — I don’t have any information indicating what statement allowed these people to sign their names, but all I have in the record is a list of names, um, postal code, country, comment date, and the comments that are listed on this document are all cut off.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: There’s actually — the — the document — I understand what you are saying, Commissioner. There is — if you look the first hundred or two hundred pages, the comments are cut off and then there is a subsequent document that is the exact same — it appears to me to be the exact same petition, but has the full comments included. Uh, and there is actually – – I think all of the documents that were — and perhaps Ms. Lebowitz can explain this, all the documents that were included were, uh, the same petition just different formats of it. Um, but again, I — irrespective of what was included, my concern is that when someone signs a petition in order for that to have any bearing on — on, uh, this Panel, we should know what they believe they were signing. We — there should be some statement of what they were si — what their intention was, uh — you know, if they signed a petition that said, um, something that is factually inaccurate, then that negates the effect of their signature. So, I — you know, I don’t see the need to belabor this. I just think that it is improper to include a petition without the — the heading, with the — the text that the people believed they were signing on to and in this case if — if I am correct and this is the — the text that the people believe they were signing on to, it is factually inaccurate and unduly inflammatory and shouldn’t be included. Uh, whatever the —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: It — is it your intention to include it?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No my inte —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Because as of now it is not included.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Right, but the — the problem is if someone signs something and we don’t know what they signed — I don’t think any of it should be included. I don’t the signatures. I don’t think the — the comments are violent. Some of them are calling for Mr. Beausoleil to be shot and things of that nature. Um, I don’t believe any of that should be included. I think it is all improper. I think it was — the signatures were obtained under false pretenses. I think the comments are inflammatory. I think the — the, uh – – the appearance of support, uh, to keep Mr. Beausoleil in custody is improper because it was obtained under false pretenses. The — again, I don’t see the need to belabor it beyond that. That is my objection. I think it is, uh — if — if this Panel, you know — you know, heavily on that — on that petition, then I suppose it would be more problematic. I don’t know to what extent it will ultimately play a role in this, uh, proceeding.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So before I — before I rule on it, I will hear from the Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Thank you, Commissioner. Uh, I need some clarification. Uh, whatever is in the packet that we all have access to is there for comment by anyone, correct? I mean y — you will have a chance to comment on anything that is already in our — in our electronic file that is available to everyone, right?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That’s correct.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. And there is no doubt that there is a strong feeling of — in the public, just in general, I think we can thank judicial notice that there is opposition to your client getting out of prison, right? In general, that — that —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That’s correct, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: — that’s — okay. I know no details about who it is or why. I just have the feeling that there is probably strong opposition out there, so — but nobody is here offering any particular information to us, correct? I mean I haven’t seen —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (Inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: — I haven’t seen the District Attorney offer any documents along the lines of what you have been addressing.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I don’t know if the District Attorney submitted it in the Ten-Day Packet or who —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, haven’t you looked at the Ten-Day Packet?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I have, but I don’t know who submitted it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I assume it as the District Attorney who submitted it, uh, presumably on behalf of Ms. Tate, but I don’t —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Well — all right. So whatever is in there, you’ll have the opportunity to address. I mean d — and — and — you – – you are well aware and your client is well aware that our regulations require us to consider all relevant, reliable information, which is what we always do, and will do. We have to decide what is relevant and what is reliable and give it the weight that it is due. So, that — this all seems like a matter for, uh, argument at the end if anything comes in.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And — and if that is the way the Panel feels, I am perfectly willing to accept that. I would just — I see it as being something akin to — I know this isn’t a court room, but the rule of completeness where, you know, if you are only seeing a portion of a document it can be misleading, but it — it is okay. We can de — deal with it in the argument. I don’t think that it is — like I said, I don’t want to belabor it, I just wanted to put the objection on the record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So would you be happy, and the Commissioner will rule however, she feels she needs to or wants to, would you be happy if she just took it under submission and at the end, you — we could decide, uh, how — what you want us to do? You could bring it up again at the end if it hasn’t been addressed?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Sure. Whatever way the Panel wishes to proceed, I am perfectly fine with. Again, I – – I don’t think, uh — I don’t think it is going to be the — the crux of the hearing by any means.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: May I just clarify something? Um, interestingly enough, my Ten-Day Packet only included 147 pages of documents. I did not submit the petition. The petition was submitted on behalf of all of the public — members of the public who are opposed to this hearing. So, I don’t — I don’t know — actually know what Mr. Campbell is talking about. I know of an existence of a petition, but I don’t know of the contents and I know that the purpose is to show the Panel that there is a large public and what that public opinion is.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So —

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: One point of clarification for Ms. Lebowitz is that the — this Ten Day — this inclusion of the Ten-Day Packet actually came, I think, four or five days ago. It was an update that, uh — that the — the Board sent out. So it wasn’t in the original circulated, uh, Ten-Day Packet.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Thank you. So, then, on that objection, um, I will take the Deputy Commissioner’s suggestion to, um, hold this in abeyance. Um, you are certainly free to make any arguments that you deem appropriate, both of you are, um, in your statements, um, to the Panel today. So we’ll handle it that way. Any other preliminary objections?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, yes. The, um — another objection, um, also included in this recent update of the Ten-Day Packet was a handwritten letter, uh, signed reportedly by Mr. Beausoleil, um, to someone name Al, and there is — the date is cut off. Uh, it — it appears its — the paper on the scan was yellowing, so it appears that is quite old. I don’t know who added it in or why it was included.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: What page in the Ten-Day does that appear?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: It is on page, uh, 148.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Go ahead, sir.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: You know, I don’t know anything about this document. I — there is no context for it. It wasn’t in the original Ten-Day Packet. Um, I don’t think it is even supposed to be included because it was submitted late and it wasn’t in the original Ten- Day circulation. Um, I — I don’t — it is not of great importance to me, but I don’t really understand it’s, uh — it’s relevance here. Likewise, there’s a — a — also a newspaper clipping, uh, that was included in the most recent Ten-Day Packet that was highlighted. Uh, I don’t know who highlighted it, who submitted it, why it is submitted, um, I would just object to both of those, uh — to — to any consideration of both of those documents because I — I don’t see the relevance here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Um, so, are you saying that your client didn’t sign that document? That is not his signature?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I’m not saying anything. I — I’m saying I don’t know what it is or why it is there. We can ask him if — if the Panel wishes to leave it intact. I — I — when I first received the, um — the updated, uh, Ten-Day Packet, I wrote to Mr. Munoz. I said can you put me in touch with someone who I need to discuss this objection to. I forget who it was. Someone — one of his superiors, I suppose, wrote back to me and said just bring it up at the — with the Panel. So that is what I am doing. Again I am not — it — it is — neither of these documents is worthy of spending a lot of time one, uh, in this objection stage. I just think they were improperly included. There is no context for them and I don’t see the relevance for the purpose of this proceeding. Um —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: You know, Mr. Campbell, you’re — obviously you are an accomplished court room lawyer. You know, these are kind of in the nature of a mo — a motion in limine, uh, and they smack of the re — legal requirements of authentication and what not. We — we — we simply don’t operate that way here —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: — as I am sure you are aware. If we find a document that we want to ask questions about, and it happens to be in front of us, that is what we will do, and, uh, your — you can comment on it any — any way you like, but in the end, we just have to make up our minds as a matter of com — of our judgment, what’s relevant and reliable, not as a matter of the requirements of the evidence code.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And I understand that, which is why I said I didn’t want to belabor it. I just merely wanted to make an objection for the record. Uh – – uh, I am not — it is not something that we need to, uh, spend a great deal of time on. Um, the, uh, last objection — or no I have — uh, I would also object as I did last time and I — I understand, uh, probably what the result would be. I would object to the — the — to, uh, Deborah Tate’s, um, involvement in the hearing in as much as, uh, I don’t believe as a victim’s rights advocate or as a, um, support person, uh, she should be — she is welcome to be here and I understand that and that is perfectly okay, but, uh, I don’t believe she should be afforded the floor to speak. Um, that is my, uh, objection there. Uh, I would also object to the use of any confidential —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Well, let me rule on that one first.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Oh, I’m sorry. Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So on that objection, it — it is overruled. Um, Ms. Tate is here as a representative as allowed by law. She is a representative of one of the victim’s next of kin. That is allowed by law and in that role, she is also allowed to speak.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And I understand that. I — I — I — I just wanted to raise the objection again. Uh, likewise, I would object to the use of confidential evidence and, uh, object to Marcy’s Law as violating the ex post — ex post facto provision of the constitution.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: As to your objection regarding confidential information, the Panel will use confidential information and will make, um, any disclosures as allowed by Title 15. As to Marcy’s Law, it is the law that is in place, and it is the Panel’s intention to follow that law here today.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Understood.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Very good. Thank you. So, Mr. Beausoleil, the Panel has reviewed your Central File. We have also reviewed the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, and as we go through the hearing today, you are encouraged to clarify the record if that need arises. All right? We have also reviewed the confidential portion of your Central File, and we will advise you in accordance with Title 15 if we use anything from that file in our decision here today. All right. So let me swear you in, sir. Please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, sir. All right. So, um, our format here today, um, is probably going to be pretty similar to the format of many of the hearings that you have been to. Um, we are using again the Comprehensive Risk Assessment created by Dr. Levin. It is dated March 1, 2016. Um, it is not our intention here today to go over your child and adolescent development section unless there is something there that you think requires further clarification or explanation. Anything you want to add to that section?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: No. All right. Very good. So then looking at the, um, adult development section, I do have a question. Um, at the bottom of the second paragraph — well the second full paragraph of the adult development section on page three, you said that — when the doctor asked you had you ever dealt drugs, you said never as a dealer, but I was a go-between with the man I killed.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mm-hmm.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So I want to learn a little bit more about your relationship with Mr. Hinman.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: How did you meet him, just tell me about that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Uh, I met Gary, um, in 1968, um, early — early 1968. I had returned to Los Angeles, uh, County from San Francisco where I had been working as a performing musician for a few years, and, um, he was — he was a friend of someone, um, that, um, my girlfriend knew and so I met him in — in that way, and he was a nice guy. He, um — he played a little bit of piano, so we had some music in common. Um, he allowed me to rent his, um — he had a little basement, uh, room and we — uh, it didn’t have any facilities so we had to use the upstairs for that and he, uh — until, you know, just temporarily until we could find another place he let us stay there. Uh, as time went on, Gary got into, um, doing a little bit of selling marijuana and things like that just hippy drugs, you know, hippy things. Uh, he never got into hard drugs or anything like that and, um, uh, every so often I would, you know, pick up a little marijuana from him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So you would buy from him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah, a little bit. Uh, sometimes he would just give it to me. Um, we were, you know, casual — I never really got to know him that well. Uh, he was, um, a graduate student of UCLA and he, um, you know, was involved with the college people with, uh — he was a political science major. Um —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: How long did you rent a room from him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, two months maybe.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. And was that two months prior to the date of this crime?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh no. No. No, this was — I had known him, uh, like I said I had met him in early ’68. Uh, the crime happened in July of 1969 so there had been some length of time. I had known him for a while. He had also become, uh, somewhat remotely involved with the Manson group as well, the commune. Um, so he — and he was friendly with them and was just part of that community. He lived in Topanga Canyon, and, uh, and that was where the commune had been for a long time, um, prior to going out to Chatsworth, um, to the ranch, the famous ranch. Um, so, you know, everyone in that community, it was a small community. All the so-called hippies or counterculture people all knew each other in that community. So, um, that is how we knew each other. It was pretty much the extent of our — of our relationship.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So when you said that you acted as go-between, what exactly did you mean by that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well only in this one instance did I — did I ever do that, and that was, um, in the summer of ’69, um, I acted as a go-between. I was trying to ingratiate myself with this motorcycle club, and they were having a party, um, a ten-year anniversary of the charter of their — of their motorcycle club and, uh, I was hoping to be a part of that and they —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Part of the club or part of the party?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Part of the party. Um, and I think maybe I was — I had a sort of wannabe — they would have thought of me as a wannabe in other words. Um, I did kind of look up to their lifestyle. I didn’t really know that much about them, but I just — I was young and, um, you know, they seemed like tough guys and it kind of impressed me. So, I wanted — wanted to get involved a little bit more with them. I wanted to be part of their party. So when they were looking for some, you know, with — some — something special for their party in terms of substance, uh, I suggested that I knew somebody who had some mescaline, which was Gary, and, uh, so I arr — made the arrangements for them.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So when you say you made the arrangements, did you actually pick up and deliver the drugs?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I did. I took the money to Gary, picked up the drugs and brought them back.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And was that the only time you acted as go-between — between, uh, anyone —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: — in the sale of — in the sale or — or delivery of drugs?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I, you know, I shared pot with people sometimes. I — I really didn’t use anything but that. Um, I took a few LSD trips and, you know, experimented with psychedelics, uh, psychedelic substances as we all did in those days.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, but I had never — you know, I had shared, you know, maybe a little marijuana with a friend or something, but I never was in a deal involved in deals. I had no aspirations to be involved in that — in that world.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Mm-hmm. Now, when I am looking at your — I’m on page five of the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, and it is talking about, um, you know, your juvenile and adult record. Um, it talks about juvenile hall at age 12 as a result of running away from home.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Why were you doing that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I didn’t have any serious strife at home, but, um, I had a longing to see more of the world. Uh, I — I ran away to spend some time with my grandmother ostensibly. Um, who I loved and I had spent the summers with her, and, um, but it was mo — mostly a childish lark. It was an adventure. It wasn’t from — I wasn’t running away from abuses or anything like that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So — so how often did you run away?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I ran away twice. I — I suppose you could say three times, but, um — um, because I left home finally at 15 and that was the last time I left home. I never returned.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: It also talks about you going to a boys’ home due to vandalism at around 16. What happened there?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well that’s how I — I — I was arrested in San — in El Monte. I had been living with my grandmother for the summer. My grandmother had cancer and she was living alone, uh, and somewhat abandoned, it seemed to me, uh, and I didn’t want to leave her by herself. So when it came time to return to Santa Barbara and go back to school, I didn’t. I stayed with her instead. I got involved with some boys in the area. It was kind of a roughneck neighborhood and we went out. It was a lark. It was just a child prank, you know. Um, none of us were old enough to drive. We rode around and we saw some — some Christmas decorations and swiped them and brought them back to the gas station where we worked. It was just silly thing that kids do. So, I was arrested later that evening, um, by the police, taken to juvenile hall in Los Angeles, sent back to Santa Barbara and so that incident, you know, the vandalism or — or the theft, you know, of — of, um, Christmas ornaments followed me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Now, what — knowing what you know today, what got you into using drugs in the first place?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I want to qualify that I never really used hard drugs of any kind.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Marijuana.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I — I smoked marijuana and, um, uh, it was, uh, you know, part of the culture that I had become involved with that, uh, the — you know, the hippy — it — it wasn’t called that then. It was, um, but later it came to be called hippy or counterculture, uh, lifestyle and I had become involved with that beginning when I was 15. I went to Los Angeles. I had aspirations to join a band and become a rock musician. Um, so I was almost 16 and, um, I met — I met people in that community and got, um, involved in smoking marijuana and occasionally taking an LSD, uh, experience.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So looking back now, do you think you had a — a problem with marijuana?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Eventually I think I did. Yes, and I had belief, and, uh, I did later on in — in prison. Um, it wasn’t a dependence in terms of like a habit or anything like that. I never had that sort of relationship with any substance including alcohol. I don’t drink. I never, um, been involved in that world either. Um, but I — as an artist, I believed that I was more inspired, um, when I smoked marijuana. Um, I have since disabused myself of that notion. It has been over — over 20 years since I have used anything. Um, because I — I figured out that that was really untrue. I was lying to myself. Um, uh, since I stopped — by this I mean since I stopped smoking marijuana, um, I have been more productive and my work has improved rather than, uh, anything — any loss occurring as a result of not using it. So I know that I was lying to myself, um, and I have since had no urge whatsoever to – – to be involved with it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: How did you — how did you become associated with, um, the Manson group?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, again, my music. Um, uh, I sort of followed my — my music, um, in my early youth and I met him in Topanga Canyon. In fact I was living at Gary’s house when I met him. He was, um, involved with him. He had gotten involved in a band and I had put advertisements out that I was a guitarist looking for work. I received a call. Um, there was a show at the — a one-week gig. They had a one-week gig, uh, lined up at the Topanga Canyon corral, which was the only — it was beer bar, uh, in Topanga, and, um, they invited me to join the band for the purpose of playing on that gig. Charlie was the lead singer. So that is how I met him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. So you met him and how did that relationship develop?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, it developed, um — it was a causal relationship. I never really joined the commune at any stage. Uh, he had a commune, and, um, just I — it wasn’t for me, but I was attracted to him as a musician. He was talented, I — I believed. Um, he had a unique presentation style of music and some original songs. Uh, he asked for my help in trying to present these songs, uh, to people in demos and recordings to, uh — to try to promote his music and maybe record an album. So that was the nature of my relationship with him throughout the time that I knew him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And — and speaking of the nature of the relationship throughout the time. So are you saying that your only association with him was, um, musically?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I listened to his philosophies and I — I liked him as a person. He was, um — and I say that because — I say that knowing I was very ignorant of — of who — who he was in the long run, who he turned out to be. I was naïve, and, uh, I didn’t really — Charlie had this unique — he was a conman and he had this unique ability to be able to present to each individual who knew him something that they would like. He was very good at that, and so I saw in him someone who was like me, uh, you know, sort of, you know, um, a musician — creative musician type of person who — who had similar aspirations to those that I had. I didn’t see the other aspects. I didn’t — like I said, I didn’t join his commune, so I wasn’t exposed to a lot of it, but I liked, uh — I liked his musicianship and I liked his — he was funny, um, uh, and that is the side of him that I saw. I didn’t see the darker sides of him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You said you were exposed to a lot of it, his commune. What — what — what do you mean by that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I didn’t catch the whole question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You said you were exposed to a lot of it, meaning the commune.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. No. Um, I wasn’t exposed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Oh, you were not exposed.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was not — I was not exposed to much that was going on because I didn’t live at the commune. I didn’t see him on a regular basis. I saw him only when I came over to visit and hang out and I was on the road for most of 1968, um, traveling on the highway and gigging as a musician, um, on the coast. Uh, so I only saw him once in a while when I happened to be in Los Angeles.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So how did you — how did you come to commit this crime?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, by being really, really stupid. I, uh, I came to the ranch after an incident, um, that had happened between Charlie and some person I never met. Um, he believed that he had killed a guy and, uh, he asked —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You meaning Charlie?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Charlie Manson.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He bel — he hadn’t, but he believed that he had shot a guy over some incident. I don’t — I never have really known all the details about it, but he was scared that there was going to be a retaliation. Um, the — it was a drug dealer in Los Angeles, a black guy that he had gotten — somebody had gotten involved with and he wound up shooting him, and he thought that he had killed him, and he hadn’t as he learned much later. Um, but he had — he was under the impression that he had killed a Black Panther. The guy was not a Black Panther and he was not dead, and, uh, he asked me — I came to the ranch. I used to visit the ranch on the weekends. I was living in Laurel Canyon in Hollywood at that time and I used to come out and hang out and talk to the bikers. Uh, I started building a motorcycle from junk basically and so I would come and hang out at the ranch and pick the brains of the motorcycle riders there to figure out how to do it, how to put a bike together. Uh, so one day when I came to the ranch, Charlie said that he had, um, a problem, that he had shot a guy and he was worried about there being a retaliation and he — there weren’t enough guys around. He was worried. He asked me if I would hang out there and — and, um, help him put up a — you know, a front to defend the — I don’t know. I did not know what I was doing, but it appealed to me as a young kid who was trying to prove himself as a man to be asked to do something manly and so, uh, it doesn’t — you know, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me now that I — I so blindly walked into that, but at the time I was young and — and wanting to impress older men and wanting to find some acceptance in that fraternity. Um, so when he asked me to come to the ranch and be, um — um, you know, to defend it if need be, you know, just to be there, um, it appealed to that need and I agreed to do it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You agreed to do it. So who were you gonna defend it?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I didn’t really even know. I was just there. I was just present. I didn’t have any — you know, there was — there were a couple of guns there, but I wasn’t — didn’t have one. Um, there was a lookout that was looking down the road in case a carload of people came up, but everyone was really, really paranoid at that time. Uh, it had gone from — in a very short amount of time, it had gone from sort of a happy go lucky hippy commune to being really, really paranoid. Um, for fear of this retaliation from, uh, an organization that, you know, was only in our minds, nobody really understood or knew anything that much about the Black Panthers, only what was in the newspapers or rumored to be. So, um, like a lot of things that, um, where fear sort of takes a, um — takes a — takes over in people’s minds, that’s — a lot of it was just imagination and, uh, fear based on imaging a retaliation and it was, um, infectious. It was infectious.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So, we were talking about how you got involved in this crime. So how’d you get there?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: While I was there at the ranch, um, I got involved with the — you know, the Str — Straight Satan’s Motorcycle Club was — some — some of the members lived there, um, and they were talking about that party that they were going to be having and wanting to, uh — to score something special, you know, some psychedelics or something and I volunteered that I knew somebody who had some mescaline and I volunteered to obtain some for them so that is how that arrangement was made. It was during that time while I was — while I was at the ranch and hanging out with those guys. It was just a couple weeks before, um — before the murder.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: What do you think it was about you back then that made you want to associate with these folks?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yo — when you say these folks, uh —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Satan’s and the Manson group.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: A lot of it had to do with the times that we were living in, um, and wanting to — wanting to belong, wanting to feel like there is a place where — where all of us — I think all of us wanted to find a place where we fit in, and I am talking about everyone in the counterculture. Uh, there was a lot of tension, uh, in the culture as a whole at that time with the visions over the war and the response from law enforcement was very harsh at that time. Um, so, you know, there was a tendency to — to pull away from — from that parent culture into this sort of subculture and, uh — and I was subject to that pull. Uh, I had been part of the — the counterculture movement since I was 15 years old, um, actually turning 16, you know, uh, right at the cusp of 15 to 16 years old and that had been my identity up to that point. Uh, I had grown up so to speak, um, around people who were, uh, involved in that culture, in the hippy culture, the antiwar movement, um, rock and roll, um, smoking marijuana and once in a while taking LSD. Some people took it more than they should, but, um, uh, it was — I was involved in that culture so I tended to identify with people who were on the fringes I guess, you might say, of society, um, or at least in a — in a countercult — cultural context. Um, at that time in my life, even the counterculture was getting to the — the blush was off the rose so to speak, um, there was — um, the counterculture was doing things I didn’t agree with and, um, so I didn’t really know where I fit in. Um, I started, um, looking to this sort of — what — so called outlaw motorcycle, uh, club as — as being something that might have some direction for me in my life. Um, you know, I look at it now and I think how foolish I was to even think — imagine what I as imagine — I had romanticized their lifestyle as being something that it actually turned out not to be. Uh, but at that time I wanted to ingratiate myself with those people and to, uh, have them see me as, um, an adult man.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: But I think my question really is what about you led you there as opposed to older man attending church?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I didn’t trust the older man attending church. I didn’t trust the, um — I didn’t trust the parent culture, you know, we were, um, the — the counterculture was — was trying to find its own way, trying to — trying to figure something out, trying to develop a, um — a belief system that — that — and values that were, um, going to sustain them and a lot of wrong turns were made, and I made a lot of those wrong turns. I mean I — I adopted philosophies and beliefs that I look back at it now and I think what a fool. Uh, but at that time when — when all this was happening and you didn’t — in that world, in the counterculture world, and the, um — the hostility that was being faced by people who were trying to find their way, uh, all across the country, you know, from college campuses to, um — to the streets, um, to the — you know, to the antiwar movement. All of that. A lot of resistance was being experienced so there was a tendency to withdraw from those established institutions. Um —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So how would you describe, uh — how do I say this? Would you say that you are still today a part of that same counterculture?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: No. Okay. How would you describe your philosophy today?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I am very spiritual in my orientation. Uh, I am Buddhist in my adopted philosophy. I am well studied. Um, I look for ways to bring compassion and empathy into the world in everything that I do. Um, I am still a musician, but my music has become part of a support system for those — those kinds of activities that promote health, wellbeing compassion, empathy, um, in relationships, healing. So, um, you know, I occupy all of my time in those areas. I teach yoga, um, to, uh, persons who have disabilities or, um, you know, some sort of mobility impairment. Um, I provide, um, artistic, uh, instruction to people who are wanting to become musicians and visual artists. Uh, I did a lot of work through multimedia and video for many — for decades and, um, all of it targeting making improvements sometimes to the community inside, you know, raising awareness, consciousness inside of the prisons, but also reaching outside of the prisons through — through that medium.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: What — what is Lucifer Rising and how does it fit into your philosophy?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Lucifer Rising was a film that was made, um, a filmmaker who was, um, uh, trying to describe a, um — the story of the — the fallen angel of mythology and it is based on mythology. I am not — uh, some people get the wrong idea about it just based on the title alone. Never been a Satanist, don’t have any kind of inclination in that direction at all, but I do very much enjoy studying mythologies and in this particular case, I had an opportunity while I was in prison in Tracy to record a soundtrack for this, uh – – for this project and I — I looked at it, um, at that time as a way to — as a — as a path forward, a creative path forward, um, based on myself having fallen, having — you know, having fallen from grace, fallen from society, fallen from, uh, um, the best of who I am, and to try to find recovery, to find a way for — towards re — redemption and reconciliation which is how I created the music. I told the story in music of a path from falling — haven fallen to a dark place to gradually, um, finding a way back to the light to reconciliation. I don’t — was that an adequate answer?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Yeah. No, it was. Um, is your — was your attraction to being a part of that project in any way related to, um, your relationship with the Manson?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, no, no. Not at all. It was a — it was very intently, um, a departure from anything related to that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And so I — I — you know, in reading the materials for the hearing today, there is quite a bit of information about, um, your marketing of, you know, albums that —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: — you know, related to that, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well it is not — related to what?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: To the Lucifer Rising.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Aren’t you like releasing box sets and —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, yeah, there’s — there has been a, um — an abiding interest on the part of the public, uh, for that project. It has become pretty well known. Um, In fact, I met my attorney through his awareness of that project originally. Um, you know, it — it is not viewed by the people who know it as some dark thing, you know, it is not — not really about that. The other albums that I have recorded were not about that at all. I have recorded a total of, uh, nine albums of music while I have been — actually eight albums while I have been in prison. I recorded one when I was on the outside, um, and those are all in — in distribution and, um with the proper authorizations. Um, but they are not related. I mean they don’t relate to that one project. I made that particular statement on that particular mythology and then departed from that and did new work with different things.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So your production of these albums, um, I know you have a website and all of that out there, are you currently conducting business?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Am I currently what?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Are you currently conducting business?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, well it is — I’m not conducting business myself. No. Um, th — the music is in distribution through music outlets. I do receive royalties for it. Uh, art work as well, visual art. I have a collection of visual art that is out and has been published and is in — is in distribution. I receive royalties for that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And so what — what is it that you are working on right now that would, um, highlight for this Panel how you use this to further your rehabilitation?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Um, I am not in a position at the moment to do any recording. Uh, this is a different institution. This is a different environment than I was in before. Um, I did have that opportunity, um, in other institutions and, um, the institutions and the Department of Corrections benefitted from my work, from my endeavors through, um, videos and graphics and, um — that were created to promote various programs, support youth outreach and so on. So — so all of that has been, um — okay. Here is one program. This is one video. There are actually a couple of videos that I have done while I was working up in Oregon and I use my music. I use my, um, production skills.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I only have one copy. It is just for —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You can give it to her afterwards. Go ahead.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That is just a couple of — of projects. There are many, many, many projects. Um – –

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: If I — just to interject. I actually have the CDR. If the Commissioners or the DA wishes to — I submitted it in the past. I have one with me if you would like to actually review the videos that, uh — that Mr. Beausoleil created when he was, uh, working in Oregon.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Thank you.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: But you — you were telling me how you are using this as part of your rehabilitation and I would like to hear about that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Um, you know, I — God blessed me with certain skills, certain talents and certain abilities and in my tradition, uh, the concept of Dharma involves an individual bringing their God- given, if you will, gifts to the world and to share them and I believe that I have that responsibility. Uh, I have the re — not only do I have the responsibility to share them, but to be responsible in how I do them. Um, so, even going back to the Lucifer Rising project, which was really about a person finding redemption from the darkest place and from the worst mistake a person can make, which is of course taking another life, um, to try to find a way, a path back and — and I will tell you. I will go back even — even more. I, um — after — after I killed Gary who was a friend, um, I was shattered. I was a shattered human being, and I — I wasn’t even trying to evade getting arrested when I got arrested. I wasn’t even trying to — making much of an effort to avoid anything because I think that I wanted somebody to — to arrest me. I wa —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: But you — you said the car was given to you by a black guy?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I know I — yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So I think you were trying to evade.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think on — on a certain level that I was, but I think on an unconscious level, I was trying to get arrested because I wanted somebody to talk to me about what happened and, you know, that didn’t happen when I got arrested? It didn’t happen. Nobody ever talked to me. You know, we — we send young men overseas to fight wars and they come back scarred. I — I watched a program not long ago about a man who had killed a man. He had shot a man and watched his head basically explode and he was so scarred by that, that he was unable to adjust to living back in society. You know, the PTSD. Well, you know, nobody knew anything about PTSD back in those days. Uh, that term didn’t exist and it has never been applied, I don’t think to people who kill in the community, you know, but it certainly — something was awry with me because I was in desperate need of having somebody to talk to to– find some way to reconcile what I had done.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So, you came to prison, and when you came to prison, did you associate with the Arians or any other group like that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: At first, I, uh — not really, no, I didn’t associate with them, but I had leanings in that direction and I didn’t even realize what it was. I just had continued making the same error, uh, in wanting to prove myself and ingratiate myself with older guys. I continued making that same error, and I hadn’t addressed the deep wound that was in me. Um, I found myself in a situation in 1973 and, um, uh, in the middle of a fracas with the Arian brotherhood, and, um, I was — I wound up in the infirmary. Um, I had a broken hand. My jaw was broken in five places. My cheekbone was broken, and I realized that, um, you know, I hadn’t really gotten involved in anything, but I was heading in that direction and I realized that I was on the edge of the abyss. If I didn’t pull back. If I didn’t do something to take re – – charge of my own life, I was gonna get pulled into that and then I would be in some lockup unit somewhere – – you know — if I hadn’t pulled back, that is where I would be. I would be in some dark lockup unit buried so far I’d never see daylight. So I realized that that is where I was headed if I didn’t stop, and I was in the infirmary. I couldn’t be anywhere — I was beat up. I was — my jaw was wired shut. So they kept me in the infirmary, and while I was there, I made a vow to myself that I would never ever again harm another human being, that I would devote myself to my creativity, to expressing myself in the arts and I — I didn’t have any path. I didn’t have any plan. I didn’t have any — nobody was guiding in this. It was something that I had to do on my own because I wasn’t getting the input from — from counselors or, you know — we were just being managed, you know. The only psychologist or psychiatrist I saw was, um, when I was on death row. He came up to see if I was sane enough to be killed. So I never got that, um — that what I needed from, um, the system in a sense, you know, from the correction system. It wasn’t set up to really, uh — at that time. There is more of that now. There are certainly more of the psych services and — and there is more intervention now that by miles than there ever was back in — in the 70s. Um —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: I want to — I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to cut you off.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. No. That is okay because I have a tendency to — as Mr. Levin said, I get to be little garrulous.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So — so t — this is what I want to know. You know you — you seem to be indicating that you are more spiritually minded and more directed towards doing things that have a healing effect, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: That sound right? So when I read though some of the information that is in the packet about some of your, um, conversations with people on your website or different places, I get the sense that a lot of people are attracted to you as a result of the Manson association, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don’t think that is true. Uh, I think — I think there are people initially who are attracted for that reason, but I don’t pander to that. I don’t feed that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. So here is my question to you. My question is have you done anything to distance yourself — have you done anything specifically to distance yourself from any of those associations?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely. Constantly.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: What have you done?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Just to — you know, in — you w — I think you are drawing a correlation — you were asking me about the marketing of my work?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Right.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. So, I think that there —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: That is the correlation.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — am I on target here?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Right. You are right on target.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. So, I make it very clear. Mr., um — Mr. Campbell has the, uh — has the website and if I may, uh, can I read a brief —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Certainly.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — just a couple paragraphs.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Go right ahead.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. This is the About page and this might help to clarify because I will promote any of my work on the basis of my association — my former associa — association with Manson. There is not one mention of him on the website or in any, um, legitimate, um, efforts to market my work by anyone. I make those agreements with people who have — are pub — the publishers that this will not ever be used in promotion. Um, that I will not exploit, um, my crime. I will not ex — exploit the fact that I killed somebody. Um, with — or my association with somebody, you know, infamous, uh, to promote my work. So I — this — this might help. Um, this is from the About page on the website.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Sorry. Can – – can we clarify which website? He has so many.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Which website is this from?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I’ve only got one website. It is bobbybeausoliel.com.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Talk to me.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Because you — your attorney already —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right. Yeah, you are right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Yeah.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. There is only one web — website. There’s — I have only one actual website, which bears my name. Uh, there are — there is a business Facebook page, uh, associated with it. Um, I think there is an Instagram. That is all handled by people on the outside. Uh —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: At your direction, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: At — well, at my monitoring. I don’t direct it, but I monitor it to make sure that it is in-line with my —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: How do you monitor it?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I get printouts. I get printouts from, uh — periodically of like printouts like this from the website. So I — I can see what is going on, uh, if there are comments made, I want to know what they are. I won’t, um, allow hate speech on anything that is related, you know, so I — I won’t pander to the Manson thing on any of these — these, um, associated social media, but it — it all centers around this one website.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. So go ahead.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. So, uh, this is me speaking to whoever is visiting the website. Greetings and welcome to my headquarters on the wild, wild web. This website exists by grace and the efforts of stalwart friends and fr — and family through whose kind support I am able to maintain a bridge connecting me while I remain imprisoned as a ward of the state to the world at large. I am grateful for this opportin — opportunity to share with you some of the fruits of what talents and skills I have been personally endowed with and some of the histories and philosophies surrounding them. If you happen to be among those persons who may visit this site looking to gratify some curiosity regarding unfortunate associations that haunt my past, I am sorry, but you will have to look elsewhere. There are those — there are more than enough (too many) elsewhere to turn to for that sort of thing. In other venues, I have been forthcoming about these — about those aspects of my life. This website, however, exists only for the purpose of showcasing my music and sound design and sharing my visual art as well as some videos and writings related to these modes of expression. Please appreciate my work, or not, solely on the basis of its merits as art by d — as art. By doing so, you are likely to learn more about the truth of who I am, if that is of interest to you, than in any other way. Here you can view all of my paintings, drawings, listen to all of my albums, every track, full length, for free. Of course, if you want to own any of it, you’ll have to pay a little extra to help cover the cost associated with making it available, but a stupefying array of options is just a click or two away from where you are now.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Very good.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. So that is it. Yeah, um, so that — that sets the foundation for any marketing related to my work. Um, I am far more inclined to want to promote a Buddhist philosophy or spiritual philosophies than I am anything related to Manson or anything of that sort. If you — if you know my music, um, or if you had been exposed — I have, you know, meditation — one of the albums is a meditation CD, uh, for people who need to create a space for peace of mind or meditation. Um, I have heard — I have heard of it being used in dentists’ offices for pain management. So there is a lot of — you know, a lot of different aspects to the — the work that I create, but it is — uh, all of it I think — at least all of it beginning with Lucifer Rising which was, you know, based on an mythology and an exploration of a — a spiritual aspiration. Um —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So talk to me — talk to me a little bit about how you make amends for this crime?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Uh, directly some of the work I use — I donate some of the proceeds from the work itself. Um —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Where are you donating it to?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I — I have donated some here to, uh, the music program. I donated about $2,000 here to the —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: That was recently, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Fairly recently. Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I am making arrangements now to, um — to set up an account with a Buddhist organization that, um, uh, is involved in hospice. Uh, they are the Metta Institution. Metta is — means, um, uh, compassionate outreach. It is Metta — rather than the inward expression of meditation, it —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: I read — I read — I read the information in the packet.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. So, the Metta Institute is, uh – is doing work that I wholeheartedly believe in. Um, I volunteer here for hospice. I am a peer visitor. So I — that is one of the ways I try to make amends and I wasn’t there for Gary when he died. You know, I wasn’t — I wasn’t there for myself either, but, um, I wasn’t there for him, and, uh, so for the past, um, five years or so as the opportunities have manifested in my life, I have been involved in hospice as a — as a peer visitor to be a friend of those who are dying. Uh, and I want to support the work of this group of the Metta Institute. It took me a while to find an organization doing work that is, um, wholly outward, that is — you know, none of it is self- serving. It is all about care for people who are facing end of life, and I believe in their approach so I am set — I have set up a fund. I am in the process of setting up a fund. I already have, uh, affirmation from the head of the organization that a fund is — I am waiting. I have money ready to put into it that I am waiting for, uh, for the specific fund that, uh, I have been told will be set up in the name of Gary — Gary Hinman. So, uh, Gary, by the way, had — at the time I killed him, he had, um, started, uh, learning about Buddhism and at that time I didn’t know anything about it. I thought it was kind of wacky really. I didn’t know anything about — about it. Um, it changed me to say. Um, so I — for a couple of reasons because I think that hospice care is extremely important when done compassionately and with genuine empathy for the person dying. Uh, I think that is extremely important and by virtue of the fact that Gary was beginning to go down that path himself, I — I thought that was a good jux — juxtaposition and that creating a foundation in his — or — or a separate foundation in his name, uh, that — the funds will still go into the general account for Metta Institute. That has been made clear to me, but, um, uh, this is something that is a work in progress, but in other ways of making amends youth outreach. I have been involved with you — youth outreach for decades. Uh, producing programs and directly involved, uh, with kids who are having troubles with gangs and, um, brushes with the law. Um, and my belief there is that if I am able to, uh, help young men see how my path led me down the wrong direction, led me to prison, if they can see that and get some — get what I didn’t get when I was younger, get some, um, some mentoring on the pitfalls of following certain paths then maybe there will be fewer people in the criminal justice system and fewer lives will be lost.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Commissioner, do you have any questions on anything?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I do. Yeah. Thank you. Um, all right. I am sure you are aware that whatever happens today a lot of people will be scrutinizing this transcript of this proceeding, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And if we miss something important it will result in somebody saying go back and do it again or sending another panel, a rescission hearing, who knows what, if we miss something important.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And what is important is not necessarily what you and I might think is important, but what whoever is studying the transcript think is important. So we gotta cover bad news as well as good news. So that brings me to the, um, admonition that we heard about today, which is not only perfectly fine, it is something that I want to honor and that is there are certain subjects that you have indicated you would prefer or intend not to talk about. Um, that is good. That is fine. I don’t mean that’s good. I mean that’s fine with us. You have a right not to answer. You have a right to be here and not talk. You have a right not to even be here. Uh, we have no power to make you answer questions and we wouldn’t want to even try, but I don’t know where the limits are of what you don’t want to talk about. You can understand that, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mm-hmm.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: For example, if I were to ask you how you were feeling on July 26, 1969, you might interpret that as a question about the life crime. So I am going to rely on you and your lawyer to simply say, if I ask you question that you prefer not to answer, just simply say, I don’t want to answer that or I won’t answer that or indicate in some way that that is over the limit of what — whatever boundaries there are in this hearing, okay?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: If I may clarify.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yeah.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I — I have advised him — since I have been working with Ms. Beausoleil, um, I have been very adamant in my advising of him not to discuss the things that have already been discussed that have already been covered. Um, and if — if the com — if you — the transcript from the last hearing, there were multiple times where I objected and Mr. Beausoleil said no, I field the question. So I am just offering my — my advice to him and this comes from me and not from Mr. Beausoleil himself.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yeah. Well, and it is not even an objection, just simply say that is not a question he is going to answer.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Sure.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Or indicate to me in some way and I — I’ll respect that 100%. Like I said, he doesn’t even have to be here much less answer questions, but you understand what I am saying when I say that there are — I don’t know where the boun — where the limits are. You know? And there are lots of ways to approach that kind of a topic, which I could employ and it would like to ambiguity and I — you know, I could ask you for example what is the worst thing you ever did in your life and you might be thinking well, um, that is something I don’t want to talk about. Fine, then you just simply don’t talk about it, and that is fine, uh, and there are other approaches we could take. Um, here is the other problem we have. At some point, we are going to have to figure out what to say about the life crime and what we think is likely to have happened and your refusal to answer questions or your decision not to answer questions today can’t prevent us from doing us because the Supreme Court has told us that the evidence that is here doesn’t disappear simply because you don’t want to talk about something today or you choose not to talk about something today. So, I’ll be looking through the record as I have been doing now for many hours to try to figure out what is likely to have really happened. What is reliable, what isn’t and I may approach it this way, Counsel, just to give you advance warning, there may be pieces of information here in documents that I might read on the record and just say something like is there any comment you want to make? And that would just be for me to put in the record something that I think is important and that we may weave into a final decision or may not depending on how things go, and so that would be intention there on occasion, and I am sure we will work it all out as we go. Um, when did you start telling the — the truth to the Board, um, in the proceedings that go back to I think the late 1970s, right? Or the early 1980s, I see that one hearing was 1982. Were you, um, being truthful with the Board in 1982?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I believe at that time, it — it was early 80s when I came full, um — fully out front with what had happened. I had hedged on a couple of things prior to that. I am not sure —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — I can — I can’t honestly say that I remember it was prior to the ’82 hearing, but it was in that neighborhood.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, I have, um, a December 2, 1986 transcript. By then you think you were trying to be truthful with the Board?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Um, what tattoos do you have?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I got an assortment.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, let’s have them.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I have got, uh — I can show them to you if you want?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Why don’t you describe them to us and try to be comprehensive if you can?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Um, I have a lot of mythological subjects, uh, on my body. Um, a lot of angels and, um, uh, I got a couple of dragons, I think, uh, I guess you would call them dragons. Um, I have an eagle on my chest. I have tattoos of wings on my back. Um —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Have you come to the end of the list?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I — no, I’m trying to think. Uh, I got a banner over the top of that that says barbarians or barbarian. Uh, I have to qualify this and say it has been a very, very long time since I got any tattoos. If I had to do it over, I probably wouldn’t have any.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: When do you think the last time was that you got one?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, probably 1980 maybe? 1979.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I am looking at a document dated October 5, 1970. This is all from the record, uh, which is extremely lengthy for anybody who is wondering, that says — and it is signed by a Dr. Erickson, I believe, and it references you and your, um, CDC Number B-23 — no, 2 — this is a little vague, 28302, and it says the ex — initial physical examination on October 5, 1970 revealed a medium build 22 -year-old male Caucasian who weighed 180 — 155, height 5’9”. The skin revealed a star tattooed on the left web of his hand.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: A what tattoo?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: A star tattooed on the left web of his hand, also a star tattooed on the right lateral leg with a small face of a devil and then that is the end of the tattoo references. Anything you want to say about that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I don’t know what — this is the tattoo on the web of my hand. There is a little dragon on it, uh, there are a couple little stars around it. Um, I have, uh — I had a wolf face on my ankle. So it might have looked like a devil to somebody I suppose. That has since been covered up.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: It would be consistent with all this Lu — Lucifer Rising material I am looking at on your website. Right or not? You did the Lucifer Rising recordings in ’67, correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Wasn’t there a Lucifer Rising soundtrack that was —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh there was a Luc — excuse me. There was a — the — the project originally came out of a, um, out of a relationship that I had with the filmmaker in — in the mid-60s. Yes. And we — the project was never finished. Uh, we — it was a — basically an idea that never manifested, but I did a recording, uh, for the soundtrack at that time, so there is an — in the anthology, there is a — that was included.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Was the name Lucifer Rising associated with it back in 1967?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay, and so that’s continued on through to your current website that features that name, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay, and there’s descriptions in here about one surviving recording. Um, I mean I — it would seem to be consistent with the face of a devil on your — on your right lateral leg. I don’t know.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: There was no —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I’m not insinuating anything.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — never a devil on my right leg.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I’m simply asking questions.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, the movie was not about the devil. So, um, that — I am trying to make that clear.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, what was the significance of the — of the name, Lucifer Rising?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Lucifer means — Lucifer, the mythology of the fallen angel.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Right.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Comes from the poem Paradise Lost by Milton.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Right.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. There is a reference in the bible of a — in the Lament of Ezekiel, I think it is, —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — where it says oh Lucifer why art thou fallen from the heavens?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And upon that was a mythology created based on that one line and the mythology came from the poet, uh, John Milton, uh, in the 1700s and — called Paradise Lost, which tolls — tells the story of this disagreement that Lucifer had with, uh — with the father — with his father about, um — about humanity being placed before the angels. He disagreed with that and his pride — in his pride he led a rebellion and this is again — this is a story, an artistic story by a poet and the entire mythology was based on that. It doesn’t come from a bible or anything. It is not something, uh, and there is no reference to Lucifer at that point as the devil. Okay, we all have a — have a devil. The devil is the adversary and I know what that is. Um, what I —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well I don’t know. I mean that’s an interesting spin, sir, but, uh, I am looking at photos that have diabolic overtones to them on your website — on this website. I’m looking at, uh, references to Fantasia. So, you know, this is subject to lots of different kinds of interpretations. Uh, anyway, somebody thought you had a devil on your, uh — tattooed on you. It may not be important, but that is what they said back in 1970, and that was pretty close to the time when you told this to the judge. Do you remember telling the judge this at your sentencing? According to the transcript, if they got that right. Well, there’s — is one thing I haven’t stated, I know it is coming, but — so I would just like to say that when you say I have no remorse, you are one-hundred percent completely correct because I have read the definition of remorse and the definition of remorse is a strong feeling of guilt, something to the effect of having a torturing feeling of guilt, and I have none of those feelings of guilt. So there is no way possible unless I acted, which I would not do, to feel any remorse.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Do you have a question, sir?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Um, well, is that an accurate transcription of what you told the court?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think it is, yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And did that attitude continue, uh, for a period of time after that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I would say yes it did. Until 1973 I had continued down that, um — that path of antagonism of feeling that I myself was a victim and I wasn’t really connecting to the victim of my own crime. Um, I didn’t — I will be honest with you, I didn’t really full — it took a — it was a gradual thing beginning in 1973 I — I finally recognized that the fault was in. That the fault was in my orientation and in my thinking, uh, and I began to take steps to fix that and I didn’t really — I wasn’t getting any guidance so I had to do it on my own. I had to figure it out on my own how to get there. And —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. And that kind of attitude you described, you now have, that has already come through and I’m sure we will hear more about it, um, which is what we would expect from somebody who becomes rehabilitated. Uh —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Deputy Commissioner, if I may.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yes. Certainly.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I mean you — you have opened up something here and I feel, um, you know, there — there is a sort of, um, y — you seem to be making a statement and leaving it hang there in the air, and you know, that — that I am this remorseless person and that this is my orientation, and I have admitted to you, yes in that particular time, at that time, I was not connecting back to the victim and I really need you to understand that. I was not connecting —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I think it — I think that message is very clear from what you told the judge, sir. So — so —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: — now look we can’t in one moment incapsulate this entire hearing. We have to progress. So we have established that you were remorseless in June of 1970 and, uh, you have already made it clear to the Commissioner and the record is replete with information about your rehabilitation. How far that has gone is what we have to decide today. Maybe it is gone all the way to the max.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: So — so if I understand you, you’re creating a baseline?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, I am trying to get information that will useful to us in trying to figure out things like who did what to whom and what their motives were.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And what they have worked on to change that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And how that is affecting your present, uh, situation and the future — how it might affect the future.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mm-hmm.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Uh, I’d like to know about your motion for a new trial. You made a motion for a new trial, right, after you were convicted?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mm-hmm.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And, at that time, you were representing yourself, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: When did you first make the decision to represent yourself in legal proceedings?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: After my conviction.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So you were represented all the way through trial by a lawyer?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mm-hmm.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Is that a yes?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. So, Mary Brunner (phonetic) signed an affidavit, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Did you personally speak to her between the time the jury found you guilty and the time she signed the affidavit?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And did you compose the affidavit yourself?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Who composed it?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I believe she did. I — I am not sure.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: You believe that she composed an affidavit?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don’t know how she did it, but she provided an affidavit — sent an affidavit in. I had no hand in it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: What was the purpose of the affidavit?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, she was saying that, um, she had been coerced in her statement and that she had testified to was — was wrong.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And y — you are saying you used that in a motion for a new trial, but you knew nothing about how it got generated? That is what you are telling us?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don’t know how the affidavit came to be, no, I do not. Not specifically.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Did it come — had Ch – Charles Manson been arrested by then?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And he was in LA County Jail? And you were in LA County Jail?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I was — for the most part, I was in a different part of the county jail.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, was the affidavit — did the affidavit come into existence before or after you requested to be housed with Charlie Manson?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Requested to be housed with him?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Come on, do we have to go over that again? Are you going to tell us you are genuinely surprised that I don’t know that information?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I had put in a request to talk with him. This is in San Quentin.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Did you talk to him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And the testimony at the October 27, 1983 hearing on page 23 makes reference to it. You were asked about a letter. Uh, you had br – – testified earlier in that hearing that you requested to have an interview with them, and then they confronted you with, um, documentation and, uh, in the second, uh, paragraph they reference, it is no secret. Charles is my friend and we’re al — and we’re — also we are involved in the same case and then makes ref — the specific reference that they be housed together so that they may work on the case together. Does that refresh your recollection?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I don’t recall requesting — honestly, I don’t recall requesting to, uh, be housed with him, um, but I did request to talk to him. We were in separate areas and this was at that time because he was a codefendant and I was floundering. I was looking for some kind of way to make sense of everything that had happened. I was still trying to figure out what had happened (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, I especially would think that would be true if you chose to represent yourself.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: But I am also looking at a document dated September 15, 1970 signed by the warden of San Quentin. The final paragraph says, subject apparently is not as interested in obtaining the services of an appeal attorney as he is in maintaining contact with attorneys representing Manson family members on trial in Los Angeles.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That is true.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. So —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was trying to make sense of it. I was trying to make —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: — so you were — so you were getting your legal, um, direction from people associated with Charles Manson?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I wasn’t.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, tell me again how the affidavit got prepared that Brunner —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don’t know, sir. I don’t know how it was prepared. I thought maybe she did it with a lawyer or something. I am not sure, but she was in, uh, another part of the country and I told her I needed an affidavit but I didn’t —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yeah, you needed one in order to try to win a new trial, correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. I needed an affidavit. I asked for her to — to send in an affidavit.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And you let her just willy nilly do whatever she wanted with it. Just send me a piece of —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well certainly I didn’t —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: — paper with your signature on it and I’ll present that to the judge and request for a new trial?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I didn’t know anything about how to do an affidavit.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: You, uh, put on a motion for a new trial, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Didn’t you? The appellate decision says that. You called Brunner to the witness stand.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I did.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: You must have made a little bit of preparation about what testimony you wanted from her, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, but I — I knew what testimony I wanted from her. Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. And the affidavit was consistent with that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: But you don’t know how the affidavit came into existence?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don’t know who wrote it. I don’t know how it was written. No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, I don’t —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don’t know who actually typed on the piece of paper.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: — I am interested in how the document got created.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Sir, I have said this over and over. I don’t know. I don’t know how — the logistics of how the actual physical document was created.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Do you remember that the judge made a determination that, uh, Brunner at trial would be treated, and the jury given instructions, that she was an accomplice?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Was that, uh — that would have been something you would have requested or in — instructed to that effect, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Did I request —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: That would have been an instruction — a finding that you would have requested, right? That she be — that her testimony be viewed by the jury, um, having in mind the possibility that she was fabricating? Do you understand what I am saying? No?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I think you asked earlier. Mr. Beausoleil wasn’t representing himself at trial.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yeah.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was something — I —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You know, I was not familiar with the court and how to do it or law or anything. I was a kid.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: That is true of most people who represent themselves —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: — but the impression I have from this documentation, and you can speak to it if you want, is that you were very much in league with people litigating on behalf of Manson or Manson himself judging from the fact that you interviewed him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I wasn’t really in communication with either his lawyers or, uh, him. I was following the trial in — on television. I was reading the newspapers.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Right.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was trying to follow as much as I could and tried to figure out what the hell happened and where I was gonna fit in in the world. What the story was.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, do you think the warden got it wrong when he wrote that you were not interested in obtaining the services of an appeal attorney, but as interested as you were in maintaining contact with attorneys representing the Manson family?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I — I think he did get it wrong because I wasn’t in contact with them.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. And what, uh, do you recall from your interview of Charles Manson in jail?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He just gave me the runaround as usual. Just talked in circles and, um, uh, you know, my — my position at that time was that someone needed to write a book and try to explain what happened and that is what I wanted to talk to him about and I used the, um — the, uh, legal, um, meeting — the right to have a legal meeting and I had to, uh — I was originally denied to have a meeting with him because it was feared that I would be, uh — he and I were — would be enemies and that, uh, he and I or one or the other might try to harm the other. So I was, um — I wrote back to the — I think it was the deputy warden and explained that no, we’re friends. Uh, um, you know, I am not going to — you know, I was trying to reassure him. That’s where those — those comments came from was to try to convince him that, um, I was not going to try to do any harm to Manson and I didn’t fear for my own life. So I was trying to reassure him, but I really, um, had no, um, uh, you know, interest in Charlie per se himself other than wanting to see if there was a way to put a book out or something that would somehow explain what had happened in a way that made some kind of sense because what was out there certainly didn’t and I — I was trying to figure out how I was going to reconcile my own involvement with him, my own decisions in killing Gary with who I believed myself to be. Trying to find a way — a way home, you know, a way to restoring myself to integrity, and I was — honestly, sir, I was floundering.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Did you think of him as an adversary when you interviewed him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Somewhat. Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Did he know that you had tried to blame him in your testimony at trial for the murder?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Uh, did he know about the, uh — the blood writing on the wall at the Hinman residence?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Did he know about it?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yeah.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And you would have known about the blood writing on the walls at the Tate- Labianca murders, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So I imagine you would have asked him about the — that coincidence?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I — I had no opportunity really to ask him about it in depth, any of it. I had one opportunity when I was in the county jail, uh, in the holding tank. They put us in together. He was, uh — I was in the middle of my trial. He was going to some sort of preliminary proceeding, and I asked him what had happened.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: What is your present belief as to the, uh, similarity between those two facts in those two murders? What is your present belief about the similarity between the blood writing that you left at the Hinman residence and the blood writing that somebody left at the Labianca-Tate murders?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I would object to the characterization. In the past, there have been statements made by Susan Atkins that she had, uh, written on the wall in Gary Hinman’s house. Mr. Beausoleil has said that he doesn’t recall. I could have been him. It could have been her. So th — there is an ambiguity there that she has claimed responsibility for it as well. It is not clear.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, I have testimony to the effect or I have documentation, as it happens, that, uh, and I am looking at a document dated November 16, 1984 where a doctor — a diagnostic unit, Coordinator Miller, had lengthy discussions with Mr. Beausoleil. He admits to writing political slogans in blood on the walls of the victim’s residence. He states the slogans were intended to mislead the authorities into believing someone else had killed Hinman due to his political Marxist beliefs.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That — that’s — my statement was merely that Mr. Beausoleil has acknowledged that he may have been the one who has done it, uh, but there has — had been inconsistencies in that Susan Atkins also at various times claimed to have done it. That is my own point. Not that — Mr. Beausoleil can answer the – the questions for what he has done, but it — it is not totally clear, uh, and past records have indicated that and other panels have asked him about that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And he testified because there is a transcript that — where he testified that he did that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And it — that may have happened, but the truth is, I don’t remember doing it. I do — I have never remembered doing it since the crime. I don’t remember much of what happened after killing Gary for days.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Um —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: But I, you know —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Just so you know, sir —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — the thing is, I am responsible. The fact is, whether or not it was Susan Atkins or whether I did it and just don’t remember it. I don’t know. The fact is, I am responsible for it being there. I am responsible for everything that happened at Gary’s house.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I appreciate that sir, and you can imagine we hear a lot of inmates say similar things. Here’s the — I said, we can imagine we hear a lot of inmates say similar things. I am responsible. Here’s my thought in that regard. If you all were assembled here at 8:30 ready to have a hearing, only I wasn’t here, and I stumbled in the door three hours later when you are all sitting around waiting, and I said, oh, sorry. I am responsible. That wouldn’t quite answer the question everybody would have why I am three hours late, why you are all waiting for me to arrive when I am supposed to be here, right? Do you understand what I am saying?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Somewhat.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So, to claim responsibility generally isn’t very helpful to me. I mean I would like to know why —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I am not —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: — I would like to know why you plunged a knife into the — into the body of a friend that you had, okay? That’s — that is claiming responsibility for me. Just so you know. Okay? Um, why did you enter the Hinman — if you want to answer. Why did you enter the Hinman residence armed with a firearm?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because I was told that’s what I should do.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: You had been intimidated?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: You claimed on — in the past that you were even physically beaten by somebody?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Not beaten, threatened.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. It — you have claimed it in the past that you were beaten, but —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I have?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Some of things aren’t so — aren’t hugely important, but, yeah, I have read the record. I could pull it up for you. You said that you were beaten. Why do you think — but it — that — that, look, I am not — not everything is critical. Okay? You were threatened, right? You were intimidated, and what was the purpose behind the intimidation as far as you can — as far as you believe right now?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was to get the money back.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. The testimony at trial indicates that, um, you were sent there by a Manson to get money. Do you agree with that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, I don’t.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Why do you think, Brunner would testify to that —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Actually I think, Deputy Commissioner, I — you know, this is — these are the subjects that there has been a clear discrepancy for many, many years for decades.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Mr. Beausoleil, if you look at the transcript of the last hearing on page 78, discussed it at some length over my objection or against my objection. I — I feel like right now this is — is —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: — becoming very argumentative and, uh, the — there is a discrepancy. No one is gonna — gonna dispute the fact that, uh, there is — that some people that claim there is a different motive behind this. Um, the — the — the law says that unless it demonstrates current dangerousness if — if — because not everyone st — statements are going to be consistent in these situations.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I mean we are talking about a crime that was 50 years ago. Um, you know, I — I — it’s — you know, I — I don’t believe that this is very productive in terms of establishing things because Mr. Beausoleil has — has been very consistent with his particular statement.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Uh, when I — just so you know, when I first approached this case to prepare for it, I first read your last transcript and, uh, got a good feel for your version of events, and then I started reading earlier transcripts and other information which cast some doubts on those events as you described them. I didn’t say it disproved them, it just cast some doubt on them or it raised questions in my mind about some details. Um, it is true that what happened in 1969, uh, might well be irrelevant in the sense that the details, you know, what the motives were, but it is also true that it might be highly relevant not only to your credibility, but the connection it has with all the things that have been going on with your businesses online, the references to, you know, the — the question to what extent the Manson connection is, um, a factor in your — in your business enterprises and — and in what way it is a factor. So, that is the way I look at it.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And — and I understand the point you are making. All I can say is that my belief is — is that the statements that Mr. Beausoleil has made in the last — I mean certainly the last, you know, four or five hearings, I have read the transcripts as well, are all pretty consistent. I mean obviously anytime someone repeats a story, there are going to be some things — some new things that come out, somethings that might, uh, change a bit, but in general, they have been very consistent, and I don’t believe that anything that — about Mr. Beausoleil’s prior statements or anything that he has said today have any bearing on his, uh, acceptance of responsibility, insight or remorse, which are the — the key elements that —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well those are key. So is credibility. Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well — and — and Mr. Beausoleil has — has stated many times that he lied at length about these events early on. I mean it is very clear that, uh, many people were lying the, uh, the circumstances of the crime that took place back then, and probably still are.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, as I said, we have to try to cover the material and, uh, I am not trying to retry the case, but there are some questions that need to be answered and that is what I have been doing in part for the other reason that I mentioned, that we are going to have to at some point decide what version of facts we are going to recite for the record. Um, were you involved in this enterprise where this discipline digest publication was out there? I forget the date of this, but, uh, 1986. Were you involved in that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Were you doing drawings for it?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: The, uh, erotic drawings? Those were yours? Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: I’m sorry. There was no verbal answer.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I’m sorry. Oh —

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: There was no verbal answer.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Oh. Thank you. That’s right. We do need to get it on the record.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I thought I said yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Um, in looking through the, um, investigation that was put on by the — that was conducted by BPH in 2015 about your business and the Commissioner has broached this subject with you already to some extent, I did run across this one email that is in Exhibit Four. I don’t know if Counsel, if you — we can even actually provide a —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yeah, I would like to see that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yeah. Let me see if I can find you a copy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You know what, let’s take a — a break right now.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Time is 10:52. Give everybody a chance to stretch.

RECESS
–oOo–

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: All right. I’m — we’re not on record yet because I have to make sure the recording is going. I don’t know what that is, but I don’t see any relevance to it. Okay. We’re good.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: We’re back on the record. Um, it is now 11:05. Um, you may proceed, Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Thank you. So, I presented you with, uh, some photocopies of some excerpts from this lengthy, uh, Departmental Review Board referral for Inmate Beausoleil, an investigation initiated February 19, 2015, pursuant to written request from the BPH 2015 Panel. So, and I am sure you have seen these before.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Actually, uh, what is he — this is what these are?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yeah. Those.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. Actually, I hadn’t seen them before. I don’t know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: All right. Well, uh —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don’t see any —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I just — I wanted to ask the Commissioners if you have — this is a letter that I wrote in response to this investigation that should be in the file. It was in, I know, the previous files. I have one copy if — it is a letter that I wrote, uh, in response to this investigation.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well you may — all right. Well I certainly will take a look at that. You may think that I am — the thrust of my questions has to do with CDCR rules, uh, because that was the subject of some earlier concern and I think that that was resolved as far as CDCR is concerned, and I am not really wanting to spend time on whether there was or was not a violation of, uh, institutional rules. I am more concerned with the public situation — the public perception or some of the public perception about Mr. Beausoleil and his presence online and his ongoing business enterprises. So, this one, uh, email reads, Hi Bobby. I guess that is to you, sir. First of all, I hope the surgery has gone well. I apologize for all the BICE stuff. I do want to proceed with the more in depth piece. As I said before, I think there is a lot that is fascinating about you, your case, and your career and I think the public is ignorant about a lot of your life, and again I think I can talk about the nature of justice in America through this case. I think we can arrange that I can — that I have a final say on headlines and photos, any bi — publication will probably want fresh photos taken if possible and photos throughout your life. This — this kind of, um, attitude toward you that’s — that does go way back to your interview with Truman Capote, right? I mean people were interested in you as a — and your connection with Manson as early as whenever that interview took place. Am I right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well there’s — yeah, there are people who are interested in me about that. I don’t, um — I am very selective about who I talk to and in what context and that is about as best that I can do. It is just like with you, sir, I’m doing my best to be forthcoming. Um, you know, it is difficult. You are going back to things that are so old I either don’t remember or, uh, the way that I remember them seems to be unsatisfactory to you, um, and I am not sure how to respond to that, but I — I’m here and with — with every intention of being honest with you and being forthcoming and I am just, uh — I hope that I can do that. You just read something, um, and I can tell you this is a from a journalist who wanted to do a new interview. He had done one small interview piece about my artwork, um, for a magazine. Uh, I was angry about the use of Manson’s name in the headline, about me being an associate and, uh, so we didn’t continue on with anything in that regard because of that. I — I just — I had told him that I didn’t want to go down that road if you wanted to have this focus be exclusively on the art and music that would be fine and so he is apologizing to me, uh, about the headline that was used and in kind of a click-bait sort of headline and, um, so nothing has ever come out of this any further communication, um, but I do believe that the American people have a right to know what happened and so I have been, in the appropriate context, um, as forthcoming as I can be independent of anything related to my art or music or — or the marketing of — of those materials. Uh, I keep it completely separate. Uh, one does not cross over into the other and that is the best that I can do given the fact that there is that association and that it does play into the public perception and, um, that it does influence sometimes people’s interest and I have to be — just very cautious and that is how I proceed. I — there is no way to keep it completely separate in people’s minds, but at least in my endeavors in what I am actually doing, uh, on my own volition, I have a choice whether or not to get involved in something. I try to be as responsible as I can be, uh, in the choices that I make in regards to that, but to, um — to not share my work with people is, uh, I — I think a — um, again it goes back to Dharma and my — my personal belief — my personal spiritual belief that I have the responsibility to share who I am. Through my work as a creative person and to have that be of benefit to — to people. By the same token, I believe that if people have a legitimate question about what I am in for and what happened way back when and who I am now, I will do the best as I am now with you, the best I — I can to answer that in as forthright and as honest a way as I possibly can in the moment.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: One — one thing, Commissioner, just, uh, I believe in some of these other — if I recall correctly. It has been a while since I have looked at this document, but I think among the various messages that are in there, there are some that in there that are discussing blocking people like for instance the — the gentleman who runs this (inaudible) website being blocked from — from any participation in Ms. Beausoleil’s Facebook or whatever account it was. I don’t recall what this was about, but there — you know, Mr. Beausoleil — and the — there should be examples within this document showing that the — the individuals working with him have been vigilant about trying to as best as possible, draw a line demarcating that, uh — that relationship.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mr. Andres, may I — may I interject something back to something that you had mentioned and you kind of left it hanging there and I think it is important that I respond to it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And I would encourage you to do that because our job is to be a hundred percent fair and to give you the chance to, uh, explain anything that could possibly be explained or that you want to try to explain. So, I would invite that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Thank you. Um, I don’t think I can explain everything first of all. I will do the best that I can, um, uh, you had mentioned – – you made a reference to the 1967 version of Lucifer Rising and it seemed to me, and I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that you were drawing a correlation between that and Charles Manson, and that somehow you — you are suggesting, and this is just my interpretation, sir, I am not trying to project anything on to you, but my impression is that you are trying to draw a correlation between that project and the title of it and to Charles Mason and this — this thing that — about him being, you know, Satan or something that Susan Atkins was saying. So I — just to clarify on that one point.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Mm-hmm.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The original soundtrack that I did for the original version of that film was done in 1967. I did not meet Mason until 1968, uh, to the middle of 1968 or early 1968, so, uh, just so that you understand that there — that is a project that was done based on the mythology as I explained and based on the myth of the fallen angel and it was an artistic interpretation and had no reference or connection or, uh, is not indicative in my mind of anything in my relationship with Manson.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. I do note that, uh, in part of your website, the part I was referring to that has a title, the Lucifer Rising Suite, A Journey Out of Darkness, and these images including one that looks pretty much like the opening scenes of the movie the Omen. I mean I will just have to say that it is what it looks like, but it also says, uh, for what it is worth, um, and I lost my place now, that you made an arrangement with, uh — with, uh, whoever it was that — yeah, with, uh, Anger (phonetic) — Mr. Anger. I doubt that Mr. Anger was in anyway prepared for the counter proposal I made to him that I would consider playing the role of the rebel angel in his film if he would consider allowing me to compose and perform the music for the soundtrack. We both struck a deal with the devil that night. Uh, I mean this just is what it is. When I ask you questions about this or any other aspect of the subject we are discussing, I am not trying to build a case, I am trying to get answers to questions.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I understand.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And, uh, I don’t really know what to make of all these references to Lucifer Rising. I — I am not that familiar with modern music to where I would be able to assess it in terms of what kind of crowd it would attract or not. I just am looking at these documents that indicate, uh, a fascination about you and then the next one that I provided you a copy of. Bob, I have received emails from the guy whose email you forwarded. As I wrote you previously, I think this guy should be given a wide birth. He wrote without knowing I already knew he had emailed you. He apparently has a couple of mid 70-year- olds, some of them toothless on camera, discussing who else Charlie had murdered. Nothing firsthand. All someone told them this or that. When I didn’t respond in the way he wanted, he sent a vaguely threatened email about freedom and not caring about his film, but not wanting to give it away, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. He said he was going to have his attorney contact your attorney. You and your attorney know what is best for you. I can only suggest ignoring and avoiding this guy as I see no benefit to you. I sure wouldn’t want — I sure wouldn’t talk to him on the phone either you or your attorney or even email him, as it would end up on the web. I am not responding this latest email and will not respond in the future. Best, Steve.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, this — that was written by Steve Moretz who was my attorney prior to Mr. Campbell. He was just warning me. I had a new attorney by that time. He was sick. In fact he had died, um, not long after that. He says to — giving me a heads up and trying to help me to avoid getting, you know, being manipulated people who are trying to maybe extract information from me or something. I am very good at that anyway.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I worked closely with Mr. Moretz as he was becoming ill. He has — has since deceased, but I worked closely with him and, uh, can — when he was saying you and your attorney, he was referring to me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So, but just to respond more generally, I think it is appropriate at this time to respond more gende — gen — generally to the concerns you raised about me being happy with your answers and the whole picture. We are all stuck with the reality that we are stuck with. You committed, uh, a horrendous murder of a person. You were involved with the Manson family to some degree or other. There are lots of reasons to think Manson was just involved peripherally, but more than peripherally. You did — you deny that apparently. Uh, and a long comes years later — well I mean you — you have admitted that he personally attacked and wounded the victim of your murder. So to — to at least that extent.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Sorry I misunderstood you. That is not peripheral.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well whatever. However we want to characterize it. That is the reality that we are all stuck with and we are now stuck with the reality that you, uh, have an ongoing business enterprise that invites apparently lots of interest in you, and perhaps for all I know, business, in part because of the fascination with you and this whole background. Do — do — is that a fair statement of this situation?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It could be. I, you know — most of the people that I hear from are not interested in the Manson thing at all. They are interested in the work. They are interested in Kenneth Anger who had no connection with Manson and in fact despised him. Uh, still d — he is still alive, so probably still despises him. You know that film project was actually very well received by a lot of people who really kind of got it, and, uh, understood it for what it was and did not see it as something related to Manson in anyway.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. So I want to re — revisit then the Commissioner asked you in — in perhaps slightly different form than I’m asking.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Can I make a mention —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yeah sure.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: My attorney, uh, gave me a note here just to mention that, um, that parts of that film soundtrack that I recorded, that has been us — used in other projects. Other well respected — Lady Gaga, um —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I saw that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — the Lady Gaga documentary used a portion of it and — and it has been used in other films.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yeah.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: You know it is respected on its own merits as art and I, um — I just hope you can understand that in that particular context. I think it is important to try to see it as something that is not representative of something that is related to Manson. I mean can — I — I seem to be having a little bit of difficulty doing that and I — I can’t — you know you are going to respond the way you are going to respond.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: It is not necessarily limited to Lucifer Rising being connected to Manson, it is you being connected to Manson.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: It is you, the author of these items, being connected to Manson and I saw that it was a positive — it was treated as a positive in your last hearing that you would be able to make a living, and that is good. Unfortunately, it seems to also be a two-edged sword where the kind of, um, audience that you attract seems to include also people who have a fascination with you because of that connection and there are references on the website to that. So —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: On — on — on my website?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well there — there are references — yeah, there is a — there is a — there is an interview of you by, uh, somebody where, um, you know, and what I just read to you shows that the — the, uh, emails that we just read show that, but there is also a, um, an interview somebody did with you —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: There isn’t any interview on the website where I am talking about Manson or my relationship with him.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Again, to res — to just revisit what the Commissioner already explored with you to some extent, what affirmatively have you done, if anything, in connection with the promotion of your materials or your other presence publicly to disabuse people of the idea that there is something heroic or fascinating or attractive about Charles Manson and your connection with him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I make it very clear to anyone who communicates with me that I do not promote Manson in any way, shape, or form. I do not glorify him, uh, or anything that he represents. You know, here’s the — you — I — I — it is really kind of dismaying to me that, um, y — you seem to assume that it is somehow a benefit to me that I have an association — a former association with Manson. That this somehow, uh, promotes my work as an artist, and I’m gonna tell you for a fact, it does not. It is a liability. The people who are interested in my work have found an interest in that work in spite of that former association with Manson and that stigma that he puts on in my life. It is — nobody that is interested in Manson is interested in my music or my art. They might be trying to get some words from me of some kind, but, uh, I ignore that. I just don’t — I don’t participate. You know, once in a while I will get a request from somebody, uh, or a picture. There will be a picture of me taken from somewhere on the internet. Would you sign this for me? I get requests like that from people who are fascinated by the Manson thing and I will write, if I respond at all, I say absolutely not. I do not pander to anything related to Manson.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So then —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I make it clear to, uh, inquiries who, uh, from media who are looking to exploit all of that. I just don’t participate in that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. So your approach then to the extent that that might present a problem to you or to anybody else, your basic approach is to try to be silent and ignore any overtures along those lines?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, that is not exactly true. Um, what I said, and I said earlier. In the appropriate context, apart from anything related to my art or music in that sort of venue, um — you know, there is no perfect solution to this. You know there isn’t a perfect solution to this. I have to navigate this to the best of my ability and the way I have developed, and I have made a lot of mistakes along the way in how I have approached, um, sharing my work with people. You know, um — I don’t event — you know, people can go onto my website and play every song that I have recorded for free. They don’t have to buy anything. It is not about marketing. It is about sharing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: They can go look at my art for free.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I am sure the Commissioner would like us to turn to post-conviction at this point.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Yes. Please.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So, Counsel, do you have a hard copy of the, uh — that I can refer to of the materials you submitted in terms of post-conviction? Recent post-conviction?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I have a copy of the memorandum that I submitted with all the exhibits. Is that what you are asking me about?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Is that the latest, uh, information? Thank you. Is that the latest then?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And I also have the, uh — the (inaudible). If there is anything —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well let’s start to go through it and you are going — you are going to let me know if there is more material that I need to look at, okay?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And there may be somethings that Mr. Beausoleil is aware of that I am not. I don’t know if he has gotten any chronos or anything that I did not include then he should discuss those.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: This is pretty proforma for the most part. Last hearing date was October 13, 2016. Denied for three years. Your placement score is 19, medium A. You are working as a recreational aid, right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mm-hmm.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Is that right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: What kind of work grades have you been getting? Do you know?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Good ones as far as I know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Do you think you are a reliable worker?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I do. There — there is a chrono from my supervisor.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That is not in — I did not submit that. It wasn’t his, uh — in the — I don’t think I submitted that. It was in his C-file and —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: It — it is in the file.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. You, um, have some vocational training or certificates in electronics and printing, but I think you were, um, experienced and you described your experience as a videographer to the last panel, which I — I think was, um — you have a high opinion and probably rightly so of your skills in that regard, right, as a videographer?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, people keep wanting them from me. So, I guess so.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay, and what exactly is a videographer?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well it is more than videographer. There is a resume there that is part of that package, and it will run down all of my vocational training and how I have utilized it in, uh, multimedia. I am really a multimedia artist, uh, and by that I mean that, um, uh, I know every aspect of production used in the creation of videos, uh, film. I know camera work and audio. So, uh —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So this is — this might be, uh, something someone would use your services in connection with making a music video or that sort of thing?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that is one — one application. Yes. Um, there are a couple of job offers that are re — in the packet that are related specifically to this. Um, so there are people who want to employ me now using those skills and I have an extensive on-the-job training you might say, uh, having worked for two decades, um, for the Oregon Department of Corrections as their multimedia specialist and video producer.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: All right. So is that — you most favorite way of earning a living on the outside?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Yeah, it would be through that work. Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Now, you haven’t had a 115 for a while. Just to discuss briefly the one that was pending, I think last time you were here or last time the Board saw you, that was, um, this business about the unauthorized business enterprise, which was dismissed, but wasn’t it also dismissed on technical grounds?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, it wasn’t, uh, dismissed on technical grounds at all actually.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I thought there was a reference to —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. It was reheard on a technical ground, um, because it was initially heard and I did — before I had the documentation. It took a while for me to get my property from Oregon, um, I just sort of was uprooted and had to leave it up there and, uh, it took a while to get everything back. So I didn’t have the documentation for, um — for my having been allowed to publish and — and that sort of thing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, so I — I asked that it be reopened. After I obtained the material, I asked for the hearing to be reopened but it was not found, um — it was examined very carefully. I had all of my CDs actually, music — all of my music, samples of my art. I had all of the documents that, um, that I still have. There are others in the file in relation to, um, proceed with publishing my work and so I was found not guilty in the interest of justice on the basis that there had been no violation.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Um, and before that your last 115 was probably reported in the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, made reference to. Do you remember when your last one was before that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, about five years earlier. I had an unauthorized use of state property.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: One before that was 1999 for a dirty UA, um, for marijuana. That was the last time I ever used it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: The clinician thought it was 1988. You tested positive for marijuana, but that may have an earlier one.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was an earlier one.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: So I had a violation in Oregon.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Possession of marijuana in 1981. Okay and private enterprise you mentioned that, ’85. Um, so 2015, in an unauthorized area, which was dismissed, and possession of an escape device, as well as property one violation. I know you just talked about that. The escape device was dismissed. The other violations were upheld. Is that right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: That was the business about the tape over the door to —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah I stuck a piece of tape in a door jamb trying to be considerate actually. It was a mistake.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And the clinician notes the programming you have done over the years. What is the most recent examples of rehabilitative programming you have done?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I continue to be involved in the Twelve-Step Program.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Dealing with al — uh, substance abuse or something else?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, just for the mar — marijuana use. I like that support. I like being around people who are working on themselves. So I have continued even though I haven’t had the slightest inc — inclination to, uh, smoke pot at all. Um —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Does step one of NA apply to you?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I don’t know that it, uh, does specifically, but it does in the sense that, um — the powerless aspect of it, I — I do believe that I have the power to control it myself. Um, but I draw my strength from — from my higher power from God. I do that. So in that respect it is true. Well, step one is about being — admitted to myself that I am powerless, uh, to control my use of, in that case, alcohol originally, um, and so I don’t feel that I am powerless. I do believe that I have that power, but I do believe that step one is important in terms of defining one’s will power with something greater than their own personal willpower.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Do you feel the need to write a relapse prevention plan?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I did and you have —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: What does it deal — what — what kid — sorts of things did you decide you don’t want to relapse into?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, well anything. Anything that is going to, um, compromise my faculties.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, if — if it covers too much, then it really doesn’t cover anything.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I very specifically admitted that I had a, um, history of, uh, abusing marijuana. It is the only thing that has ever really been, um, a vice, I guess you might say and something that I — I had it an — an habitual attraction to using. Um, as I explained earlier to Ms. Dobbs, I, um, got a handle on that and understood why I was attracted to it, what justifications, what my thinking was, and, uh, I feel very confident in having mastered it, but I also believe that the value of a 12-step program goes beyond, um, you know, it goes beyond that having — having the foundation of relationships that are promoting ones, um, staying on top of — of the need of any sort of reliance on any sort of outside su — substance or alcohol or drugs or anything, um, self- medicating. To have that support system is important and I intend to maintain that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So I did see references in your assignment history to, uh, AA in 2017, um, 2016. You were — a lot of your assignments have to do with visual and performing arts type things. You were working as an electrician for a while?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: A teacher’s aide, dining room line server, library assistant, recreational aide off and on. Okay. And, um, visual and performing arts. Okay. Is that a — what is the nature of that assignment? What would you do with — in visual and performing arts? Would you teach, would you play, would you —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I am a facilitator in that program as well as a student. Uh, it is Arts in Corrections. It is a, um — it is an art program, drawing, sculpture. It’s — it hasn’t been, um, going too long. They just started it here this last maybe 12 months.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: I see a document from, uh, Francisco Homes. What is your first choice of places to live?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, there’s a — I have an offer of a house, a small house, cottage in Santa Monica, and that would be my first preference. Uh, I would be living by myself, um —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Who would be paying for that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: The person who owns it would initially be paying for it. I would eventually as I make — start making money, I would eventually be paying rent.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: There is a letter from Emily Carr (phonetic) that I submitted in support of the —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Of the cottage?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Mm-hmm. She — she discusses it. She also, uh, um, has extended an offer to assist with employment as well.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So, if there is, um, a desire on the part of the Board that you do transitional housing, what would be your first choice?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, if they — a halfway, I would go with Francisco Homes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: In San Francisco?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, Francisco Homes in Los Angeles.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: GEO if — if the Board would want me to — to parole to, um, Northern California rather than the county of commitment, then GEO Homes has stated that they will be willing to accept me. I have, uh, residence offers out — outside of the state. There are two as well, one in Oregon, and, um, one in Dallas.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So these documents that you submitted to us just to cover those today. This is Parenting Inside Out. There is, uh, artwork here and how is this artwork produced?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That was produced on my workstation. Uh, it’s — that is Professor Proponderas’ (phonetic), uh, youth outreach for children of incarcerated parents to try to help, um, kids who have parents in prison cope with their situation, understand it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So this is computer graphs?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes it is.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And how — what kind of — how does one — give me the thumbnail version of how one applies one’s artistic talent to that. Do you have to create in your mind the image that you want to first, uh — create in your mind an image that you want to reproduce on the computer?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. Um —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And is that where the artistic part of it comes in?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I designed everything there. The characters, the world, the universe that it takes place in. Uh, I did most of the voices myself.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I have the (inaudible)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So this is primarily about helping kids whose parents are incarcerated?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. Children — it was a project done for an organization called Children of Incarcerated Parents and for the Oregon Department of Corrections.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay and then the other two documents you gave us are support letters. One from, um, Michael Monaghan (phonetic) who is a professional writer, publisher and gives contact information in Vermont and, uh, talks about among things your creative skills and, uh, gives us an idea of how long he has known you and then the other one from your biological son, Ivan Pugh?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Ivan or Ivan. And, um, describes what he thought was going on with you when you were 21 and describes you as having been able to live a productive, positive life among other things in that letter.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: There are, um — in the packet that Mr. Campbell prepared and that you have there, there are exhibits with a lot more letters —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Right.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — and job offers. Um, he makes reference to them in his brief, but there — there is a lot more. Those were just the late comers. The one that you just referenced.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: So there’s a transcript ex — Exhibit A from last time. Then comes Exhibit B as, um, support letters from Robert Greer —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Randy Geer.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, it starts out Robert and then that is in parenthesis, Randy Geer, G-E- E-R, from Salem, Oregon and, uh, tis person has maintained contact with you and talks about your kindness and your care for others among many other things. It is very nice.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mr. Geer is, um, a former employee of the Oregon Department of Corrections. He was my supervisor when I first, um, arrived in Oregon and put me in position to do the multimedia work, uh, he remained in — remotely my supervisor. He, uh, was elevated in the ranks to, uh, assistant director, Chief of Inmate Services. So I was still under him. He — he would bring projects for me to work on.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And he has written several letters here. They are very complimentary and he appears to know a lot about you, and, uh, just lots positive information and contact information. So we have that in mind. Then we have another one from him from December 2013. So he has been writing in support of you for a long time.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. He is retired now, but yeah. We — we have become — we are friends.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Good. Then comes some documentation from your, um, institutional background, um, disciplinary results. I think we discussed that. Some, um — your response to some issues apparently raised by the panel the last time the Board saw you including, uh, your description of the business operation and — so that is all —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I believe that was also submitted with the Petition to Advance the Hearing, one of the bases for doing so.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Then comes, um, a letter from you to Mr. Fox about business matters —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: From me?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Well, it looks like —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So if I just can, uh —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Yeah go ahead.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: — the order that I — I included the exhibits in the order in which I discussed them in the brief. That I believe is Mr. Beausoleil’s – – he — he requested permission from the warden to publish — to be able to publish a book of his artwork. The warden denied it and Mr. Beausoleil has honored that and is not going forward with that project until such time he has permission. That was — the reason for it being in there was to respond to the previous panel’s, uh, their advice to him to ensure that he had any appropriate permission before going forward with new projects.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. That sounds good, and here’s a letter from AJNA Bound or that’s the — that is the letterhead.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: That’s the — yeah. That’s the book publisher —

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — who wanted to do the book.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Another letter to Fox or a copy of the same thing and then here is one from CMF having, uh, again referencing — that is some official here, the resources manager, Maldonado. Talking about what can or can’t be done at CMF, I — I think. Here is your relapse prevention plan that talks about substance abuse history and recovery and you describe your past participation in NA and AA and you characterize yourself as spiritual and you make some commitments to what you are going to do in the future or not do. Then comes the Francisco Homes document. Then comes your resume, which includes completed projects, education, self-help programs and what you were currently doing when this was written in 2018. Then comes a letter of support from Keeman Grant (phonetic).

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That one has a job offer and there is a job description attached to it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Right. Some more business opportunity type documentation. Here is, uh, somebody who is involved in television series. There is a job opening for a production assistant and thinks that you are qualified. This is out of Electric City Enter – – Entertainment in Studio City. Contact information is given. Um, do — documentary TV and film producer name Mr. Day — James Day and thinks it is your talents and experience will be useful. Describes you as an accomplished musician and he worked with you on a feature documentary. Tyler Davis writes in support. Friendship, uh, was established sometime back between you and him. Steven Foldvari, F-O-L-D-V-A-R-I, writes in support.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: In past hearings, Mr. Foldvari has offered employment. I don’t think he is in a position to offer it anymore. I think he might be retired.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, he is at a different job.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. He still remains supportive.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Here is somebody from the Oregon Department of Corrections who had an experience with you for nine years in the yoga program and writes in support. Here is some documentation from CMF I believe having to do with visiting a hospice patient. Just tell us Counsel how that is helpful? Um, what is your view of how that is helpful to us?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Which one?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: The hospice visit.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Oh, it is just to show that he has been doing ongoing work with the hospice, uh, programs in prison. It is proof that he has actually had the permission to do that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Thank you. Um, music sponsor, Enriques — Enriquez (phonetic), talks about participating in the house band and music program. Um, here is a reference to a generous donation of various musical equipment from December 2016. Here is some brochure information about Metta Institute and the website connected with that. End of Life Practitioner Program, the goal of innovative training is to establish a network of educators, advocates and guides for those facing life-threatening illness. What is your connection with them, sir?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: With whom sir?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: With the Metta people. Is it Metta?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, that is the out — the, um, outreach program for, um, hospice, compassionate care. It is a Buddhis organization.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Good.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I set up a — am in the process of setting up a foundation for Gary, in Gary Hinman’s name for, um, at least a portion of proceeds that I make.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: M-E-T-T-A is the way that is spelled?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Francisco Homes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I apologize. I guess I included that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: That’s all right. Here is a letter, um — here is a parole plans. So it talks about refer — residences, and we have discussed that, employment, and we have discussed that, financial support ser — resources. Um, your relationship between what you can do and want to do and your health is described there. Emily Carr, journalist, thinks you have taken full responsibility for your crime and says so and says that you are remorseful and talks about your talents and the way those can be —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: She is the person who offers that house, uh, to — as a residence.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Um, your brother writes in support. Um, a handwritten letter, very nicely penned by — but I can’t read — it’s a Freeman.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: She’s a minor. We probably shouldn’t say her name on the record if — if that is possible.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: But that is Mr. Beausoleil’s grand — step-granddaughter who — and I included all of her letters.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. So there are several from Freeman that will remain otherwise anonymous. Uh, Rachel, I don’t know who that is. Whether that name should be mentioned.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: These are all adult family members.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: John Freeman, Evan Freeman. All these have contact information for follow up in case anyone wants to. Priscilla, a sister. The Barcelona Review. This is a Jill Adams who is a professor of English language and literature, and, uh, gives contact information. These are all support letters. Greg Richard who has known you for ten years. He talks about your perseverance and your ability to work with others.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: This category (inaudible) is sort of friends and professional associates make up the reminder of the letters.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. So there are just a few more. So here is a lengthy letter from Jillian McCain (phonetic) who is an oral historian poet, MA in Literature from New York University and is working on a book about the 60s and apparently you fit into that picture somehow that she is interested in and she writes in support. The graduate program director of, uh, the University of Massachusetts, Boston, Nicola Black, MA, writes in support. It says somebody from Scotland. It talks about — makes reference to the Lucifer Rising film and describes it as widely documented that you were involved in recording — making a recording studio in some institution and making instruments and, uh, apparently you have been in touch with her by phone and then here is a Doping Pong (phonetic) — this is, um — this is a foreign, uh, this looks like Asian contact information. Somebody who has known you for 15 years and, uh, Demetrice Michanan (phonetic). Counsel, if there is more, you can mention it now or later.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No. No. There is nothing else. There have been other people who have submitted letters at other hearings. We tried to dwindle it down to all specific purposes. So I have tried to guide the Commissioners through (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Well we certainly are aware of the strong support and the plans that are well-documented. With that I will return to the Chair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So, um, everybody okay?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Well, um, I am going to ask to take a break before we go to clarifying questions if that is okay?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Well why don’t we take that break now?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Okay. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Time is 11:57.

RECESS
–oOo–

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. We are back on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: We are back on the record. The time is now 12:10. So at this time, Mr. Beausoleil, we are going to — I am going to turn to the Comprehensive Risk Assessment. Before we go there though, I do have a couple of questions, follow up — actually let’s just go through the, um, risk assessment and then I will, um, incorporate my questions as I go along. Again, it is the risk assessment created by Dr. Levin. It is dated March 1, 2016. It is the same risk assessment that was used at the last hearing. Regarding, um, substance abuse history and related disorders, the doctor finds that the diagnosis of cannabis use disorder in a controlled environment is most appropriate in this case given, um, Mr. Beausoleil’s history. Regarding major mental disorder, personality disorder, the doctor makes the diagnosis of other specified personality disorder with antisocial features.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: What page is that on, Commissioner?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: That is at the top of page ten. In the analysis of historic factors on page 12, the doctor states that, uh, your total PCLR score is slightly below the mean of North American male inmates and below the cutoff or threshold used to identify dissocial or psychopathic personality. In the analysis of historic — in the analysis of risk management factors, the doctor discusses, um, the fact that Mr. Beausoleil, sir, that you have been residing in an institution pretty much, um, the majority of your adult life.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So, my question to you is what kind of stressors do you anticipate experiencing if you are granted parole?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I would say the normal stressors, but it is going to be, um — I’m — to be honest with you, it is going to be a little bit like Rip Van Winkle, you know. I have been 50 years in prison. So it is not going to be easy. Um, I don’t doubt that there are some things that I may not foresee, but I have tried to prepare in every way possible, um, both vocationally, uh, having work to fall back on and, uh, knowing what I am going to have to deal with, what support I am going to need. I have built up a very strong support base among my family and friends and if you will notice my friend, uh — my friendships go back a long time, you know, I — I form a friendship and it lasts. I have, uh — Jill Adams, for example was mentioned, and she — over 45 years I have known her and, um, these are all really responsible intelligent people and, um, so I am blessed to have them in my life, and, uh, to have that support base. I have strongly family support. Um, I am very close with my daughter’s children. Even though they are not my biological children, they still respect me as a parent, and, uh, they, um, you know, they are all adults. They are all upstanding citizens. So I have a strong, um, strong base of friendships that are — that are rooted in people who are very strong and, um, intelligent and well-grounded and, um, in — you know, knowledgeable. Uh —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Got you.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So if you had to describe for me the biggest difference between your associations at the time when you committed this crime, and your associations today, how would you describe that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Like night and day. Like night and day.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: What would be — what — what’s —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well because I was looking up to people at that time who were, uh, based on this — this need that I had as a young man to — to try to find a place to belong and this idea that, um, uh, I needed, you know, some sort of rite of passage to demonstrate my — that I am a real man and, uh, deserving to be accepted into that fraternity. Well, you know, I have been in prison. I went through San Quentin and, uh, I have been through hell, right? And none of it amounts to anything. None of that tough guy stuff, none of that, um, uh, you know, the bravado that I engaged in early on, uh, things I didn’t really mean, but I thought that that was what a tough guy would say, you know, that sort of thing. I was mimicking or mirroring those kinds of behaviors from this — these antisocial, uh, criminals really, uh, that I was looking to for some sort, uh, identity, and when I realized that it was hallow, that there was nothing there and even if they had accepted me, there would be no sense of having, um, accomplished or become anything, that it was all just this thing that I had conjured in my mind.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: So from that point on, I started developing relationships that were rooted in integrity, people who have gen — genuine intelligence and integrity and honesty and are honest with me about my own failings and my own faults and helped me to see them. My wife was instrumental in that. You know, I talked earlier on about, you know, Mr. — uh, Mr. Andres said, uh, you know, was talking about things I said to the court after — after I — when I was being sentenced about having no remorse.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Right.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And all of that was coming from a place of — of deep pain and ignorance, feeling that I was the victim, right? That I was the victim. Um, you know, this antisocial, this anti-government, this antiestablishment stance that I was taking and it wasn’t grounded in anything that I really knew, right? It wasn’t grounded in anything that was in my heart. It was bravado. Things that I was — behaviors that I was doing to try to appeal to people that I thought I wanted acceptance from. So when I found out that that was meaningless and that there was nothing really there, then I started developing, as I said, I started developing relationships that were based on integ — in integrity and cultivating that integrity within myself.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: How long have you been here now at this particular facility?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I came back in 2015 to California from Oregon.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was up there for 21 years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So — so since, um, coming to this particular facility, um, who have you gravitated towards in terms of your circle of friends?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, people who are working on themselves, people who are involved in hospice, people who are involved in the 12-step program. Uh, I gravitate to people who, um, recognize that they came in with tremendous failures — failings in their own lives and in their own betrayals of the people that they — who loved them. In some cases they didn’t have people who loved them, but I — I gravitate to the people who are working on themselves and to whom I might be able to — to be some help, some inspiration possibly. Um —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So turning back to the risk assessment. On page 15, the doctor discusses the, um, other risk considerations. The doctor goes over the youth offender factors and also the elder parole factors. So, just so that the record is clear, Mr. Beausoleil, what — what’s your physical condition today? How would you describe your physical condition?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I’m pretty typical for a 71-year-old man. Um, I do yoga and I teach yoga. That helps me greatly to keep the arthritis at bay. I – – have a di — diagnosis of severe, uh, degenerative arthritis, um, and it affects most of the joints in my body to some degree or another, some worse than others. Um, the yoga has helped me greatly and I have been using that experience in working with, uh, mobility impaired men. There are a lot of them here. I do that within my job. It is now part of my — even though I was brought in as a clerk, um, the recreational supervisor wanted me to teach Tai-Chi and — and yoga to — and they have taken to it. They really love it. So, and, yeah, that helps me to keep — keep, uh, the arthritis symptoms at bay to a degree, but yeah, I hurt a lot and, um, I think I still have got some years of work I can — I can do. I think I — you know, I have energy. My mind is clear.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. In the risk of future violence section on page 16, the doctor is of the opinion that you represent a low risk for violence, and the doctor sums it up by saying that you have demonstrated a significant reduction in impulsivity and antisocial behavior as evidenced by a significant improvement in prison dis — in your prison disciplinary record. Um, the doctor states a continued risk for Mr. Beausoleil would be marijuana relapse, and he would benefit from continued focus on personalized treatment in this area, particularly in the domain of recognizing how illicit drug use may lead to other antisocial behavior, and we have had some discussion about some of that here today. Anything you want to add about your reflection on that particular area of marijuana re — relapse?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, frankly I don’t feel any inclination at all. Uh, it’s like I — when I quit smoking. I never looked back. I — you know, it has been about the same length of time. It has been 20 years. It is around me all the time. So outside of a prison setting, maybe that would be different, but I don’t think that, uh, I think that I have, you know, really strong, uh, sensibilities in regards to what is good for me and that isn’t. I don’t need it for my work. It doesn’t improve the quality of my work. The quality of my work is paramount. So if it is not going to improve that and it is maybe lessen my ability to produce by making me lazy, which is one of the things that marijuana does, then obviously I don’t need it and don’t want it. So, I will seek the support of a 12-step program and a sponsor so that I have that constant reinforcement of those principles that have sustained me this far.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. All right. So at this time, let’s turn to the attorneys for clarifying questions. We’ll start with you, Ms. Lebowitz.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you, Commissioner. I — I don’t have many questions, but could the Panel please ask the inmate what source — what was his source of income when he returned to Los Angeles from San Francisco?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Uh, you may answer.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I was doing studio work – –

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Studio work.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — as a musician. Yeah, I was a — and — and sometimes gigs. I would be brought in. I was, uh, a hired guitar player basically at that point. Um, which is how I met Manson as I had described to you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And so — so was it ki — was it income that you could sustain yourself on?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, it was income that I did sustain myself on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It wasn’t a lot. I never —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: It was your sole source of income at the time?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was making union scale, which is fairly good, but the work is sporadic. So, um, to the extent that there were people who liked my style of music and would bring me in on a session, then made some money doing that. I also just played impromptu gigs at coffee houses and, uh, bars, and, you know, any place — restaurants sometimes. Um, and, um, just as a — basically as a busker in a way and those types of gigs.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you. I don’t have any more questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, Ms. Lebowitz. All right. Mr., um, Campbell, any questions?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, yeah, I do have a few. I will try and just pick up somethings that were, um, touched on previously. Um, is, uh, something you have mentioned in terms of your spirituality is meditation. How long have you been practicing meditation?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, probably about 30 years.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And is that something that gives you, uh, strength in terms of resisting temptation for relapse and — and, uh, helps you with mindfulness?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yes, it helps me with mid — mindfulness, and in that respect it helps me with any sort of attraction to other substances, which, uh, is — it is incompatible. You can’t be high and meditate effectively. So, um — so meditation is — meditation, yoga practices are the foundation of my spiritual, uh, orientation and — and support, and it is also, uh, the foundation of my social, um, uh, support and —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: How — how did you discover — how did you discover that you can’t, uh, be high and meditate? Did you try it?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, I did, as a matter of fact. You know, in fact, that is how I learned that, um, that I wasn’t really as inspired as I thought I was when I smoked it. I thought I got ideas from it and so I tried it both ways and, uh — and — and after a couple of years of not smoking and seeing, comparing the amount of work that I had done and the quality of it with work that I had done when I was still occasionally smoke — and I never smoked heavily, but — in here, but just comparing the quality of the work, the fact — even though I wasn’t smoking it, that’s kind of the — the k — the seductiveness of substances, all of them, even when I was thinking that I needed it to be more inspired. So it held me back in that respect. So —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: — just being, having tried that and tried it with and without just like I — back to your question, try — trying to meditate and see what would happen, the mind is just too busy. The Buddhists call that monkey mind. You know, your mind is just jumping around and it — its — you can’t get that center-pointed focus that you need if you are actually meditating. So, I mean part of meditation is — is actually paying attention to how busy your mind is and just seeing that that is what is happening and then gradually you can start to calm that, um — and calm what they call the mind stream, calm the mind stream and, um, become more serene.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: And that’s one of the things I have to tell you about my 12-step program. The thing that sells me on the 12-step program even though I don’t feel like I have a super attraction to any sort of substance, is the, um, serenity prayer by, uh, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote that, uh, many years ago, and it can be applied in any spiritual tradition and any religion, um, and it — it really is kind of the foundation of my life.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Go ahead Mr. Campbell.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, so, Ms. Lebowitz just asked you about your income when you, uh, came to Los Angeles, uh, what — before you met Manson, what other bands were you working with or what were you doing before that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. I had a — for sev — for a couple of years, I had a band in, um, San Francisco called The Orchestra. It was an av — avant- garde band, uh, combining jazz musicians with classical musicians and rock musicians to develop a new kind of music. We became pretty well known in the San Francisco area. That is how I met the filmmaker, Kenneth Anger, uh, when he came to one of our concerts and, um, and then, uh, subsequently I formed a band specifically to, um, to help with the soundtrack for the first iteration of the Lucifer Rising project, um, called Magic Powerhouse, and, uh, we, um — that was the recording that was referenced.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Once you came to Los Angeles, what were you doing in terms of, uh — you said you were playing in bands and — and stuff at the time. What were you doing then?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, well I played in a — in a couple of small go nowhere bands, garage bands basically, but eventually I was brought into a band called, um, the Grassroots, which later became known as Love and well-known recording stars, and that was my springboard to other more professional, um — that was my first professional, um, I was 17.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That was a, um, a successful local band at the time?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, yeah, very successful yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And there were some questions asked about, uh — well regarding your musical association with Manson, there were other sort of high- profile musicians and people surrounding him at the time.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Mm-hmm.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So, it — and the, uh, well, you met Kenneth Anger before you met, uh, Charles Manson?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah, a — about a year earlier.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And the, uh — but the film that you did the soundtrack to, the Lucifer Rising that you did the soundtrack to wasn’t until what year?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, it — when it was resurrected in the 70s. In — in the mid-70s, um, I finished it in 1979.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And Kenneth Anger had no association with Manson, is that right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, he despised him.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And — and the film, Lucifer Rising, is a highly regarded art film?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And it had Marion Faithful in it? The well-known singer.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. It had Marion Faithful in it, uh, um, uh, a couple of other fa — fairly well- known actors. I actually replaced on the soundtrack — on the soundtrack I replaced Jimmy Page from Led Zeppelin. He had been originally — he was going to do the soundtrack and what he produced didn’t satisfy the, uh, filmmaker. So he turned to me and I told him I could — I thought that I could do it in prison.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So you did a soundtrack that Kenneth Anger preferred over the Led Zeppelin guitarist’s soundtrack, which was actually already recorded?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And Kenneth Anger also did films, uh, with Mick Jagger. Is that right?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So he — this — this isn’t just a — this is a very respected filmmaker, correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I would say so. Yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And there’s nothing —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: He — he is quirky. I mean it — you know, it is an art film, so it’s not — it is not like, um, a mainstream. It is not Disney, but, um, yeah, he — he is well known.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you were asked earlier about, uh, what drew you to the counterculture. I don’t know if you were specifically asked, but why is it that you feel that young Robert Beausoleil felt that magnetic pull toward this antiestablishment, uh, persona?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think I am hardly alone in the way that, um, people of my generation were feeling about the, uh — the culture earlier. The, you know, what we used to call the Ozzy and Harriet, uh, culture. Um, it just — it didn’t, um, it didn’t satisfy. It seemed to be superficial. I think we were maybe kind of ungrateful to our — our parents who had fought the Second World War to give us that kind of a lifestyle, but for some reason it just wasn’t satisfying, uh, to, um — it just, uh — it felt, um, suffocating in some ways. It felt suffocating and, you know, I have always been artistically inclined so, I just didn’t feel like I had any outlet for that kind of expression and I went looking for it — went searching.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And do you feel looking back now that — especially given what you have gone through that there was a certain, uh, danger associated with that degree of — of freedom that a lot of people, uh, sought to claim at the time?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, I do. Um, I think — I think it was important for the culture as a whole to have gone through that and all that questioning and, uh, the questioning of our involvement in, you know, the undeclared war in Vietnam, all of those things I think had to be, um, examined, and I think it is important that we — we took, um — we — we began looking at that and questioning and all of that. I think that was important to have gone through that phase, but it was also very dangerous. It was in fact, in my opinion, ungrateful to our parents who didn’t understand why we had gone down that road and — and rejected the kind of lifestyle that they wanted for us in search of this sort of free — free love and — and all of that. Try — trying to find out what was real. Uh —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Your initial involvement in all of this counterculture activity, the marijuana, the music, all that, did most of that begin when you first went to San Francisco when you were younger?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. It started when I was in Los Angeles. That is the first place I went.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: What year was that?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, ’64.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: In ’64. And — and then you moved to San Francisco you said.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah in 19 — late — late 1965. I had already done that stint with the Grassroots, and, um, broke in — into the professional music area.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, and — but — and you — that was all predated your, uh, meeting Manson and the people associated with him?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Right. I did — I didn’t meet Manson until ’68. I was ha — I was hanging out with — with Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys and, um, he was, you know, friends with Charlie and that had a lot to do with the — the fact that he liked his music too kind of reinforced the fact that — that I felt that his music had some value to it. Uh, you know, of course none of us were aware of the baggage that was — that he was bringing to it out of his, um, criminal background.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: You didn’t know about his criminal history?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Very little. I didn’t know that much about it. I knew that he had been in prison. Um, I think that that maybe added to some, you know, uh, fanciful, um, gravitas or whatever that he projected, but, uh, I didn’t know anything really about it.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: The music you have done since, uh, you have been in prison, uh, does anything else, any of the other music have references to Lucifer or any of that sort?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No, it was just that one project for that particular, uh, telling of that particular story.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: You didn’t create that title or —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: — or conceive of the film?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And the — you have done music — you said you did a meditation — music — meditation music? What is that called?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, Mantra, Soundscapes for Meditation. It is another album.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And I think you said at a previous hearing you did a — a piece of music that was for your wife’s, uh — your late wife’s dance troop?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah, the — my wife was a dancer. Um, she, um, she had a dance troop, and she asked me to compose some rhythm tracks for, uh, some beats, you know, some tribal beats to go with her for her dance troop and I did and then she died unexpectedly and, um, I used those, uh, recordings that I had made of percussion beats for the dance troop as the foundation for, uh, album that I recorded in her honor — for her. It was kind of a — I needed — I needed a catharsis and it provided that or helped to.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: What do you gain from teaching other, uh, inmates, uh, whether it is music or — or yoga or these other things? What — what sort of, uh, benefit do you personally feel like you get from working with these other inmates when you do these classes?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well seeing what’s — how they benefit. You know, what I find — what I have learned in my elder years, so to speak, uh, as I became more mature, what I have learned is that the less I make it about me, the more gratifying it is, um, to — to do work that is meaningful or offer input or instruction or something, uh, that is meaningful to other people. I — I have a — there is a guy that — that, uh, comes down to the gym once a week and, uh, he is blind. He is totally blind. Uh, he is 82 years old. When I first met him, he came down, he was hunched over, two canes walking with the help of an ADA worker, to, uh, to get to the gym and the coach asked me —- would you help this guy out? And so, uh, I started working with him, and he is 82 years old. He is totally blind and over a period of about two months, he was — he got into it. I — I have to say he did the work, I didn’t do the work for him, but I just gave him encouragement and gave him some instruction. Couldn’t really show him how to do yoga necessarily because he can’t see, but he, uh, within two months he was on one cane. He was, uh, walking on his own. He wouldn’t let the ADA worker take him back to his unit, you know, he was walking a whole lot straighter. So that — that is, uh, just seeing that is a reward. That is a tremendous reward.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, you were asked about I guess some of the — the tattoos you have. When did you say the last tattoo you got was?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I don’t know, late 70s I think, the early 80s.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: When you first came to prison, did — were you —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I got — actually the last one I got was that Bar — Barbarian and I did that for Barbara because that is what her name comes from. It is a root, uh, of her name. I didn’t want to — the say it is bad luck to put a woman’s name on your — they say you lose the ones that you put their name on — in a tattoo. So I — I did the next best thing and put that on — on there for her and that was the last tattoo I got.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And — and the tattoos you got when you were younger, uh, were you — was there a certain degree of posturing you had — you felt like you had to do when you came into the prison system to avoid being a target of — of violence?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah, I, uh, did start tattooing, getting tattoos and tattooing myself when I was in San Quentin and part of that was to put on that – – that tough guy persona because I was of course young and too pretty for my own good, uh, and, uh, scared, really scared so — and that is what young guys do. I see it all the time. You know, I have over and over and over again, uh, guys coming in and thinking they have to prove themselves and stabbing somebody because jus they want — to want to be a part of something and come into a — have the protection of a gang, you know, and then they waste their lives as a result. So I have seen that over and over, but — and I was subject to that when I came in. When I first came in.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And I think in your prior hearings, you have said that you were a victim of sexual abuse at one point before you entered the prison system?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I was — yeah at 14. At 14, I had a —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: That was something you also might have feared when you entered the prison system.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well that was certainly part of it. You know, I — well, I just made up my mind. I was — I was never gonna let that ever happen again and — even if it killed me. So, um, uh, I was filling myself up full of bravado to try to protect myself and, um —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Another thing that, uh, was discussed earlier is, uh, people — I guess fans of your music being drawn to you, uh, as a result of your association with this — this, uh, horrible crime. Um, do you, um — that — that is not something that you want, is that correct?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. Not at all.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And there — is there — there is no way that you can ensure that that doesn’t happen?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: No. I — and — no, there isn’t and, um, my experience is that it rarely does, but there have been a few people who initially were interested in me because they, uh, knew of that association, but then all of that — they were able to see beyond that once they kind of get a sense of who I actually am. I mean I just don’t feed that. I will not feed that — that, um, mythical persona of Charlie Manson and all of that. It is just, um — it has been a stone around my neck all these years. I have had to deal with it, um, but I don’t have to be it. I don’t have to be it and I do everything, um, that I can to be a person of personal integrity. I was able to restore myself to integrity, um, and I didn’t have to rely on anything related to him to do it.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Do you think — so, some people (inaudible) just discussed who come to you because maybe they are interested in the Manson mythology and then become interested in you for who you are, there’s — do you think that there is still the — there is room for people to be interested in that fact that you had created this music, this art, these things that are important to people, while incarcerated. Is that — is that where you think that a lot of the admiration you received comes from? Is people responding to the fact that you have created beautiful art while incarcerated?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I think that is — I think that is part of it and I will say just, you know, to the part that was leading up to that, um, it — it is very rarely that anyone that is interested in the Manson story finds any interest at all in what I am doing because I don’t — they don’t get any satisfaction from that. There is nothing that I am doing that is satisfying that desire to know more about this, um, you know, this true crime thing that people are into or whatever that is. I just not — I am not into that. I don’t promote that. I don’t — I am not doing anything that is, um, uh, you know, that supports that, but there are people — rarely, you know, does someone come at me from that direction, um, and then they are able to migrate away from that — that part of it and realize I am not anything like that and — and appreciate me for myself. So, people do appreciate me for work that I have done on the basis of the music itself. They like the music. You know, they, um — it is not the story that goes with it so much, they like the music itself and the art itself. Then — then maybe some people will say, wow I love that — I love your music, uh, it is amazing that you were able to do that while you were in prison. So, yeah, there — some of that comes along with that, but I don’t think anybody is coming at it from a standpoint of wow look what he did in prison, oh, and by the way the music is good. No, that’s not — it is the other way around.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, this — this book, this Love Live Forgive, which the Commissioners can review if they like. Can you tell me — you contributed to this?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. There is an article by me in that.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And there is other — what — what is the nature of this book?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: There was the — the author, Justin St. Vincent, is, uh, he had this interest in, uh, understanding the potential nexus between creative work of art and music and forgiveness. So I wrote an essay based on his interest in that area.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Without going through it, what is kind of the substance of your essay? Just generally, a short answer.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Um, well I — I did kind of say that forgiveness doesn’t come from a piece of music, but — but to the extent that music, which is introspective by nature, can lead one to, uh, a state of forgiveness, uh, indirectly by — by leading one on an inward path. Um, it does support, uh, love and forgiveness and understanding in that — in that regard.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, you were asked a few moments ago about the stressors that you might encounter if you were paroled. Um, in recent years, the — the loss of your — your wife and then the move to California away from all of your — your family members, um, how have you adapted to all of those enormous changes after — after so long of being with your wife and being in Oregon? How have you adapted since then?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: By reinforcing and maintaining the relationships that, uh, I had before her death. Many of the friends that we — that I have now and relationships that I have now, were relationships that my wife had in common with me. You know we were married for 31 years and, uh, her kids were young when they came into my life and, uh, so nurturing those kind of relationships has been, uh, where my healing has come from in regards to that loss. Um, you know, it’s — part of it is just — she was a — she was tough. She was a strong woman and, um, I draw inspiration from her for finding that strength within myself to carry on and to — to keep finding ways to — and new ways to make my work of value to — and benefit to people in general.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So if you’re ever released, do you — are those the same sort of — your support network, your — your internal, uh, fortitude, are those the same sorts of, uh, things that you will draw upon to — to ensure your success —

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: — in the word outside?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Well, uh, I am certainly not going to be involving myself with anybody that is a criminal, uh, a dr — drug addict. I won’t do that in here. Anybody that is using drugs in here, I will not associate with them. Um, and the same is going to happen out there. I will have a Sangha. I will make myself part of a Sangha, an ashram, uh, for spiritual support. I will continue in 12 step and I will continue to nurture the relationships that have strengthened and given me a solid foundation, um, social foundation in this life now.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. I don’t have any further questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. All right. Closing please, Ms. Lebowitz.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office is opposed to a finding of parole suitability at this time. There are several issues that I would like to address in my closing statements, but one that was not entirely explored in this hearing. While the Panel did explore the issue about the inmate’s, uh, 115s, uh, in publishing his music and art on the website and running a business, what wasn’t really explored here today was the first level appeal, second level appeal and third level appeal of his request to publish is coffee table book, and I think that is important to this issue and this hearing because the inmate shows within this issue that he is still unable to follow the rules. Now, in the inmate’s appeal, he talks about several statutes that appear in the California Code of Regulations. Superficially section 3024, 3100, 3104, 2600 and 2601, but in citing these statutes in order to justify his publication of this coffee table book, he omits part of the rules and he omits the caveats that are applicable to him in these rules, and as a result, it is our position that he is violating these rules because he feels that he is exempt. Now, the — the second level appeal and the third level ap — appeal clearly state that publication of the types of things that the inmate publishes on the internet are in fact running a business, and in the third level appeal specifically, the author, who is J. Dominguez, with a z, specifically states the appellant, and this is on page one. The third level review — the third level review’s review of PC 2600 and 2601 confirmed that the appellant does not have the right to sell his property as he claims. Now, the inmate — and while the — the appeal was specifically to the coffee table book, in the second level appeals, uh, authored by, um, Robert W. Fox, who is the warden, it says that there is a penological interest in forbidding the inmate from publishing these works and to allow the appellant to profit from his creative works that were completed during the period of — of incarceration is counterproductive to the punitive purposes of incarceration. This appeal said that the inmate is not permitted to publish his works. The first level appeal response was authored in March of 2018 denying the inmate authorization to publish his works. The second level appeal was offered in May of 2018 and the third level appeal was authored on September 10. Again, while the appeal was specifically targeted towards his new coffee table book, in the explanation of what the new coffee book — table book contains is all of the complications that he has made while he has been in prison, and he also states on one of his websites that everything he has — all of the artwork that he has produced in prison, and I’ll quote it, uh, the materials used in creating these paintings is limited to those available for purchase at the prison commissary, primarily paper and colored pencils and occasionally some pastel crayons. So he is using state resources to make a profit for himself on these websites. The reviewers clearly state that the sale of these — of anything, not just the coffee table book, but anything that he has composed in prison, is beyond the rules, but the inmate has failed to take down any of his websites, the Ajna Offensive, Bobbybeausoleil.com, his Facebook where he sells all of these arts and music pieces. Now he just told the Panel that he closely monitors all of these websites, that he approves everything that goes on, but he is not quote, running a business, but yet he is providing the material for which to sell and one can’t have a business unless you have material to sell. So, it seems that the inmate is really splitting hairs about this, and he is still by not taking down any of these websites and by still using his product on these websites, he is violating the terms from the third level appeal. Now, I looked online and it looks like on BobbyBeausoleil.com, now he said this was his website, his only website, there is, uh, an artwork called an Enlightened One and it is described as a mixed media piece by Bobby Beausoleil. That was uploaded as per the website on May 22, 2018 after the decision from the second level reviewer. He told the panel last year that everything that is on the website is for free. You can download it, you can look at it, but this piece of artwork for a framed print comes at the low, low price of $102. He has on his website, uh — uh, a piece of art uploaded on May 11, 2018, also after the second level appeals decision called Turbulent Fog of Profane History. He also has a painting or a piece of art on the website uploaded May 4th after the second level appeal, The Ride Out of Bardo, and The Ride Out of Bardo is a biker skeleton on a motorcycle, and this is also an acrylic print, which one can purpose for $88 or you can purpose the 3 x 5 card for $4.95. Now the images on the — on these websites of his artwork are also really disturbing because they all have — not all, but a lot of them have a theme of death, skulls, and skeletons, and, uh, there is on piece called The Vampira where she’s seated and there are two skulls on the — on the sofa salon above her shoulders. All of these images are indicative of a fascination with death, which is troublesome here. Now, the inmate also told the panel in 2016 that he says — that he said, I have not had any money coming from businesses going to my books. This was on page 144. He said the money that’s coming into his books comes from patrons who are people who just want to help because they believe in what I am doing and not just because someone is buying. He said the money pays his overhead and the only windfall is when someone tries to license his music to us in — in a movie. Now, in the 2015 investigation that Commissioner — that Deputy Commissioner Anders — Anders, uh, pointed out, there is — there are two or three attachments, and they are attachments of information from the inmate’s books that he received money from a person named Beth Hall who is one of his managers and runs one of these sites for – – specifically for the purchase of this artwork. So he is profiting not only on this artwork that was produced in prison that he was told not to — to have, that used state materials in order make his profit and — and that is just wrong. I don’t care whether or not the 115 was — was dismissed. He has been given information from the warden that this is not permissible activity and he has failed to take down any of these profit-making activities from his website. He has http://www.theanjaoffensive.com, bobbybeausoleil.com, he has a Facebook page. He has a YouTube channel. He can — anyone can buy his music on amazon.com or CDbaby. There is another place where one can buy his music called rumblefish.com. There is also another, uh, avenue to buy them called bobbybeausoleil.pixels.com where one can buy art. Now, if the inmate is unable or unwilling to follow the rules in prison, then there is a nexus to current dangerousness that he is unable to follow the rules or accept the rules when he is living in the free community. The second issue that I would like to discuss is his parole plans. Now, some of these parole plans appear wholly inappropriate for an inmate convicted of murder, especially being affiliated with the Manson family. The inmate calls some of these people his friends, but his friends, specifically the lady that owns the house in Santa Monica, Ms. Carr — Emily Carr, she is offering the inmate a house for free, but if you read her letter, really carefully, it says during the course of this year I have developed a close working relationship with Mr. Beausoleil in connection with a television project yet to air about the events surrounding his crime and incarceration. So the inmate’s plan here is to get free housing to capitalize on the crime that he committed. In addition, the house is in Santa Monica, which in LA traffic it will take a long time, but it is very close to Topanga Canyon, literally just down the street. He also plans to work on a project with Cayman Grant. Cayman Grant is the person who is, uh, the person affiliated with Steel Titan Productions and what are the parole plans for Steel Titan Productions? Well, one of them is a story about how the Nazi’s landed, which is also a terrorist organization who killed as a result of an idea — an ideology, and another one is about, uh, um, a robbery heist by a big crime family. The judgement in — in thinking that these are appropriate projects for an inmate like Mr. Beausoleil to participate in, completely shows a lack of insight into the crime, the consequences of what he is about to do and his parole plans. Another project which he wants to work on, Mayans MC, which is a seq — pretty much a sequel to the Sons of Anarchy, and this one is about — it takes four years after the Sons of Anarchy and it — and it is about a — the struggles of somebody called Ezekiel EZ Reyes (phonetic) and he talks about the need for vengeance to drive him toward a life he never intended and never could escape. These are not projects that are appropriate for somebody like Mr. Beausoleil. Gillian McCain, another person who wrote a par — a — a letter in support of parole. She also wants to capitalize on inmate’s association with Manson because she also is currently working on a book about the LA counterculture in the 60s, but further on in the letter, she describes that the inmate is the main thread of his — of her book and it is about the life trajectory of Mr. Beausoleil and then it goes on to state her view about how unfair Mr. Beausoleil’s sentence is because of what he did which is the version that he tells the Panel today and not the version that was testified in court so that she is also apparently or it appears that based upon this letter will be also focusing and highlighting this crime. So these parole plans really are — really have a lack of insight, they capitalize on the crime. Uh, Mr. Beausoleil talks about the fact that he has chosen different friends, but it seems to me that he doesn’t still have a good filter when it comes to who his friends are. He calls these people his friends, but they — they — they’re profiting off of him. That’s — that is not a friend. That’s somebody who wants to profit off of this inmate’s situation. Now I know the inmate didn’t go into the — the facts of the crime, but I just want to touch a little bit about the inmate’s credibility in the statement that he presents to the Panel through the written, uh, presentation of Mr. Campbell, and that is – – and the appellate, uh, decision was not read into the record this time, but it is still part of the record and it is what the Panel relies upon, but the inmate claims that he was never part of the family, that he was never part of the commune, but the evidence shows that even if he didn’t actually live at Spawn Ranch, the actions show that he supported Charles Manson’s ideology. One of the things that he did was he brought vehicles up to the compound in Death Valley from Los Angeles where the family went to escape so that they could find this hole in the desert and by bringing these dune bug — I’m sorry I don’t know if it was dune buggies or trucks, but they were vehicles and they were used to aid the family, but by doing that even if he didn’t live in the compound, even if he didn’t consider himself part of the family, he was furthering Charles Manson’s goals and so deny, uh — to — to use semantics to say that he really wasn’t involved with Charles Manson in the way that one thinks he might be, is completely disingenuous. The symbolism at Gary Hinman’s house that he drew, the Black Panther pawprint, and the words political pigs were all messages that supported the idea of Manson’s revolution and the blacks rising up. The family used the same symbolism drawn in the victim’s blood in the other crime scene homes. This was the message of the revolution. As Commissioner Dobbs pointed out, the inmate told the police that he got the stolen car from a black man and another more attempt to frame African Americans. He also fathered to children from two separate family women, Katie Lutzinger and Sandra Good, in addition to the other children that he has discussed here. His girlfriend that he talks about that he traveled with prior to, uh, coming to Los Angeles was Leslie Van Houten, another integral member of the family. As the Panel discussed, he didn’t want his own appeals attorney, he wanted to use those that the family used, and if he was not part of the family, then as Deputy Commissioner Andres discussed, then why do you need to associate with that team? And I just to discuss just briefly about one other issue about his credibility and — and again he didn’t discuss the facts of the crime, but the documentation submitted by Mr. Campbell on his behalf said that he went to the crime scene because he was trying to get money from Mr. Hinman for this bad drug deal. Now, he has stated in the past, especially in the 2016 hearing, at page 55 and 58, he said he didn’t think of Gary Hinman as a drug dealer, and he didn’t believe that he really sold bunk, that he only sold a little bit of marijuana and hippy tr – type drugs here and there to make ends meet, just what he talked about here today. So, now, why would this inmate go to a man to get a thousand dollars or it has also been, um, stated that it was $12,000 worth of drugs from a man who wasn’t a drug dealer, who didn’t have large quantity of drugs. I analogize it. Deputy Commissioner Andres had a good analogy about arriving late. I analogize it to the fact that why would you go to a ma and pa store to buy a case of toilet paper? You’d go to Sam’s Club. Gary Hinman was not Sam’s Club. So why would you go there? He said that the Straight Satan’s were having, uh, a ten-year anniversary party and that he was going to get a thousand dollars’ worth of drugs then is almost about six thousand dollars’ worth of drugs. That’s a lot — today. That is a lot of drugs for someone who is not a drug dealer, and in addition Gary’s Buddhist’s beliefs were inconsistent with him being a cheater — a cheater of another human being and people who are believers in Buddhist don’t get involved with radicles and especially radicles like the Black Panthers. The last thing that bears upon the inmate’s credibility about this whole drug deal story is that the inmate after the crime didn’t drive over to the — to the Straight Satan’s and give them the VW Bus that he stole, apparently he was supposed to get back their money because Mr. Hinman allegedly sold them bunk and that the whole goal was to get back the money and make everything right, but he didn’t drive over there and give them the bus, he didn’t drive over there and give them the money, he didn’t drive over there and give them the two pink slips that Mr. Hinman signed off, he drove around in the bus for a couple days before he fled to Northern, California, and if it was really on behalf of the Straight Satan’s, why didn’t he go directly to the Straight Satan’s. You can’t look at this case in a vacuum. There are too many other codefendants. There are too many transcripts and there are too much history to just look at this vacuum. There were other people charged in this case, other appellate transcripts and the whole makes up the story. The inmate told us today how devastated he was after he killed Gary Hinman, but as Deputy Commissioner Andres read the sentencing transcript, the inmate had no remorse and he told the judge he had no remorse and he admitted here today that that is what he told the judge. So when he tells us here today that he was devastated after the murder, it is disingenuous. The causative factors of the crime then remain relevant today and they still exist today. The inmate told you that he wanted to impress the Straight Satan’s. He wanted to impress these older men and he wanted to be accepted. Now, what is this need for his publications on the website, on writing an autobiography, on doing media interviews in prison? Now, I haven’t looked at the — at the visiting records of many inmates, but my belief is that there is not a long line of people lined up to interview a regular musician in prison to make movies and a story about him and that the hook for this inmate is his association with Manson, and he refuses to recognize that. Now, he still has this need for acceptance. In prison starting from 1971 all the way through this year, he has had people interview him, German magazine Bunte, B-U-N-T-E, and I am going to butcher the — the language and I apologize, Illustrierte, I-L-L-U-S-T-R-I-E-R-T-E, in July of 1971, German magazine, worldwide. Life magazine, July 1971, Bagby, Freelance Photographer, August 1971. Auto — he sent an autobiography for publication in 1972 to New and You Triumph Publications and this was the same publisher that he was receiving obscene material from in prison that was rejected by the wardens. The autobiography was called Burning is the End, Dispatch from the Pit of Death in Trilogy. I looked for it to find a copy of it, I — I can’t find a copy of it now, but again his need for acceptance, writing an autobiography three years after these crimes. TV or film production by Alan Lansberg Productions, interview with Esquire magazine, December 1976, the Modesto Bee 1979, and on and on and on through up — uh, through — uh, in 2017, English filmmaker, Nicola J. Black, 2017, Gillian McCain from New York City, 2017 the Russian publicist who also wrote a letter in support of parole. Now this Gillian McCain also wrote a letter in support. Oh I already have spoken about her. I did discuss her letter. In any event, it — it is still — it continues this need for acceptance. This need for adoration. If he didn’t need to feel accepted and adored and seek what I would call fame, why doesn’t he publish these things on the internet anonymously? Why doesn’t he do his art anonymously? On the website it says not only are these pieces but they are signed both on the front and the back. The inmate talked about not wanting to be associated with Manson’s name and by the way he — he continually called it the Manson thing. This was a huge societal, cultural, historical sequence of events that caused several deaths and for the inmate to call it the Manson thing, is completely disrespectful and also shows lack of insight into what Charles Manson really effectuated within our society. Now he says, I don’t want to be associated with the Manson name, but on his bio on his Facebook page, which again he says he monitors and approves everything, quote, during the commission of an absurdly misconceived drugs, spelled incorrectly, transaction, things went terribly wrong and Beausoleil killed a man. He was arrested soon after, tried in a Los Angeles County court room, convicted of one count of murder in the first degree and sent to San Quentin’s death row. Two years later in 1972, his sentence was commuted to life with the possibility of parole after seven years, and this is the important sentence. Ever since, his former association with the notoriously famous, Charles Manson, has dogged his heels like a starving, wounded hyena and consequently he remains in prison more than 36 years later. Now, if he really didn’t want to be associated with Charles Manson, why didn’t he just say, I killed a guy during a robbery? Why must Charles Manson’s man always be associated with him and his artwork? In the Clair-Obscur Gallery fiasco from 2005 where pornographic art was displayed with his name, there was a letter submitted to the Board by Nico, N-I-C-O, Bruinsma, B-R-U-I-N-S-M-A, the owner of the Clair-Obscur Gallery and there was apparently a mix up about his bio, so Ms. Bruisma says I will also enclose a copy of the artist’s bio that was approved by Mr. Beausoleil. Well, in three places — I’ll just read the sentences. It is a long bio. Uh, a couple of months later, he was called upon to play a supporting guitar — strike that. A couple of months later, he was called upon to play supporting guitar for singer/songwriter Charles Manson. Reference number one. Reference number two, he began to associate with a more outlaw — with more outlaw motorcycle clubs who he romanticized and others like Manson who lived in the outskirts of what was considered normal acc — acceptable society. Reference number three, and the it is the same dogged by the heels comment that he makes on his Facebook page. So for somebody who really doesn’t want his art and music associated with Charles Manson, he sure doesn’t do a very good job of preventing that. Another issue is that the inmate shows a lack of remorse. He is profiting from his businesses using the name of Charles Manson. Now, he told the Panel today that he was in the process of getting a foundation for this Metta, um, organization for the hospice care, and while that is very admirable, he didn’t do this 49 years ago, he didn’t do it 30 years ago. He only did it because the last panel told him what are you doing that is honoring the name of Gary Hinman, and it is still not done. The way that he could honestly and — and truly honor the name of Gary Hinman, he could donate to a music school. He could donate to UCLA where Mr. Hinman taught. He could donate to a school where — in the town where Mr. Hinman grew up, but all of his alleged remorse and amends is to profit him, the inmate. I think that based upon all of these issues that I have spoken about, all of those issues provide a nexus to current dangerousness and when there is a nexus to current dangerousness in addition to the — to the vicious and heinous nature of the crime that all of those issues and all of those factors show that the inmate is unsuitable for parole at this time. The People would request a denial. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, Ms. Lebowitz. Mr. Campbell?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yes. Thank you Commissioner. Um, I think the People’s statements just now just demonstrate how far they need to stretch in order to character Mr. Beausoleil as being currently dangerous. Um, there is a wealth of information to the contrary including psych — psychological evaluations dating back, uh, decades, uh, numerous, uh, relationships he has developed and nurtured with people who maintain a very positive and prosocial, uh, environment surrounding him both inside and outside of the prison. Um, the — Ms. Lebowitz began by discussing the appeal that Mr. Beausoleil followed through with regarding his request to publish a book of his artwork. First of all, he has every right to do that appeal. There is — he should not be penalized for appealing a decision that he doesn’t agree with that quite frankly I don’t agree with. I think what the real problematic feature of this is that Mr. Beausoleil was brought back from Oregon, a place where he had relatives, and he had, uh, the freedom to do a considerable amount of rehabilitative work through is work — he was brought back on the basis that — the — the false claim that he was violating that same rule, that he was publishing work without permission. As it turns out, he did have permission and had the CDCR reached out to Mr. Beausoleil or myself, uh, I was already representing at the time, we could have proven that before he was brought back to California. Now that he is back, he is being penalized for doing something that should be lauded as a feature of his rehabilitation. Uh, I — I understand the — the Panel’s concern and the People’s concern and everyone’s concern that there may be people that gravitate to Mr. Beausoleil for his notorious past. That is true and there is no way — there is no way to deny that that is a possibility. There is no way to parse out exactly who is looking at his — his art and his music for that reason as opposed to his intended reason, but time and again Mr. Beausoleil has sought to distance himself and — and the — the — the pr — Ms. Lebowitz has read some statements, a bio from I believe she said 2005 that mentions Manson in a cursory manner as some proof of his ongoing effort to try and, uh — to try and latch on to those people out in the world who want to obsess over the — the Manson phenomenon and I mean the — the internet is full of people who have gone down rabbit holes and are complete obsessed with this — this crime and I quite honestly, I think there is a very real chance that had — had Mr. Beausoleil — had this crime not been associated with Manson, he may have already received parole because all of the — all of the objective indicators of his current dangerousness demonstrate that he is not dangerous in the slightest and he has numerous people including Mr. Geer, the — the, uh — that the Deputy Commissioner reviewed some of his letters. Mr. Geer knew him intimately in prison as — as, you know, his underlying in the prison system and it evolved into a friendship. It is very, you know, uh that — that is a statement about Mr. Beausoleil’s character that he has that impact on people and I have tried to convey that at the last hearing and this — this time. It — it — it has nothing to do with his — his former association with Manson and the crime, you know, Mr. Geer I think is* — he is also an important example because his father was murdered. So he is also, uh — uh, victim, by definition we use, you know, in terms of a crime victim. He is a victim of murder who understands that a person who has committed that most heinous of transgressions can rehabilitate himself and can transition to be back in the world with other people and actually bring something positive to the world and I — I’m very concerned about the — the People’s, uh, focus on his — his continued publication of art and music, which was done in Oregon as being an indicator of his — of his current dangerousness. If anything, that is what has made him the, uh — the — the — the sort of person who can interact with other people in a positive, prosocial way. He’s — he does it — and — and it is not simply just the art that he presents to the public, he does it here in the prison system. He works with people teaching them music, teaching them yoga, teaching them Tai-Chi. He works in the hospice, uh, care facility. This are — are, you know, it — it – it is part of the embodiment of who he is. He was a musician and an artist before he met Charles Manson and he has been a musician and an artist since then. It — it is absolutely improper to take that — that condition, the thing that defines him, the thing he has def — uh, used to define himself through his entire life and try and use that against him as something that, uh, is indicative of dangerousness because if anything, that is what has kept him stable and that is what has enabled him to — to, um, to persist, uh, through the prison system, and I think that — that’s ch — you know, Mr. Geer’s letters really, um, speak to that. Um, so I think that the position advocated by the People is overlooking the rehabilitative nature and it is true. In fact, one of the statements that Ms. Lebowitz read says that the publishing, uh, publishing this work would be inconsistent with the — the punitive nature of imprisonment is absolutely consistent with the rehabilitative nature of — of imprisonment and this is the — the — that’s one of the facets of imprisonment that we are supposed to be consider is the fact that in order for him to rehabilitate himself, he has to be able to carry out the activities that foster those sorts of positive relationships with the world and not only that, but if he is going to be released, he is going to have to be able to — to, uh, to use his music and his other talents in order to survive, and so it would be like telling someone, you know, you can’t practice carpentry while you are in prison, but we are going to tell you to go out and be a carpenter when you leave. You know that doesn’t — it — it is incongruous with a — a re – realistic effort to give him the tools that he needs to go out into the world if — if the time comes, and I — believe that time actually should have come long ago before I was even involved in this case. Um, I would also point out that this — the previous panel went in some depth, uh, discussing the — the issue of that — that 115 that was pending at the time for the business practices and ultimately, the — the panel’s decision disavowed any reliance on that issue and the — the 115 was eventually, uh — was eventually, um, dismissed. So, you know, I think that this — that this — this focus on it by, uh, Ms. Lebowitz is misleading and — and really just misses the point of the rehabilitative purpose of his art. Likewise her — her focus on their being skulls or — or anything, uh, you know, most of the art tun — most of the art is quite cartoonish actually when you look at it. Um, there — there is certainly nothing that is — that is, um, indicative of a — of any sort of — of violent tendencies and, you know, this has been something — you know, Mr. Beausoleil, as — as the Commissioners noted in his psychological evaluations, has been designated as being a very, very low, uh, likelihood of committing any violent act. He has — in his record before and after prison, one violent act. Granted it is the worst violent act a person can commit, but it is one violent act in his life, and now at 71 years old — 71 years old, Mr. Beausoleil’s proclivity for violence is — is nil. He is not a violent person. He is a gentle person that is, uh — uh, that — that all these letters show is actually a positive role model in people’s lives including, uh, his — his — his stepchildren and step- grandchildren who after his — his wife passed away and, you know, his — he and his wife never lived together because he has been in prison, that — the fact that those relationships persist after her death is, I think, very telling of — of who Mr. Beausoleil is. That’s — these — these are people who still look to him and they — they, you know, you have their contact information. You — you know if you wanted to contact them you could, you know, these are positive people who — who have, uh, gainful employment, are very well respected in their communities. These aren’t degenerates who are out in the streets who think that — that — who are like oh this is cool, my stepfather is a — is a convicted murder. These are normal, well-adjusted members of society who look to Mr. Beausoleil for guidance because he has insight into the human condition that is valuable, uh, that — that many people have drawn from. Um, I think it — it is, uh — it is shocking to me that the people are going to take issue with, uh, Mr. Beausoleil’s, uh, parole plans. I think they are well – – well-conceived and — and certainly these are the sorts of — of employment opportunities that, um — that are rarely encountered, I would assume, um, and — and even if the P — if the Board decided that they didn’t want him working on a TV show or anything like that, he has the oppor — or — or if he doesn’t — if they don’t want him to move to — to Santa Monica, his brother has offered to let him move to Oregon, it is a pretty remote area in Oregon, where he can work on his excavation business. So that shouldn’t be an issue. He has — he has covered all of his bases in terms of what sorts of post-release options he has. There’s — he can — he can get into a halfway house in any city that this — this Board would want him to — to go to. He is more than willing to do that. Obviously, if he has — I mean who wouldn’t want — I would like to live in Santa Monica rent free. I mean that’s, you know – that is pretty much anyone’s first choice, but he is well aware as he said during the hearing, if this — if this Board wants him to go to — to Francisco Homes, uh, Sister Theresa Groth has been very, uh, um, welcoming to him. I have spoken to her many times. She is, um, more than happy to — to help facilitate his reentry into society. Um, he is well aware — in fact, uh, I have, um a — an email that Ms. Carr sent me, um, indicating where the nearest, uh, AA or NA, uh, meetings are, um, near the Santa Monica residence so he will be — you know, if — if that is where he ended up, he would, you know, be looking for those meetings and looking for those resources to, um, to support him during the transition and I think it is important and what I was trying to get at with the questions that I asked him, I mean this is man who in the last five years has been uprooted from his family, and — and — and, uh, saw his wife pass away and then was uprooted from his family and I — I have made no, uh — I have not minced my words that I think it was a grave injustice that he was brought here under the pretenses that he was, um, because one — one of the statements was oh his — his wife has passed away so he has no family there. In fact, he did ha — his — his — his stepdaughter lived there and was a regular visitor, um, you know, he doesn’t have any family where he is at right now. So, um, it — it has actually been a — it’s been a tremendous setback to his rehabilitative path and yet he has persisted and still is finding new ways to — to, uh, support that rehabilitation and, you know, the — the — Ms. Lebowitz takes issue with the fact that he has only recently begun to, um — he has been recently trying to — to this donation plan with the Metta Institute. Um, yes, it was in response to the panel’s suggestion, isn’t that what we want? Don’t we want our — our — our inmates to hear the words that you provide and take steps to try an enact those — those, uh, those, um, uh, suggestions and the — the last Panel was very clear, there is no obligation to do that. That is not something he has to do. It is something that — that demonstrates his willingness to try and repair some of the damage that he — he created 50 years ago, which he can never repair, and you know, the — the victims are here. He can never repair that damage and everyone is aware of that, but the — the system that we have is supposed to say if you are not currently dangerous, we think you should be given another chance. The matrix, uh, I think what, it was 17 years, according to the matrix, uh, the — the base term. Um, you know, 15 years, uh, he — he has far exceeded that obviously, 50 years, you know, I — I like to say that my mother — I’m 41, my mother was only 11 years old at the time that Mr. Beausoleil went into custody. So, I mean this is generations he spent in — in custody and if he were still dangerous, by all means, he should still be in custody. There is — you know, if someone is still currently dangerous, they should not be released because that is the way the law is written, but I think the evidence that we have presented today, the, um, the — the — particularly the psychological evaluations and the many prosocial, uh, relationships he has, all those support a finding that he is not currently dangerous. Um, there — there really should be no, uh, um, no issues with respect to his — his — his release plans because I think they are more than adequate. They are very, uh, highly thought out and — and reasoned and I think it is also worth mentioning that some of these job — I mentioned earlier that Steve Foldvari used to offer a, um — a job opportunity. Steve Foldvari worked for Sony and Mr. Beausoleil while he was in custody was doing some electronic programming for Sony, uh, for Sony devices at the time, um, all on – – you know, with the permission of the, uh — of the Oregon prison system, but he can no longer offer a position because he has changed jobs, and yet Mr. Beausoleil has found new opportunities. I mean that — that shows how — how robust his — his quest and his search is to try and — to try and bridge this gap between his life in prison and ultimately one day, um, hopefully being able to — to step outside prison and — and — and give some of what he has created out to the world, um, you know, in — in a more, uh, direct way. Um, I would — I, you know, and — you know, uh there hasn’t been a lot of discussion about the youth offender, uh, elderly, uh, inmate considerations. Obviously, you know, the Panel is well aware of their importance, but I do think that his — that Mr. Beausoleil’s status in both of those categories is very significant. All of the — all of the elements that he, uh — all of the factors that Mr. Beausoleil discusses when he mentions wanting to appeal to — to these older men, wanting to demonstrate his masculinity. All these things are part and parcel with, uh, a young man who is floundering and looking for, uh — for acceptance in a group and it was — unfortunately in the 60s, it was very a common thing because, uh, you know, a lot of people, you know, were rejecting the structure of society at large and looking for some sort of alternative structure to belong to and unfortunately, uh, the — the one that, uh, Mr. Beausoleil fell into, um, was — was one that’s, uh, was devastating on, uh, a number of levels for many people. And, uh, but I do think that the — that those considerations, um, the — the — the youthful offender considerations and there has been a recent case, uh, In re Palmer, P-A-L-M-E-R, at 27 Cal. App. 5th 120, um, really goes into the deference that, uh, should be given to those considerations. Um, uh, just a brief quote. Um, at a y youthful offender hearing, however, the Board is statutorily required to give great weight to the specified factors that favor finding suitability on parole. Not only does this requirement impose a constraint upon the Board’s discretion, it requires some revision of the Board’s approach to the suitability determination because some of the reg — some of the regulatory factors generally used by the Board as tending to show unsuitability for release are discordant with the thesis of the youthful offender statute, which means that some of the — the — the — like something like impulsivity which is a — a — a factor that, um, that has been cited for Mr. Beausoleil, it is a hallmark of youth and the caselaw, you know, supports that. That is a hallmark, so looking at — we see that impulsivity was driving the commitment offense and then if you look at the — the, um — the psych evaluation by Mr. — uh, Dr. Levin, it — he goes through a — a long analysis of how Mr. Beausoleil’s impulsivity has declined dramatically through the years and so again that — you know, giving the — the — the great weight that we are supposed to give to those — to these, uh, youthful offender factors would undercut a finding of — of his impulsivity as being a — a, um, factor supportive of, uh, um, indicative of current dangerousness. Um, likewise, his — the elderly, uh — you know, every — every year we come back here, uh, Mr. Beausoleil is a bit older. Uh, he said he has arthritis. He’s, you know, I mean he is 71 years old. His physical ability to be dangerous or threatening to other people is waning, uh, you know, ob — we’re not — he’s not crippled or — or incapable of — of, uh, doing physical activities, but it is a consideration that this — that this Panel should, um — should, uh, focus on. Not only that, but just the general maturity that happens over the course of 71 years. Mr. Beausoleil just quite simply isn’t the same person he was 50 years ago. No one is. No one can — or few people are anyway especially when they take the types of — of steps that Mr. Beausoleil has to focus on himself and really, um — and really try to — to better himself over time, and, um a couple, just a couple last things. The — the — you know, um, I know there — there is always discussion at Mr. Beausoleil’s hearings regarding his — you know, the statement of the reasons why Mr. Beausoleil went to, uh — and why Mr. Beausoleil ultimately killed Gary Hinman, uh, versus why other individuals have said that — that he did, um, there is no way to resolve that difference, but there is no need to either. The caselaw like In re Twinn, T-W-I-N-N, uh, 190 Cal. App. 4th, 447, it is very clear that the — the salient factors are Mr. Beausoleil’s remorse and his insight and his, um – -and his, uh — uh, the rehabilitation since then, and — and, you know, there — there is no way to resolve the – – the factor discrepancies and — and I appreciate the difficulty that, um — that anyone has looking at this case and trying to — to — to sort that out, but the fact remains that Mr. Beausoleil has accepted full responsibility for this offense. He has done so for decades. He has, um, shown — demonstrated great remorse through, uh, three sets of letters that he has written to, um, the family of Gary Hinman or — or, uh, two the family of Gary Hinman and one to someone who purported to be a family member of Gary Hinman. Um, he read one of those at the last hearing, um, and — and at the time, the — the — the — uh, the victim and Ms. Martley and — as well as Ms. Tate were both present, uh, or at least telephonically. Um, he has, uh — you know, the — the — his remorse if — if anything th — the — there — there’s, you know, if there is anything to, uh, take issue with Mr. Beausoleil about, it is certainly not his remorse. I think he has been, um, very contrite for a very long time, um, and — and it — it is unfair to — to — to criticize him in that regard. Um, the — the — the very last thing that I will say is just that the — the — the — the real — the primary issue that the panel had with — was with respect to the disciplinary that, um, Mr. Beausoleil picked up when he was still in Oregon that — that kind of, uh, precipitated his movement to — back to California. Um, he has been disciplinary free since then. Um, his — his record — his disciplinary record shows no signs of — of violence or — or violent tendencies. Um, he has been, uh — he’s — he’s attempted to — to — to abide by the rules, um, just as he — as was pre — prescribed by the previous panel, um, I — I — I think that at this point, um, you know, his, uh — he is, um, he is ready to be released and the — the — well, at this point he is — he is long overdue for release. He has been doing everything that you could want an inmate to do to try and prove themselves worthy of reacceptance in the world and I — I hope that this Panel will take all those factors into consideration and, uh, offer him a parole date. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Um, Mr. Beausoleil, would you like to make a closing statement?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I would, um, I am wondering if maybe we could take a short break beforehand?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Sure. The time is 1:43.

RECESS
–oOo–

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And we’re back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: We’re back on the record. The time is 1:57. Okay, Mr. Beausoleil, it’s your turn.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Thank you. Uh, there’s so much to take in in one — one of these things, it is hard to know how to respond sometimes to everything that — that’s said. Um, I know that I can’t speak to the family of the victim directly, but I do want Ms. Martley to know and — and Ms. Tate to know, that I deeply regret, am very sorry, for what I did to Gary, um, I will regret that all of my days. He was, um — he was a good man. He was a good man and did not deserve what I did. He doesn’t deserve to — to be killed by me and, um, as I said it — it destroyed me, it devastated me because it is so unlikely who I am at my — at my center and I lost my way. I — I became, uh, I compounded that callousness that I had shown him in things, statements that I made and, um, behaviors, acting certain way, acting — trying to hide my pain under bravado. It actually took me, uh, more than ten years to really connect with, um — with what I have done and really understand it. I didn’t have the kind of counseling that I think might have helped earlier on. I had to kind of find my way. Part of the catharsis was that — that film project, working on a soundtrack for that film was part of, you know, writing basically a long song about, uh, trying to find the light, you know, trying to find — make my way back to the light, but it wasn’t until, uh — it wasn’t until I actually experienced what I had done to Gary in 1982, early 1982, I was stabbed in the heart and both lungs by an inmate, uh, who is deranged, didn’t really, um, even know what he was doing. His reasons were probably no better than — than mine, and so I — at that point, it was just after I had gotten married. So those two things happened in my life and I was able to connect back in a real way to what I had done. It was the first time that I had been able to connect back to Gary with complete and honest and full empathy for him and what he had experienced as a result of what I had — what I did. Um, since then, uh, with the help of my wife and friends, and, um, programs that I have found, staff people that I have found in prison, um, I have been able to find my way back to humanity. I have been able to reintegrate as a human being, um, and to be and cultivate — to cultivate and be a — a person of integrity. People have responded to that. Um, there has been things said about, you know — that I profit my work and I think I am supposed to profit from my work, although I am donating a portion of the work that I — that I re — the — the royalties that I receive for art and music to — to that fund for Gary, but primarily what I have set that fund up for was so that — to the extent that I may talk to people that are, you know, trying to, um, get the story known, try to understand the story and present it to other people to understand because I believe that — that there is a debt to everyone. There is a debt to society. People who need to be able to know what happened and to understand it to maybe be able to prevent it in the future. So I will not pro — profit from my crime. I will not profit from any, uh, projects that people are working on in relation to the Manson story, uh, to — to the murders. Uh, any proceeds that I receive for my consultations or — or discussions with people who are interested in exploring that after I have vetted them carefully to see, uh, that they are sincere. All proceeds will go into a fund for Gary. That is what this is being set up for primarily. Um, if I am paroled, um, I have to be able to support myself. Hopefully I can do that on my work — on my work as an artist, as a musician, as a videographer, multimedia artist. I will do it in as responsible a way as I can possibly can. I will not exploit, um, the crime that I committed in any way for profit. So it makes it more of a challenge in some ways, but, uh, that is just, you know, right action is a big part of the Buddhist philosophy and spiritual philosophy and the right action in this regard to, um, to contribute to betterment of humanity through an organization like the Metta Institute for, um — for people who are suffering end of life, and that’s the — the — the finest way I have been able to find to honor Gary and to try to make up for, um — to some extent, and of course I never can. Um, my heart goes out to — to Deborah Tate for what she has experienced. I can’t – I can’t imagine how — how painful it must have been for her all these years to have lost a sister. Um, I don’t know what my actions may or may not have, uh, done in precipitating what happened. I don’t know. I — I wasn’t there and, uh, I have been trying to figure it out for a long time, but I do know that it is, um, horrible what happened. It is horrible for everyone who lost their lives in that — in that tragedy. Um, and I — I want Ms. Tate to know that I am sorry for — for her loss and for any involvement or any, um, immat — immaterial support that I may have given to, uh — prior to events that happened subsequent to my arrest. Um, I deeply re — regret that Ms. Martley has suffered the loss of Gary Hinman and his — his family. Um, I have written to them a number of times and I — I hope that, um, some understanding has been created and I — I hope that my letters helped to bring some kind of healing, uh, to them. Um, regarding any indication that, you know, work that I am continuing to publish, uh, is indicative of flaunting the rules, I was told at the end of the hearing that things that had been previously published — the work that had been previously published, uh, with the correct authorizations were legal and good to go. I have not done any new work, um, I drew the line at the work that had the right approvals, the work that I had done in Oregon, um, and until I have a new authorization to publish new work that I have done while I have been here, I won’t. I will abide by the rules, just as I will abide by the rules when I am on — on parole. I will, you know, abide by the laws. I will abide by the wishes of, um, the parole agency, um, and be forthright as I am in here, treat them with the respect and dignity that I hope to be treated as. I don’t have anything more to say, I don’t think. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, sir. All right. So at this time, we will take the victim impact statements. Um, who wants to go first? If you will just come up so that you are at a mic that would be great.

MS. MARTLEY: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And again, please just state your — your name for the record and your relationship to the victim.

MS. MARTLEY: I’m Kay Hinman Martley, M-A-R-T-L- E-Y. I have traveled 1500 miles to speak in Gary Hinman’s behalf. I am 81 years old, and Gary would have been 84. This year will be 50 years since Gary’s death. I am fortunate to be of good health and to our family’s voice. Gary was only 34 and was a productive member of society. He was kind to a fault to the dropout community of individuals such as Bobby Beausoleil. Gary was not selling drugs. He might have in previous years, but there is no proof of that. Gary had become a Buddhist in the last two years of his life and drugs were not part of his Buddhism. Gary was planning a pilgrimage to Japan, which Gary’s parents were paying for. Bobby Beausoleil was 22 years old with no means of steady income, not a productive member of society, and at Manson’s instructions, Bobby came to Gary’s home to extort money along with Susan Atkins and Mary Brunner. They tortured Gary for three days. They stabbed him several times, left him literally to rot in the summer heat of his home. Gary’s body was filled with maggots. Bobby returned a few days later only to check to be sure he and the girls have left no evidence identifying them. After three days, a visit from Manson, who cut — during those three days, a visit from Manson who cut off Gary’s ear, constant torture, stabbed, and Gary telling them he had no money, Bobby called Manson for instructions, and Manson told Bobby to end Gary’s life. Bobby testified that there was no way out, but to follow Manson’s instructions. Why would a person subconscious do this? Bobby lacked empathy and remorse. He only had his mindless devotion to Manson. He — he admits what he had done — excuse me. I lost my place. He — he admits he needed to be given direction which he still gets in prison. Our family has to constantly relive the horrors of July 1969 with each parole hearing. My aunt, Gary’s mother, died a year after Gary from a massive stroke caused by the stress and the grief of the murder. She was 61. Gary’s sister, Carol, is afraid to speak out as she is re — has received death threats over the years and his other sister, Barbara, has mental issues and the mar — murder only exacerbated her mental state to this day. There is no way really to explain the negative impact Gary’s murder has had on our family, and continues after 50 years. Movies, television, and books are constant reminders of Gary’s heinous murder. Bobby Beausoleil has had a well-constructed website — has a well-constructed website, http://www.Bobbybeausoleil.com. The website sells CDs of Bobby’s music from Amazon, over 90 art pr — prints, majority of topics are dark in nature, are sold by a distributor, Find Art America. How do CDs and artwork of Bobby Beausoleil get retailed by someone who is in prison? What happens to the profits? Why does he have an elaborate website and until recently a Facebook page? Beausoleil originally received the death penalty and because two words, without parole, were not added to the change to life imprisonment, we are here today. There is always an exception to the rule and that exception is no parole. It is my wish, as well as the Hinman family, that the Board base their decision with fresh eyes and ears on this heinous crime, the original death penalty, and public safety. I believe that Bobby exhibits most of the traits of a psychopath. This man does belong in the mainstream of society. My family requests in the strongest terms, do not give this man parole. I don’t see remorse. I see him wanting to ignore and to forget the event of Gary’s murder. Regret is not remorse. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, Ms. Martley. Ms. Tate?

MS. TATE: Good afternoon everybody. My name is Deborah Tate. Last name, T-A-T-E, and I am a speaking representative for the Hinman family, for those Hinman family members that for various reasons have been too traumatized, too ill, uh, too unable to face — face-to- face the monster that has caused them so much pain over the years. They have appointed me and under Marcy’s Law, I have that right. I would like to address with the Commin — Commissioners the change.org website that was all of the information presented in whole over just a few days short of 30 days ago in its entirety and accepted and cc’d by the Department of, uh, Rehabilitation — Parole Board and the Department of Rehabilitation in the State of California, so why things don’t exactly end up in their entirety in the Ten-Day packet, I have an email that confirms that indeed it was. I can’t say why things did not make it into your packet, sir, but believe me, that organization, I don’t lay hands on it. It is flawless. I can’t tamper with it. The description — the way the website is set up, for the Commissioners that maybe have not seen it, there is a picture of each one of the inmates convicted of first degree murder and a brief syn — uh, description of their offenses as convicted by law. What other people write in their statements, I can’t control, but I do think that it is important that it is indicative of what a large portion of society feels about these individuals because not only does he pose a threat to society, there is, in my mind, the possibility of society posing a threat to him and when these people contact me, I say we need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, you cannot talk to me that way, and they are out. I don’t allow that kind of thing. So, just so that you know, Mr. Campbell, that’s the way that I roll. I am very fair. I also have s – studied Buddhism. In that doctrine, they value life, even a bug. I cry if I step on a millipede. I could not conceive — I am absolutely 100% drug fee — free even though I have a spinal cord injury, for example, just between my waist and — and my tailbone and I have nine ruptured disks. What am I doing? I am getting up and down and moving around and being productive and of service to humanity on every single level. Mr. Beausoleil is and always has been a very talented man. Why in the world this man could not have done something with that God-given talent, why he made the choices that he made and threw his life away, is exactly what I would like to address in my victim’s impact statement. I really do appreciate the fact that with his mouth, he spoke an apology to the Hinman family as well as myself, even though he doesn’t recognize after 49 years what role he may have played in the death of my sister. He has had a lot of time to reflect on that and he actually told on himself in this room today when we find out that he is stealing vehicles and in and out and, you know, had the freedom to do this or that. He had many opportunities to bow out of this group, but chose to come back and forth and stay. By — by telephone in a previous parole hearing, he — the Commissioner asked him what drove him to hook up with this unorthodox clan of individuals and his answer was is that the music business was decaying. However, we all heard today that that is not at all what the facts are very clear in his head. Today. So he knew that in the 2016 parole hearing when he made that state — statement to the previous Board. I suffer from PTSD. I also counsel a lot of other people that suffer from PTSD as, uh, totally a volunteer, the members of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, a whole lot of other murder victims, I’ll jump out of bed in the middle of the night to go and help them when they need it the most without charge or cost simply because perhaps I might inspire another to live another day at a moment that they really, really don’t want to. Mr. Beausoleil could so something very similar, very simply by removing his name, he could still be a grand artist, he could still be a grand musician, the fact of the matter is, is that people would not have interest in him or let me rephrase that, a lot of people would have much less interest in him if they — there wasn’t this Manson family aspect. This is something that should have occurred to him a long, long time ago. He stated here today that he didn’t even realize what things might have felt like as — until he was stabbed ten years after the fact. These are all signs of a deeply disturbed psychopath. These are personality defects. I am going to be very kind in — in stating them as defects, that don’t go away and perhaps when people aren’t getting their way, uh, they can revert back to violence. There are no guarantees other than the fact that he is in controlled environments and has behaved, there are no guarantees or even indicators to my educated brain that this man is not still totally self-serving, totally self-serving, and still involved in enterprises which are based off of — and friendships based off the fact of who he is and what he did. Now, if he is truly not onboard with all of that, there’s a lot of things that I can think of off the top of my head that he could do. Giving all the proceeds to the Hinman family and letting them do with it whatever charity they see fit. Uh, there — there is a very good place for him right here within the correctional systems to effect those that need him the most, those young influential minds through his art and talent. There are a whole lot of ways to make yourself feel good and to lose your woes through art without having to go public with it. I’m an artist. We also share the same birthday. I can get in his head. I’ve been down this road as long as he has. He’s just — just a couple of — I don’t know, 14 months ahead of me in all of this, so I am not exactly born yesterday with the mindset. I have spoken at every single hearing of these criminals as well as a lot of other criminals and I would like the Board to know that there are other first degree murderers who have situations that I would not oppose them — their release from prison. In my opinion, these are predatory killers and that is a totally different animal. He is outwardly — whether he is convicted of one murder or all the murders, he was a member of the clan before, after and during, and that makes him too much of a risk for my free society, for the kind of world that I would like to see tomorrow be, a kinder, better world, and if he is really interested in contributing to that kinder, better world, there are — there is a real need for him right inside the penal system to do that, and the Hinman family concurs with that completely. So, with that, I will thank you for listening to us today and taking the time to — to — and all of the consideration.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, Ms. Tate.

MS. TATE: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Time is now 2:21. This Panel will now recess for deliberation.

RECESS
–oOo–

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS DECISION

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: We’re on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: We’re on the record. Again, today’s date is January 3, 2019. The time is now 3:49 p.m. We will now reconvene this hearing for pronouncement of the Panel’s decision. All the same parties who were here before have returned. Mr. Beausoleil was received on June 23, 1970 from Los Angeles County. The controlling offense is Murder in the First Degree in case number A as in alpha, 057452, which resulted in a sentence of seven years to life. The minimum eligible parole date is August 4, 1976. The youth parole eligibility date is September 8, 1986 and the elder parole eligibility date is November 6, 2007. The victim in this case was Gary Hinman. 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. When a prisoner has committed his controlling offense as defined in Subdivision A of Penal Code Section 3051 prior to attaining 26 years of age, the Board shall give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and maturity of the prisoner in reviewing his suitability for parole pursuant to Penal Code Section 3041.5. In this case, the Panel has read and considered the written record before us including the Central file, the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, which also took into consideration the youthful offender factors and any subsequent growth and maturity. We also considered the additional documents submitted during this hearing, and all written responses from the public. The confidential portion of the Central file, but the Panel did not rely on the information contained therein due to the passage of time. The information was no longer relevant. The Panel also considered the testimony presented at this hearing by Mr. Beausoleil and we considered the statements from Ms. Mart — Mart — Martley and Ms. Tate and we considered the arguments of counsel. The fundamental consideration in making a parole eligibility decision is whether the inmate continues to pose a current, unreasonable threat to public safety. Accordingly, a denial of parole, must be based on evidence in the record of the inmate’s current dangerousness. With these legal standards in mind and after giving great weight to the youthful offender factors and the subsequent growth and maturity, and after giving special consideration to the elder parole factors, we find that Mr. Beausoleil does not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety, and is therefore, suitable for parole. While the record reflects some circumstances tending to show unsuitability for parole, which were considered very carefully by this Panel during deliberation, and some of which will be highlighted, um, in more details by Deputy Commissioner Andres, after weighing all of the evidence, we found that these are outweighed by other circumstances tending to show suitability. Our decision, of course, does not diminish the facts of this life crime where Mr. Beausoleil beat, held hostage, and ultimately stabbed and killed Mr. Hinman in a robbery attempt. However, the California Supreme Court has ruled that after a long period of time, immutable factors such as the commitment offense may no longer indicate a current risk of danger to society in light of a lengthy period of positive rehabilitation. In this case, we note that 49 years has passed and many of the circumstances that tend to show suitability as outlined in Title 15, Section 2402, Subdivision D, are present in this case. Specifically, um, we find that Mr. Beausoleil committed this crime as a youth with a diminished culpability as compared to that of an adult. We took into consideration developments in psychology and brain science which tell us that parts of the brain involved in behavior control continue to mature through late adolescence. That adolescent brains are not yet fully mature in regions and systems related to higher order functioning such as impulse control, planning ahead and risk avoidance, and when we look at Mr. Beausoleil’s conduct at the time of this life crime, we see behavior that was impulsive, that was reckless and not well thought out. He was involved with older men, um, some from a biker gang and additionally, uh, associated with Charles Manson and his group and we see that at that time, Mr. Beausoleil sought to impress both groups. Though Mr. Beausoleil planned to go rob, Mr. Hinman, what later ensued appears to have not been part of any organized planning on his part, at least some of the information leans in that direction. Nonetheless, his action showed recklessness and an inability to think through and act to avoid the risk that ultimately resulted in this case. We know that the youth are more vulnerable and susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures including familial pressure and peer pressure. Mr. Beausol — Mr. Beausoleil, um, was raised in a mostly stable home, and those he chose at a very young age to repeatedly run away from home, uh, we see that this ultimately le — led up to, um, the associations that led him to life crime. We see that he was heavily influenced by these negative associations Again, most of the people he associated with were older than he was. Um, he also, uh — prior to this crime had no criminal record. Uh, there was no evidence of assaultive or aggressive behavior leading up to this life crime. The evidence strongly suggests that his behavior on the day of the life crime, um, resulted from the influence, um — resulted and is influenced by both his youth and his immaturity and by the negative associations that he had with these older men. We know that negative associations can lead the youth to negative behaviors and poor decisions and at the background in the mental and emotional development of the youth, has been identified as a mitigating factor. We also know that the youth are more capable of change than are adults and that their actions are less likely to be evidence of irretrievable depraved character. We also know that differences between the youth and the adult mind enhance the prospect that as years go by and neurological developments occur then a prison’s deficiencies can be reformed and we saw evidence in Mr. Beausoleil’s, uh, development over the years, uh, since the time that he committed this crime in particular we note that at the time of his trial, that there was a complete lack of remorse, um, and that that continued for many years thereafter. Today’s he spoke candidly about how he came to terms with his actions and how he was able to develop remorse and empathy for Mr. Hinman. When we look at his record in prison, we see that he engaged in rules violations, uh, the last one was in 2016, a counseling chrono. Um, his last serious rules violation was in 2015, approximately three years ago. His overall conduct in prison shows absolutely no violent behavior and he has engaged in many activities which strongly suggest a finding of growth and maturity that is usually expected when youth matures. We see evidence that he took the opportunity to learn from his rules violation and he took steps to learn about his defects and what led him to commit this crime. We see that he explored himself to find out what about him caused him to use violence to solve his perceived problem on the day of this crime. He also took time to explore why he sought out negative associations around the time of this crime and we see that some of that continued, um, in his early — in the early term of — in prison. Um, his conduct in prison overall shows that he has exercises a tremendous amount of self-control during his incarceration as evidenced by the lack of violence in prison. What we see today is strong evidence that he has shown growth and maturity during his time in prison. All of these, uh, provide strong evidence that Mr. Beausoleil exhibited many of the hallmark features of youth at the time that he committed this crime and therefore we gave great weight to this evidence. We also gave special consideration to the elder parole factors. Mr. Beausoleil is now 71 years old. Um, he has been in prison for more than 48 years continuously. His conduct in prison has been good overall. Uh, physically he has degenerative arthritis, but he told us today that he controls this through yoga and Tai Chi. He told us that he has a clear mind today. We see that age-related decreases that he has were determined by Dr. Levin to not be a significant mitigating factor for his risk for violence. The doctor noted on page 16 of the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, and I am quoting, the doctor states, though Mr. Beausoleil does not possess the same physical strength and reflexes that he did at the time, uh, of committing this offense, he maintains good physical health, strength and mobility and he continues to possess the physical capacity to pistol whip or stab another, uh, man. The Panel, um, gave consideration to all of these factors. Mr. Beausoleil has upgraded himself through earning his GED. He has also, um, earned vocational training in areas such as electronics, multimedia, television and production. Um, he continues to participate in self-help programs like AA, and he was able to relate to this Panel what he has learned and how he uses the tools that he learned to continue his growth and maturity today. He has also engaged in many activities during his incarceration to help other inmates and we see that he has volunteered as a hospice — in the hospice program. Uh, he also has received laudatory chronos for — from his work supervisor and we see letters from chaplains who have spoken about his efforts to assist other inmates and his interaction with other inmates here in prison. We know that the youth should not be deprived of the opportunity to achieve maturity of judgment and self-recognition of human worth and potential. Uh, that maturity can lead to that considered reflection, which is often the foundation of remorse, renewal and rehabilitation. Mr. Beausoleil’s, uh, overall conduct in prison shows growth — shows signs of remorse and shows rehabilitation. On the issue of remorse, uh, Mr. Beausoleil has accepted full responsibility for his actions in killing Mr. Hinman. We note that he was 21 when he committed this life crime and now when we look at his record, we see that he is no longer — that he no longer acts based on approval from others. That he has long established a healthy self- image through many of his practices, his religious practices and other practices. We find that this diminishes many of the challenges that he was dealing with at the time when he committed this crime. We also find that he has made realistic plans for release. He has acceptance letters from transitional housing programs. He has a relapse prevention plan and we find that he has strong family support and support from friends in the community. He also has prospects, um, to support himself through job offers and additionally through his own, um, creative skills. We also find that he has a good understanding of many of the challenges that he will likely face in the community. Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Okay. Well, I have quite a bit to say and I will start out this way. First of all, the Commissioner has expressed the findings of the Panel. It is a unanimous decision. Um, I really appreciate the, um, participation of all people concerned, um, Ms. Martley and Ms. Tate were very helpful to us and meaningful in what they had to say. We paid close attention and both counsel did a superb job today. Um, so I am going to mention some things that, uh, we had to consider that were negatives and I do that for a couple of reasons. One is it needs to be known that we considered all these things. Whoever reads this has to know that we thought long and hard about these negatives and as the Commissioner said, you know, it is a balancing, uh, decision. We have to weigh the positives against the negatives. The things in your favor against the things that are not particularly in your favor. I will just make the opening, um, observation that you are, I think it is no secret, loquacious, and, um, but I will go beyond that and say that you have a certain facility with language that includes some artful ambiguity and I think anyone who reads this transcript carefully will — will note that, um, when the answer to the question could be either fish or fowl, you manage to answer often in a way that is neither fish nor fowl, but some combination or in between or either or both. Um, that didn’t escape us. Uh, the problems that, um, were on my mind stem from some lack of reliability on things related to the life crime itself and the, uh, circumstances leading up to it and the aftermath. And it seems to me that for some reason that I haven’t quite figured out what it is, you seem determined to write Charles Manson out of the picture in a way that I can’t find entirely reliable. Um, and that then implicates your credibility to some degree and your insight to some degree, but not enough to rise to the level that you are a current risk — unreasonable risk to public safety because this is a unanimous decision, but still it is a problem. Um, the Panel was of the view that the version of facts that are summarized in the CRA — in the Comprehensive Risk Assessment by Dr. Levin at page six, beginning with information cited within an appellate decision filed in June of 1973 indicates that Mr. Beausoleil along with Susan Atkins and Mary Brunner went to the victim’s home in order to extort $20,000 from him at the request of Charles Manson, and then when the victim didn’t have the money, you struck him over the head with a gun. Charles Manson arrived, slashed the victim with a sword, uh, the victim signed over pink slips. Um, Beausoleil, Atkins, and Brunner remained with the victim for another day and a half at which point Mr. Beausoleil fatally stabbed the victim. The captures then wrote political piggy and painted a paw print in the victim’s blood in order to look like the victim was killed by the Black Panthers. Without being dogmatic about it that seems to the Panel to be approx — the probable best version of the facts. Your version has been consistent for quite a while and as the clinician noted, um, maintains a significantly different sequence of events related to the crime. I wo — I wouldn’t limit it to simply sequence of events. I think the best way to summarize or to describe your version is the statement of facts that your attorney prepared that was featured in the 2005 hearing and it is in the record and you presented it as this is a statement of facts prepared by Carolyn M. Hagan (phonetic), my attorney of record. She writes a brief introduction and it is as follows, and then that is page 24 of that 2005 transcript, and it goes on for — through, I think you were reading it to the Panel through page 31, and it tracks pretty closely what you have been saying, uh, for many years about how you recall the events or what you want to present as the events, and, um, since it was prepared by an attorney or signed by an attorney, according to what is in the transcript, it does bare the earmarks of some highly polished re — report that would seem to take care of most problems that would arise from a report that is not entirely accurate. I mean it is really well designed to do that, but here are the problems that I see. Um, since it is impossible — to — to the extent that you are trying to write Charles Manson out of this entire scenario, you can’t deny the fact that he appeared and – – at the place, and, uh, attacked Hinman with a sword apparently. So, uh, you presented in your statement of facts then the theory that or the notion that, uh, you are there with the two women and when codefendants Davis and Manson appeared at the front door, Hinman who no longer being held at gunpoint, opened the front door for the two men who he considered to be his friends. Manson immediately slashed Hinman across the cheek with a long sword/knife, taking Hinman’s ear and cutting his cheek, and then he says, uh, you asked him why he did that and Manson replied, he was showing you how to be a man. That seems an unlikely scenario to me. Uh, it just doesn’t seem likely that Charles Manson confronts Hinman at the front door and immediately draws a sword and slashes him without any kind of other interaction. Then, there is a difficulty for you to explain the presence of Mary Brenner, uh — Brunner, and Susan Atkins at all. Um, your version of events has them initially unaware of the — I’m reading on page 26 of the 2005 transcript. Two wo — young women, codefendant Atkins and Mary Brunner who were initially unaware of the difficulties between Beausoleil and the bikers and Hinman came along for the ride. That really seems unlikely especially since Brunner testified at trial that, uh, she and Atkins accompanied defendant to Hinman’s house to demand money, that you were armed with a knife, a gun — and a knife and when Hinman did not cooperate, defendant beat him with a gun. Hinman, upon the defendant’s demand, signed the pink slips to his two cars. If in fact Brunner went along for the ride not knowing any of this was lined up as your version asserts. That would be exactly what she would testify to at trial. That exonerates her from any responsibility or for a lot of responsibility. So that doesn’t square in my view nor frankly does it square with your testimony that, uh, at trial — that, uh, you went with Brunner and Atkins to Hinman’s home and asked for money for the family. I am reading that from the, uh, appellate decision. Um, then we have the claim that you had problems with the Straight Satan’s and went over to get their money back under a severe threat of intimidation and whatnot and yet your version of the events said that, uh, Hinman offered to resolve the conflict by signing over the two titles for the two old automobiles that he owned, one of which was a dented Volkswagen that he recently purchased for $800 and you accepted. Since when do you under threat of the Straight Satan’s make a deal without any authorization from them or any expectation that their — these — these big, bad guys are going to accept a deal, the settlement that you entered into. That doesn’t ring true. Then, I see no explanation for the whereabouts of Atkins and Brunner after — at the time that Mr. Hinman was murdered in your version of events. They simply to disappear off the scene in the version that you presented in the 2005 hearing. Um, your version says that after he slices up Hinman, Manson angerly told Beausoleil that he had made a mess of things and that he needed to get it cleaned up. He told the two females who were members of the community, help Beausoleil take care of Hinman. Manson and Davis then left. Well, what happened to those two women? How did they depart the premises? What, uh — what explanation do you have for any of that, and, uh, as compared to the testimony of Brunner and I am reading from the appellate decision, um, Manson and Davis then left in one of Hinman’s automobiles. Sunday evening, defendant said they were going to kill Hinman. That’s you — said, told them you were going to kill Hinman. After dinner while Brunner was in the kitchen and Atkins was in the bathroom, Brunner heard a noise in the living room. She and Atkins rushed in and saw that Hinman had been stabbed. The defendant had a knife in his hand and was near Hinman who was on the floor. They held a pillow over Hinman’s face until his noisy breathing stopped. That is an admission in court by Brunner to be physically a participant in the ending of Hinman’s life. It doesn’t seem likely that she would make that test — give that testimony without some truth in it as opposed to your version again which does not explain where the women went or what happened to them. Um, then of course there’s your — before I go there. This was really a problem for me. Uh, according to your version, again prepared by your attorney and presented in a 205 — 2005 hearing, you, um — I read the part about your an — he angrily told you to, uh — that you had made a mess of things. I don’t know what that would refer to in — in your theory, but told the females to help you take care of Hinman. Then according to your version, at some point later, you phoned the Spawn Ranch for advice on what to do. Manson came to the phone and told Beausoleil that he was on his own and hung up. This is supposedly the actions of a person who, based on all the information we have, brutally attacked and sliced Mr. Hinman and he is not concerned with anything about it except oh you take care of the problem. Whatever. It’s your mess, you take care of it. I think Mr. Manson would — is likely to have been very concerned about witnesses to his role in — in the attack and very likely did what everybody seems to indicate and that is ordered that Mr. Hinman be murdered, be killed, which is exactly what happened. Um, and of course your affiliation that we documented as well with your — your desire to be affiliated, as the warden said in his September 15, 1970 letter, uh, subject apparently is not as interested in obtaining the services of an appellate attorney as he is in maintaining contact with attorneys representing the Manson family members how on trial in Los Angeles and the portion of the 2000 — no 1983 hearing, I read to you about your request to be housed with Charles Manson in LA County Jail, that’s at page 23 of that transcript. So all that adds up to some serious problems with the story that you have been reciting all these years, which apparently caused the clinician a little bit of trouble too, Dr. Levin, because he said that, uh, though Mr. Beausoleil is accurate in assuming full responsibility for the crime, he demonstrates only partial insight into the motives behind it. Specifically, he lacks appreciation for the predatory, antisocial motivations for the crime especially his willingness to engage in violence in order to achieve a goal. Um, so as I say those discrepancies are things that we very much had in mind. They were discussed at length. They were outweighed for the reasons the Commissioners mentioned and that I have mentioned. There is the youthful offender law that we follow. There’s, um — there is the fact that to the extent that you haven’t been fully honest with people over these years that that doesn’t necessarily arise to the level of making you a current risk — reasonable risk to public safety. Uh, we made as exhibits the support letter signed by Ivan Pugh. That is Exhibit One. That was submitted today. The support letter happens to be dated December 31, 2019, which we thankfully haven’t arrived at yet. So that was just a typo, but it is signed by Michael Monaghan. The, uh, Parenting Insight — Inside Out document is Exhibit Three and the new parole plans that were submitted today are Exhibit Four. With that, I will return to the chair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, Commissioner. All right. We also took note of the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, uh, created by Dr. Levin. Again that is dated March 1, 2016. Dr. Levin also, uh, considered the youthful offender factors. The doctor found that Mr. Beausoleil represents, uh, a statistically low risk to re-offend in the free community after noting many of the concerns that Deputy Commissioner Andres outlined for us. Um, again the doctor, um, found a low risk. We find that this also supports our decision here today. So based on all of these findings and after weighing all of the evidence, this Panel concludes that, um, sir, um, that you do not pose an unreasonable risk of danger or a threat to public safety if you are released from prison at this time. So, we find that you are suitable for parole. Now, our decision is not final. Our decision will only become final within the next 120 days. During that period, it will be reviewed by the BPH Decision Review Unit. Their review was done within 120 days meaning they — they can complete their review before that 120 days. That’s just the — the out — outer limits of their review period. After that, an additional 30 days may go by during which the governor will also review this decision. If any changes are made to our decision, you will notified in writing. We have some special conditions of parole for you. These are in addition to any general conditions of parole that will be provided for you by the Division of Adult Parole Operation. We are ordering that you participate in a transitional housing program for a minimum of six months. You’ve identified Francisco Homes in Los Angeles. Um, we have no problems with that. We are ordering that you —

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Commissioner, I am sorry to interrupt, but actually Francisco Homes would violate the 35 mile rule from one of the Hinman family members.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I would be — I can look into other programs. I had previously spoken to someone from, uh, GEO Center in the Bay Area. What — whatever the Board would be, um, inclined to — just where I can assist with trying to find another placement.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Then we will withdraw the Francisco Homes. We don’t want to have any — any violations with the stay-away order. Um, so what we will s — what we will do then is, um, we will note that you will work closely with the Division of Adult Operations to provide an appropriate transitional housing program, um, that meets your needs and — and that doesn’t violate any stay-away orders.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And — you know —

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And we will leave that to their discretion.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: We would not have continued present — we didn’t know that, otherwise we wouldn’t have continued presenting Francisco Homes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: That’s understood.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: No problem. We are also ordering that you have, um, no contact or communication with the family members of your victims. Uh, we are ordering that you do not possess or consume marijuana or any other controlled substances not legally prescribed for you. We are ordering that you submit to random antinarcotic testing including for marijuana, that you participate in a substance abuse relapse prevention program, and we are ordering that you have no contact or communication with any of your crime partners. You are also ordered to provide periodic written descriptions of the nature and extent of your commercial business interests to the Division of Adult Parole Operation, um, and this is, um — they will determine the frequency of that. The purpose of this report is to ensure that your endeavors are not designed to profit from your crime or from your connection with the Manson family or their related crimes. This condition we find is linked to your involvement, um, in the Capote interview, your involvement in the 1985 publication of the kiddy porn publication and the concerns that were raised by your businesses as described in the CDCR Department — Departmental Review Board Court dated June 25, 2015.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Commissioner, I would just — I would take issue with the kiddy porn designation because it was determined not be, uh, child pornography.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: That was just the title on the document.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. I understand.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: That was the title of the document. All right, anything further, Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Um, no. That, uh, summarizes it very well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So, I want to thank everyone for their participation today. Thank you for your patience. Um, yes —

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I just wanted to ask if there are — if there are other things that emerge in terms of, uh, things that Mr. Beausoleil is doing or things that — you know, can we submit additional evidence to the — the Board in the meantime during the 120 days or is it frozen during this time? I – I — if there is a chrono or something to that effect, I am just wondering what role I should play in terms of trying to make sure the Board receives it?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So, I — I mean, I think the record is closed at this time. The review is going to review exactly what we considered in making our decision.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: And our decision is of course based on everything that has happened up until now. Things in the future that are either positive or negative will not affect our findings.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I see.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So again, um, I want to thank everyone for their patience. Um, and thank you all for your participation. The time is now 4:30 and we are adjourned.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Thank you very much.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANDRES: Off record.

ADJOURNMENT

PAROLE GRANTED