SUBSEQUENT PAROLE CONSIDERATION HEARING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration Hearing of:

SUSAN ATKINS

CDC Number: W-08304

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY

CORONA, CALIFORNIA

JUNE 1, 2005

2:24 P.M.

PANEL PRESENT:

Margarita Perez, Presiding Commissioner

Diane Lushbough, Deputy Commissioner

OTHERS PRESENT:

Susan Atkins, Inmate

James Whitehouse, Attorney for Inmate

Patrick Sequeira, Deputy District Attorney

Kay Stafford, Deputy Commissioner/Observer

Debra Tate, Victim's Next of Kin

Anthony DiMaria, Victim's Next of Kin

Margaret DiMaria, Victim's Next of Kin

Anthony DiMaria, Victim's Next of Kin

Marie Ford, Victim's Next of Kin

June Jones, Victims' Witness Advocate

Tip Kindel, BPT/Observer

R. Banfield, Reporter/Observer

Bobby Holt, Reporter/Observer

A. Funchess, Correctional Officer

PROCEEDINGS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: We're on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon, Ms. Atkins.

INMATE ATKINS: (Inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: This is a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing for Susan Atkins, CDC number W-08304. Today's date is June 1st, 2005. We are located at the California Institution for Women. The time is 2:24 p.m. According to the record, ma'am, you were received by the Department of Corrections on April 23rd, 1971, out of Los Angeles County, case number 253156, for counts one through seven for murder first, Penal Code Section 187 and count eight, Penal Code Section 182.1, conspiracy to commit murder; case number A267861, out of Los Angeles County, in which all counts are to run concurrently. This hearing is being tape recorded and for the purposes of voice identification, we're going to go around the room and ask everyone to identify themselves, stating their first name, last name, spelling our last name. When we get to you, ma'am, I'd like to ask you to provide us with your CDC number as well.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I'll start with myself, go to my left. My name is Margarita Perez, P-E-R-E-Z, Commissioner with the Board of Prison Terms.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Diane Lushbough, L-U-S-H-B-O-U-G-H, Deputy Commissioner, Board of Prison Terms.

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

MS. TATE: Debra Tate, T-A-T-E, victim's next of kin.

MR. DIMARIA: Anthony DiMaria, D-I, capital M-A-R-I-A, victim's next of kin.

MS. DIMARIA: Margaret DiMaria, D-I, capital M-A-R-I-A, victim's next of kin.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. Sir.

MR. DIMARIA: Anthony DiMaria, D-I-M-A-R-I-A, husband of Margaret DiMaria.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Ma'am.

MS. FORD: Marie Ford, F-O-R-D, victim's niece.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STAFFORD: Kay Stafford, S-T-A-F-F-O-R-D, Deputy Commissioner, Board of Prison Terms, observing.

MS. JONES: June Jones, J-O-N-E-S, Victims' Witness Advocate.

MR. KINDEL: Tip Kindel, K-I-N-D-E-L, Board of Prison Terms, observing.

MR. BANFIELD: R. Banfield, B-A-N-F-I-E-L-D, Channel Seven News.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FUNCHESS: A. Funchess, F-U-N-C-H-E-S-S, Correctional Officer, Board of Prison Terms security.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Ma'am.

INMATE ATKINS: Susan Atkins, A-T-K-I-N-S, W-08304.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: James Whitehouse, W-H-I-T-E-H-O-U-S-E, Attorney for Ms. Atkins.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Sir.

MR. HOLT: Bobby Holt, KABC Television, H-O-L-T.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. Did I miss anyone? Ma'am, before we begin, I'd like to ask you to read the ADA Statement that's sitting in front of you. It is the document -- Specifically where I want you to read is that area that's highlighted. If I could get you to read it out loud, please.

INMATE ATKINS: The Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, is a law to help people with disabilities. Disabilities are problems that make it harder for some people to see, hear, breathe, talk, walk, learn, think, work or take care of themselves than it is for others. Nobody can be kept out of public places or activities because of a disability. If you have a disability, you have the right to ask for help to get ready for your BPT Hearing, get to the hearing, talk, read forms and papers and understand the hearing process. BPT will look at what you asked for to help make sure that you have a disability that is covered by the ADA, and that you have asked for the right kind of help. If you do not get help or you don't think you got the kind of help you need, ask for a BPT 1074 Grievance Form. You can also get help to fill it out.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you understand what that means, ma'am?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Can you tell me what it means in your own words?

INMATE ATKINS: It means that if I have a disability, that the Department of Corrections is to make sure that whatever help that I need with the disability will be made available to me so that I can participate in this process (indiscernible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. I do note for the record that on April 19th, 2005, you did sign the BPT 1073 indicating that you have a hearing impairment.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And that you wear a hearing aid as a result.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And do you have your hearing aid --

INMATE ATKINS: I don't.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- on at this time?

INMATE ATKINS: No, I elected not to wear it because of the air conditioners. It makes it very very difficult for me to understand everything that's going on, so I believe I'll be able to hear everything.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And you can -- You can hear me well?

INMATE ATKINS: I can hear you well today. You're close enough that I can hear you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, if at any point during the hearing you're having difficulty with hearing because you do not have your hearing aid, then we may look at providing you with some other kind of accommodation. And I understand that there are listening devices that are available to assist you as well. But if you find that you can hear everyone well and you understand everything that is occurring, then just let me know either way.

INMATE ATKINS: Okay, thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: If you need any other assistance. Okay.

INMATE ATKINS: Thank you..

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And I do note that you wear glasses. Those are reading glasses?

INMATE ATKINS: They are reading and distance glasses. Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And are you currently on any kind of psychotropic medications?

INMATE ATKINS: No, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Are you on any kind of medication?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Are you on any kind of medication that would make it difficult for you to fully participate in today's hearing?

INMATE ATKINS: No, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: So you're not on any kind of medication that makes you sleepy or --

INMATE ATKINS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, and I do note that you have an AA in Arts.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And then you --

INMATE ATKINS: Well I have an Associate of Arts Degree in General Education.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: General Education.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, and for the record, you, when you read, you don't have difficulty understanding what you read?

INMATE ATKINS: No, I have no difficulty comprehending.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, Counsel, have all ADA issues been addressed to the best of your knowledge?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. Ma'am, this hearing is being conducted pursuant to Penal Code Section 3041 and 3042 and the rules and regulations of the Board of Prison Terms governing Parole Consideration Hearings. During today's hearing, if I speak too fast or if we speak too fast and you have difficulty understanding what we're trying to convey, just let me know. We'll stop, we'll back up, we'll slow down, we'll make sure you understand before we proceed.

INMATE ATKINS: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you understand?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The purpose of today's hearing is to once again consider your suitability for parole. In doing so, we will consider the number and nature of the crimes that you were committed for, your prior criminal and social history and your behavior and programming since your arrival within the California Department of Corrections. Commissioner Lushbough and myself have had the opportunity to review your prior transcripts and your Central File, and throughout today's hearing you will have the opportunity to correct or clarify the record. We will consider your progress since your last hearing, your psychological report, your counselor's report and any new information that may have a bearing on your suitability for parole. We will reach a -- reach a decision today and inform you of that decision. Before we recess for deliberations, the District Attorney and your attorney will have -- and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to ask you questions. Before we recess for deliberations, as well, the District Attorney, your attorney, you -- and you and the victim's next of kin will have the opportunity to make a closing statement relative to your suitability for parole. Your statement shall be limited to why you feel that you are suitable for parole. Okay, we will then recess, clear the room and deliberate. Once we conclude our deliberations, we will resume the hearing and announce our decision. The California Code of Regulations states that regardless of time served, a life inmate shall be found unsuitable for and denied parole, if in the opinion of the Panel, the inmate would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society. Ma'am, you have certain rights during today's hearing. You have the right to review your Central File. You have the right to present relevant documents and you have the right to a timely notice of this hearing. According to the record, around February 8th, 2005, you were provided the opportunity to review your Central File. Is that correct?

INMATE ATKINS: That is correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Did you review it?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Did you have sufficient time to review the file?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, Counsel, have all your client's rights been met to the best of your knowledge?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. Ma'am, you have an additional right. And that is the right to be heard by an impartial Panel. Do you have any objections to today's Panel?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Yes.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: We filed a writ of habeas corpus. This was on the last hearing and the Attorney General's Office said that we should have objected to the BPT on all possible grounds that we brought up in our appeal. I don't believe that's true. I think that this has to do with what you're asking, it has to do with Section 2254, (indiscernible) impartial, unbiased hearing. But nonetheless, to satisfy the Attorney General, I wrote down two of the things that I'd like to read in just for the record, if that's okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Are you objection to this particular Panel or you're objecting to anyone that's appointed to the Board of Prison Terms in conducting this hearing?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Both.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, and what is your grounds, sir? What are your grounds?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: That's what the Attorney General said that we should have done.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, go ahead and read it into the record, sir.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: First, on the ground that the BPT has a 20 year history of conducting Susan's hearings in deliberate and an intentional violation of the law. Second, on the grounds that the BPT's decisions over the last third of a century have been unconstitutional and arbitrary and capricious, meaning that the BPT contradicts itself from year to year. Third, on the grounds that these are unconstitutional pro-formant hearings which produce a post-hoc justification for their predetermined decisions. Fourth, on the grounds that these Commissioners have very little legal education, so they aren't in the position to make legal determinations that arise in these hearings, which won't be the end of the world, except for the fact that fifth, there's absolutely no process in the California legal system for appealing, correcting or challenging the actions or legal determinations of the Board Members. Sixth, because the BPT use criteria in their BPT Form 1000, they know contradict the statutory language as -- in Title XV. And finally, on the ground that the BPT Commissioners do not present a cross section of the community in they are appointed by the Governor. At least in the case of Governor Davis, he expressed -- expressly stated that he had intent and policy in violating the Constitutional rights of life inmates by denying any chance of parole.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. I will overrule your objection and we will continue with this hearing.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I would like to, if it's okay, I'd like to -- There's a couple of problems we had at the last hearing having to do with legal questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I will not entertain them at this point, sir, with (indiscernible). I will --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Is there a time we can?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I will proceed with the hearing and at the very end of the hearing, if you'd like to bring those up, then that would be fine.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: But then we go through the entire hearing without addressing issues that may have a bearing on how we carry this out. At the last hearing there were very several violations of law and I thought if we brought them up, you could say that I was misinformed or you could agree with me and then assure me that you weren't going to do that. It doesn't seem to make sense to have a hearing today and then decide at the end that it was carried out in violation of California state law.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: There is an established process that we have in conducting these hearings. As I go through that established process is if there are pieces and parts that you object to, then you can object to them at that point.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Part of the problem I have with that is that Title XV, 2030(d)(1) states that the hearing officers, you two, shall ensure throughout the hearing the comments made by the District Attorney, made by everybody are not -- are relevant and necessary testimony and statements. That means that I don't want to have to interrupt what the District Attorney says every 30 seconds like I did at the last hearing to challenge what he's saying on the grounds that it wasn't in the Central File, when the law says that you two are supposed to do that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Exactly. It is up to the Commissioners during our deliberations to take into consideration and determine that which we feel is relevant in making our decision.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: If we wait until after he makes his statement, then he's already said it in the record and over national television and it hasn't been excluded.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It is the job, it is the objective, it is the responsibility of this Panel to take into consideration those statements that are relevant to this hearing during our deliberations. So if statements are made during today's hearing that are not relevant to this case, then we will note that and we will only consider during our deliberations that which we consider to be relevant. Sir, at this point I'm going to proceed with the hearing. Ma'am, you will receive a of our written tentative decision today. That decision becomes effective within 1days. As of May 2004, the Board of Prison Terms abolished it's appeals process as it relates to discretionary decisions. So what that means is if there -- if there is something that occurs during today's hearings that you do not agree with that is discretionary, you have the right to go directly to the court with your complaint. Do you understand?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, during today's hearing you're not required to admit the offense nor are you required to discuss the offense. However, it's important for you to understand that this Panel does accept true the findings of the court. We are not here to retry your case. Okay.

INMATE ATKINS: All right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Commissioner Lushbough, will we be utilizing any confidential information during today's hearing?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: The only confidential, Commissioner, we'll be reviewing would be approximately 110 -- I'm sorry, 120 letters in opposition to parole that were in the confidential file. Of those, I believe at least four were redacted and presented or made available to Ms. Atkins. And that would be the only confidential we'd be reviewing today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, thank you. Ma'am, I have passed a hearing checklist marked Exhibit One to your Counsel to ensure that we are all operating off of the same documents. And at this time I'll ask him to verify the accuracy of that document.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: It appears that we have all these.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And I'll ask the same question of the Deputy District Attorney.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm sure I've received the documents. Yes, I've received these documents. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. Counsel, are there additional documents to be submitted to this Panel?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I guess Susan just got this. I wanted to double-check on some of the letters. I sent copies of letters to the C&PR here to ensure we were -- they would be made available to you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And we were -- are.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And they

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And we --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Quite perfect. Good.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We have numerous.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: All right, good.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And we'll discuss those when we get to that portion of the hearing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: There are approximately 425 that you did send.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Does that sound accurate?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: 425 pages.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you have any preliminary objections other than what you've already noted?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Not that I can think of.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, will Ms. Atkins be speaking to the Panel today about the crime?

INMATE ATKINS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, will she be speaking to us about anything else in regards to employment plans, parole plans, personal factors, criminal history; all the other areas that are covered in previous hearings?

INMATE ATKINS: I don't think so.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, when we get to the portion -- those sections, I'll ask you again.

INMATE ATKINS: All right. Thank you, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, at this time I'd like to swear you in, so if I can get you to raise your right hand to the best of your ability. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you provide today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

INMATE ATKINS: I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. I'd like to start off by incorporating into the record a brief summary of the crime, as noted in the latest correctional counselor's report dated March 2005. This document was authored by Correctional Counselor I P. Florence, F-L-O-R-E-N-C-E. Reviewed by Correctional Counselor II J. Cremer, C-R-E-M-E-R, and Classification and Parole Representative P. Clark, C-L-A-R-K. And I will be reading into the record the summary of the crime, which starts on page one and partially goes into page two. I will also be reading into the record the prisoner's version as noted on page two, three and partially four of the same Board report. And the record states: On August 9th, 1969, at the Polanski residence, Abigail Ann Folger died from multiple stab wounds to the body. Voityck Frykowski's death was caused by a gunshot wound to the left back and multiple blunt force traumas to the head. He was also stabbed. Steven R. Parent's death was caused by multiple gunshot wounds. Sharon Marie Polanski's death was caused by multiple stab wounds to the body and Thomas Sebring's death was caused by multiple stab wounds. On August 10th, 1969, at the LaBianca residence, Leno A. LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary LaBianca, were killed. Leno LaBianca's cause of death was multiple stab wounds to the neck and abdomen. Rosemary LaBianca's death was caused by multiple stab wounds to the neck and trunk. Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten and Charles Manson were taken into custody by Los Angles Police on October 13th, 1969, November 25th, 1969, and December 9th, 1969, respectively, and were booked into the county jail on suspicion of murder. Defendant Patricia Krenwinkel was arrested on a fugitive warrant by Alabama Police on December 5th, 1969, in Mobile, Alabama, and extradited to Los Angeles. Charles Manson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins were subsequently convicted of seven counts of Penal Code Section 187 and one count of Penal Code Section 182.1, conspiracy to commit murder on January 25th, 1971. The jury returned with a penalty of death. On December 17th, 1972, Susan Atkins appeared in court and the sentence of death for each count imposed on April 19th, 1971, was vacated and set aside. Ms. Atkins was sentenced to state prison for life, concurrently on each count. The prisoner's version states: Ms. Atkins indicated she would like to update the prisoner's version of her commitment offense. The following is a summation of Ms. Atkins' version. Ms. Atkins states that she had very low self-esteem when she was younger. This was -- This was due to the death of her mother, her father's drinking and the inability to hold down a job, a lack of interest in school, being sexually molested and her association with drug users. These factors made her particularly susceptible to the community setting that the 1960's culture provided. This is how she ended up in a commune relationship with Charles Manson. Ms. Atkins states that she had a very cynical view of contemporary social values due to her family denigration, and as a result, had early brushes with the law. She was arrested at an early age for grand theft auto in violation of the Dyer Act, because she unknowingly hitched a ride with two men who had stolen a car. As a result of this early arrest, Ms. Atkins developed a mistrust of police in general. Ms. Atkins states she became involved in drugs -- in drug use due to the fact that she had no family support while growing up. She did, however, receive a lot of social support from other drug users. They contributed to her belief that the government was hypocritical and reinforced her mistrust of the government and disrespect of the law in general. Once she became involved with the communal setting of The Family, it was very hard to leave. The only friends she had were in The Family. The communal setting didn't allow for her to possess money and there was no housing of her own. The Family moved frequently, and therefore, was always isolated from the community. There was no time to make friends outside The Family and it was not encouraged unless these people could be persuaded to join. Shortly thereafter, The Family settled down in the Topanga Canyon and Ms. Atkins had a son. It was in the commune that he was well taken care of. Due to her lack of education and job skills, it would have been difficult to support herself, let alone her son. Despite the fact that the relationship within the commune was generally dysfunctional and abusive, Ms. Atkins' experiences produced a person who was more comfortable within the familiar structure of dysfunctional interactions than an unfamiliar setting of a healthy relationship. Ms. Atkins states that she continued to gravitate towards the abusive relationships rather than the unfamiliar setting of a healthy relationship due to low self-esteem. Ms. Atkins adds once the commitment offenses began it was a shock to her because Charles Manson talked about death so much, but never gave any indication that he was going to do something like that. He would continually test members of The Family by asking them to perform a task. If they refused to do the task, he would tell them that they were still bound up with social inhibitions. If they did the task, he would say forget it and that was the end of it. So when he talked about killing establishment people, it just sounded like one of his rants or one of his tests. Ms. Atkins states while in hindsight, Manson's preoccupation with a class struggle seems like a foreshadowing of what was to come. During that time there was a lot of talk about social revolution and change and much of the talk used violence in a figurative sense. Once the commitment offenses began, Ms. Atkins states there was no way to get away from The Family and there was nowhere to go. She feared for her life and feared for the life of her son, due to the fact that she acknowledged that Shorty Shea had been killed simply because Manson thought he might talk. Ms. Atkins states due to her dysfunctional upbringing and her drug use, she eventually developed a misguided sense of loyalty to the family. She states that there were physical factors that made it especially hard to turn to the police after the crime had been committed. Topanga Canyon was miles from anywhere and she didn't have a car. The only way of leaving was -- The only way of leaving Spahn Ranch was if someone else was with her, and she was being watched constantly. Ms. Atkins concludes that the time that -- that the time that the crimes were committed, she was seriously disturbed, mentally ill and having delusions, psychotic paranoia and suffering from chronic LSD use. At this time I will proceed with a review of your criminal history. And the document that I will specifically be referring to is --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I think we need to have a reading of the Statement of Facts on the eighth murder too, the Gary Hinman killing. It's not included in the Board packet, and it's case number A267861 that occurred on or about July 25th, 1969.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And where do you find that?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Well it's mistakenly omitted in the Board packet that she was actually sentenced on two separate cases. The case number is referenced in the first paragraph, A26786. That is the killing of Gary Hinman, although Mr. Hinman's name is not mentioned in the first paragraph.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, I will ask--

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: And in the summary of the crime, it omits the facts --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: -- surrounding Mr. Hinman's death. I do find when I was looking for a Statement of Facts regarding that killing, and I found one actually further back if the Panel wants to use it, and their prior decisions. And this would be the -- It is the decision of -- I'm having trouble finding the date.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Well I'll tell you what, I'll ask Commissioner Lushbough to locate that for me, and in the meantime, I will --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Or actually I can --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- proceed and -- proceed and --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I can --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- review the criminal history.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I can just pass it -- pass my (indiscernible) to Commissioner Lushbough.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Thank you.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: And it's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And specifically --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: -- the next -- it might be the next page. It says the Statement of Facts.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Why don't we use the court transcripts from the plea agreement?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, I'm going to review this and I'll make the decision, sir. Okay, again, I'm going to allow Commissioner Lushbough to page through this.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And locate what she believes to be the best version for me to use at this point. And in the meantime, what I will do is I will review the criminal history.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: That's fine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay. What I don't want to do is sit here and page through --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: No, I understand.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- files and take up additional time, because I know this is going to be a long hearing.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Well I understand. I don't --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, so at this point I will review Ms. Atkins' criminal history and in the meantime, Commissioner Lushbough will locate the Statement of Facts as it relates to count eight. The document that I am referring to is page four, which is the probation officer's report. And it will be under the legal tab, legal documents. And I will read in to the record the information as presented. The record states that in 1966, in Salem, Oregon, Ms. Atkins was charged or arrested for possession of concealed weapon and receiving stolen property. On September 1966, she was again charged with the Dyer Act. I think you were charged with the Dyer Act on the 29th and another one on the 30th, and I believe that one of them was for hitchhiking a ride with a couple of individuals that had stolen a vehicle.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And I believe the second one was for something having to do with a tax collector. Is that correct? It's not real clear.

INMATE ATKINS: Having to do with what?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: A tax collector. It's not real clear in the record.

INMATE ATKINS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Does that sound accurate?

INMATE ATKINS: No, I don't know anything about a tax collector.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you know what the second Dyer Act issue is about?

INMATE ATKINS: I believe that we had received stolen property when I was with the two gentlemen and the car passed across state lines.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay. The record just reflects tax collector, Portland, Oregon Dyer Act, and there are no additional details.

INMATE ATKINS: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: You don't recall that?

INMATE ATKINS: No, Ma'am, I do not recall anything about a tax collector.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: In terms of the hitchhiking, the record reflects that while working as a waitress in San Francisco, defendant met two flashy types who offered to take her to Oregon in their new car. It turned out later that the car was stolen and the two men made their living by a means of a series of robberies; usually armed. Although she was somewhat fearful, particularly when the ex-convict put a gun on her, she agreed to go along with them as she was attracted to the other man. The two men subsequently learned that they were being sought by Oregon State authorities and went into hiding camping out. They survived by stealing supplies from other campers in the area where they were hiding. They were eventually apprehended and after three months in jail in Salem, the defendant was convicted, placed on probation and allowed to return to California under interstate probation and parole compact. The record also reflects that in 1968, you were arrested for reproduction for possession of facsimile driver's license. In other words, fake driver's licenses. And the record states the defendant -- the defendant along with ten others were found on private property camped out at Deer Creek Road and Highway One. Upon request for identification, they produced driver's licenses that had been fictitiously and fraudulently prepared. This defendant had no proof of age. Does that sound accurate?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay. And on June 22nd of 1968, you were arrested or charged with possession of dangerous drugs with prior possession of marijuana, use of minor. You subsequently entered a plea of guilty to the possession of marijuana. The court suspended pronouncement of sentence for a period of three years and placed you on probation. Is that accurate?

INMATE ATKINS: That's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, and then in June of 1969, probation was reinstated and modified and subsequently terminated. The Sheriff's Office in Boonville, California was notified June 21st, 1968, by Mrs. Walkenthall -- Wassenthall, that she believed someone had given her son, 17 age , some LSD. Officers investigated and found the boy to be shaking, nervous and complaining of seeing things, hallucinations. He told the officers that he had received a blue tablet from a girl at a hippie house. He pointed out the location to where Sheriff's deputies were dispatched. They found the house to be occupied by five females, three males and an infant. Among the females was the defendant and co-defendant -- were the defendant and co-defendant, PatriciaKrenwinkel, going under the name of (Indiscernible) Patricia Smith. A search was made of the house and surrounding buildings which revealed pills, marijuana, seeds and some LSD. Do you recall that?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay. And then in August of 1969, you were arrested for grand theft auto. Is that accurate?

INMATE ATKINS: That's accurate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: What was the disposition on that?

INMATE ATKINS: It was the charges I believe were dropped.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The charges were dropped?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, and you were also charged with homicide and you were subsequently released to Los Angeles County on that charge.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, having to do with the current offense.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, is there anything else that you'd like to add or correct for the record relative to your criminal history?

INMATE ATKINS: No, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Commissioner, I have the probation officer's report with -- which describes on the second page, the facts of the Hinman case, which is A267861. And in addition, I did locate the decision that the Board had, which apparently (inaudible) mentioned. And that was dated 12/16/82. Both of them are brief.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: It's the bottom paragraph.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: In reference to count eight, case number A267861, on July 25th, 1969, the prisoner and crime partners, Robert Kenneth Beausoleil --

INMATE ATKINS: Beausoleil.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Charles -- How do you pronounce that again?

INMATE ATKINS: Beausoleil.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Beausoleil, Charles Manson, Bruce Davis and Mary Brunner, together and separately went to the home of victim, Gary Hinman, to solicit money from him. The victim apparently failed to satisfy their request and he was kept prisoner for a period of time and was cut and stabbed repeatedly. The cause of death was described to be a stab wound in the heart. The body was discovered on July 31st, 1968.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Is that the entire thing?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That's the brief summary. Yes, it's a brief summary of it.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Most of that contradicts the report here in Susan's plea during that -- And if we're not here to retry the case --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you have that document?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Yeah, you guys have it too. Legal documents; under legal documents in the file. It's not -- These aren't consecutively numbered. I guess I'm 20, 30 pages in.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Is there a title on the section?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yeah, what's the title on the report? There are numerous reports.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Superior Court of California, Honorable Leland Choate, Judge. People of the State of California versus Susan Denise Atkins.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Let me see how far it goes.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What is this, at the sentencing hearing on May 27th of '71? Is that what you're referring to?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: There we go.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: May 27th, 1971.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Perfect.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: 3:10p.m.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Yes, this is where the state agrees to drop the robbery charges and the conspiracy charges.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: And they entered into a plea agreement with Susan, which means she wasn't tried and convicted. Susan and the District Attorney's Office agreed that they would (indiscernible) -- that they would -- that she would plead guilty to this. Not to robbery, not to conspiracy to commit robbery, not to torture. And the District Attorney's Office, a representative accepted that plea and stated on the record that it was his evidence that she had not, in fact, killed Gary Hinman.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The document states -- The specific --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I disagree with Counsel's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- document that --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- characterization of that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- document that Mr. Whitehouse is referring to is the Superior Court of the State of California, Department Number 106, Los Angeles, California, Thursday, May 27th, 1971, 3:10 p.m. And there's some disagreement from the District Attorney in regards to the interpretation of this document, sir?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It's a sentencing hearing and she's clearly indicated in the sentencing hearing what her participation was and it's basically suffocating the victim as he was dying. And she pled guilty to murder. I fail to see how that somehow -- a plea to the first degree murder of Gary Hinman in exchange for dropping the death penalty and for a concurrent sentence to somehow mean that Ms. Atkins didn't kill Mr. Hinman.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We will --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Ma'am?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: You know we'll review that during the -- We'll take a break at some point and we will review that again and then if I -- if we decide to make any modifications or not, we will state that at that time.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Can we just (indiscernible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: At this point I'm going to move on and discuss personal factors. And if there are specific areas that you would like me to consider, please go ahead and --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Should I bring them up during my summation?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Note them -- Note them -- Note them and then during the break we will -- we will look at them.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I'd like to get them on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Go ahead, briefly. Or do you want to wait until after the break and that will give you some time to review the documents?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Yes, I can (indiscernible) exactly. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, at this time what I'm going to do is review personal factors. On the January 1st, 2005 Board report, if we look at these pages, they are not paged, but specifically under the heading of personal factors. And the record states, Susan Atkins was born on May 7th, 1948, as the second child of Edward John Atkins and Jean (Indiscernible). She lived in the San Gabriel area for the first six months of her life and from the age of six months to 16 years, lived in Santa Clara. At the age of 16, two years after the death of her mother, she moved around for about two years, living with various relatives. Periodically, she lived with her father until she was about 18 years old when she went out on her own. Susan Atkins says that she does not even remember being close to her mother. Ms. Atkins says her father was an alcoholic. After her mother died, when she was 14 years old, they started breaking apart. Ms. Atkins had the full responsibility of the home and felt as if she was not living up to her father's expectations. At this time she began to move around, living with various relatives. This was a very unhappy time for her. Ms. Atkins has never been married, but she does have one child. You are married at this point.

INMATE ATKINS: I am. Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And you have one child by the name of Paul. You have a son.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And I saw something in the record that indicated that you hadn't had any contact with him since he was one and a half years old. Is that accurate?

INMATE ATKINS: That's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: You've had no contact with him since then?

INMATE ATKINS: No. The courts, when I was sentenced to death, the court decided to take parental custody away from me and he was adopted. His records were sealed. His name was changed. I'm very grateful for that. And I have no idea where he is. I am just grateful that he hasn't been touched by any of this.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay. The record reflects that when you were about 18, you became an alcoholic for about six months.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And what triggered that?

INMATE ATKINS: My father ran away and left me to take care of my younger brother without any support and I couldn't handle the stress and I did what I said I would never do, and that was drink.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Where did he go?

INMATE ATKINS: I don't know. I have no idea where he went. My grandparents at that time said they found him somewhere near San Jose and my brother and I went to live with my grandparents, who were also living in Los Banos at that time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, how did you support your brother? I mean did you support yourself and your brother?

INMATE ATKINS: I was going to school and I was also working part time as a waitress at the International Pancake House in Los Banos, and that's how I was able to take care of him. My grandparents eventually took care of him (indiscernible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: When did your father return?

INMATE ATKINS: I had left and I have no idea when he returned.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay.

INMATE ATKINS: I left my grandparents' house.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And your grandparents lived nearby or?

INMATE ATKINS: They lived in Los Banos. Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, the record states that you admit to the use of hashish or marijuana when you were about 18. You deny any drug use prior to . At age 18 1/2, she said she started using LSD regularly. And who introduced you to LSD?

INMATE ATKINS: Two sailors that I had met in San Francisco on Market Street. They both introduced me to marijuana and LSD.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Marijuana and LSD?

INMATE ATKINS: Uh-hmm.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Ms. Atkins says that she went as far as the 11th grade at Los Emanuel High School. She dropped out due to failing grades and since the school wanted her to repeat the 11th grade. After leaving high school, she worked for a magazine agency as a girl Friday. And this is -- What is a girl Friday?

INMATE ATKINS: Kind of a go for. Go for the coffee, go for the paperwork, sit at the desk, look good for the company and do whatever the boss said do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And I'll note in an earlier report that part of the reason that you dropped out of high school is because you didn't -- in general, you just didn't like school.

INMATE ATKINS: It wasn't that I didn't like school. It was that I couldn't catch up. At the time that my mother passed away, I started failing. My grades really started failing. Yeah. I couldn't ever catch up, so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It was overwhelming?

INMATE ATKINS: It was. Yes, I was not able to handle it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: After leaving high school, as you indicated, you went to work for a magazine agency as a girl Friday. You subsequently left this employment because your boss failed to pay you. She did not like the conditions under which she had to work. For short periods of time she did various types of jobs including housecleaning, babysitting, cocktail waitress and topless dancing. She also did a great deal of traveling. Who did you travel with?

INMATE ATKINS: Anybody that would give me a ride.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: So you hitchhiked?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: You hitchhiked. Okay, there's no history of mental health treatment or Military service. Your brother, how old is your brother today?

INMATE ATKINS: I have two brothers.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Two brothers.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, I have one is 60. The other one is 52.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you -- Do you keep in touch with both of your brothers?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Where do they live? General area.

INMATE ATKINS: Up in Central California.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Central California?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Both of them.

INMATE ATKINS: One is also in Texas.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, do they visit you often? Particularly the one in Central California?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, he comes as often as they are able; he and his wife and they (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: How often is that?

INMATE ATKINS: Once every two years. It's difficult for them to get the finances to come down here so often.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: How about your brother from Texas?

INMATE ATKINS: I haven't seen him since before I was arrested.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, and how old was he at that time?

INMATE ATKINS: 24.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: 24. Okay, and I do note in reviewing your letters of support, numerous letters of support; that you have letters of support from numerous family members; aunts and such.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Who else do you keep in contact with? Relatives, in terms of relatives.

INMATE ATKINS: My mother-in-law, my sister-in-law, my husband's aunt and uncle and his family, their family. Everybody else in my family is deceased.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you keep in touch with -- Well, do you keep in touch -- I'm sure you probably have nieces, nephews.

INMATE ATKINS: I have two nieces. Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Two nieces. Okay, so you do keep in touch with some people on your side of the family.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: As opposed to visits.

INMATE ATKINS: My brother and his wife and my two nieces, my oldest brother. I keep in touch with them. That's all I have left on my side of the family.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And how often do you get visits from any of your relatives? Either side?

INMATE ATKINS: I see my husband every weekend and I see my younger brother and his family sometimes every year and a half, sometimes two; every two years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And how long have you been married?

INMATE ATKINS: Seventeen and a half years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And how did you meet your husband?

INMATE ATKINS: He wrote to me and offered friendship and I was at a place emotionally where I thought maybe I could offer friendship back. (Indiscernible) I was interested in. And after a year of writing, he asked me if he could come visit. And I invited him to come visit and we developed a very, very deep friendship and he -- and then after about two years he asked me to marry him and I said yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: So you've been married for about 15?

INMATE ATKINS: 17 years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, 17.

INMATE ATKINS: I met him almost 20 years ago.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: 20 years ago.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, is there anything else you'd like to add in regards to your personal factors that you'd like to place on the record?

INMATE ATKINS: I can't think of anything in relationship to my family. Is that what you're talking about?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Your family, your upbringing, your social history.

INMATE ATKINS: Simply that I have dealt with all of those issues. I have availed myself probably years of group therapy in which to deal with the causation factors that brought me to prison. And then after the therapy was discontinued here in prison for life term prisoners, I continued to avail myself, self-help groups and anything that I could get a hold of that would help me deal with why I'm in prison.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, thank you. In terms of your parole plans, the record reflects that you plan to reside with your husband in the Los Angeles area upon your release to parole.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And that you plan to work for your husband or with your husband as a legal secretary or paralegal.

INMATE ATKINS: Both.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Both. And I do note --

INMATE ATKINS: I want to do both.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And I do note that you do have a paralegal certification that you received while incarcerated.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Is that accurate?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, so you'll be fully qualified.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, is there anything else that you'd like to add in regards to your residence or employment plans?

INMATE ATKINS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, I do want to note for the record that we do have numerous letters of support. I will not be reading them into the record in the interest of time. We have at least 250; probably more letters of support from a variety of family members, acquaintances, friends and such that are supporting your release. And I also do note for the record that we have about 120 letters of opposition that are in the confidential section of the Central File in regards to your release to parole. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 3042, the notices were sent to agencies that might have an interest in your case, such as law enforcement, the Public Defender's Office, the District Attorney's Office and such. And I do note that we did receive two responses; one from the Los Angeles Police Department and one from the County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. And I will read those into the record. The first from the Los Angeles Police Department, Greg R. Hall. Excuse me. William J. Bratton, Chief of Police. The letter is dated May 10th, 2005, and the letter states: The Los Angeles Police Department welcomes the opportunity to comment and give its recommendations on the parole suitability of Susan Atkins. The commitment offense was carried out in an especially heinous, atrocious, cruel and callous manner. It involved multiple victims who were attacked and killed during the same incident. Susan Atkins and her accomplices brutally murdered and mutilated seven victims. These crimes became known as the Tate-LaBianca murders. We recommend this parole be denied. It is the Department's position to adamantly oppose the release of this inmate back into the community. Susan Atkins should remain segregated from society. You have a second letter, as I previously indicated, from the County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. It's dated May 11th,2005, written by Raymond H. Peavey, Captain, Homicide Bureau. And the record states: On July 31st, 1969, victim Gary Hinman was found murdered in his home. An investigation later revealed that inmate Atkins along with Robert -- How do you pronounce that again?

INMATE ATKINS: Beausoleil.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Beausoleil, Charles Manson, Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis were responsible for Hinman's death. Initially Robert Beausoleil, Mary Brunner and inmate Atkins went to Hinman's residence to obtain money. Hinman refused to give the group any money and a fight broke out. Charles Manson and Bruce Davis were called to the location by Beausoleil. Manson and Davis responded to the location and Manson slashed Hinman's face with a sword, nearly severing his ear. He later left the location, stealing one of Hinman's cars. During this robbery, victim Hinman was tortured for two days, during which time he had been beaten, slashed with a sword and held prisoner in his home. During this time, victim Hinman was forced to sign over the pink slip of his two cars, postdating his signature. Hinman was stabbed after attempts to locate any other property of value in the location were exhausted. After wiping the location down to remove fingerprints, inmate Atkins, Beausoleil and Brunner started to leave the location and heard Hinman making loud gurgling noises. [Thereupon, the tape was turned over.]

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: We are on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: After wiping the location down to remove fingerprints, inmate Atkins, Beausoleil and Brunner started to leave the location and heard Hinman making loud gurgling noises and the trio re-entered the location and took turns holding a pillow over the victim's face. Inmate Atkins was a willing participant in the torture and murder of Hinman and the theft of Hinman's valuables after his death. Inmate Atkins is also serving time for her participation in the August 1969 multiple murders investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department, which were coined by the media as the Tate-LaBianca murders. Inmate Atkins also assisted in cleaning up the murder scene when Donald "Shorty" Shea was murdered by Atkins' associates in 1969. It is truly difficult to comprehend the absolute and total disregard for human life that inmate actions -- inmate Atkins' actions are so graphically illustrated. Her willing participation in these egregious acts is beyond comprehension. Based on these facts, it is the opinion of this Department that the parole of inmate Atkins is inappropriate and should be denied. We also have a representative from the District Attorney's Office that will be making a statement prior to the conclusion of this hearing. At this time I'd like to ask you, Counsel, if there are any particular letters of support that you would like read into the record, recognizing that not -- we cannot read all 250 or 300 that are currently in the file?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Susan said that this -- Do you like this one?

INMATE ATKINS: Yeah.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: How about?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, definitely. Most assuredly of those.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Instead of these?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And this was written by whom?

INMATE ATKINS: My family.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, who specifically? I can't read the signature.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Charise.

INMATE ATKINS: It's Charise.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Charise?

INMATE ATKINS: That's my niece, Charise.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And the letter states -- There's no date on the letter that I can see.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Is that (inaudible)?

INMATE ATKINS: Excuse me.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I (inaudible)?

INMATE ATKINS: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: When I was younger and I went to visit my aunt, we had a limited time. I didn't understand why and also never understood why she couldn't come visit me. It didn't make sense. I visit other members of my family for as long as I wanted as could they, so why couldn't she. Then I realized that it was because she was and still to this day is in jail. My aunt is the best. She is the nicest, most religious and wonderful person that I know. She is an awesome artist, has made me jewelry and has made me something to. I can't read that.

INMATE ATKINS: I think that's jewelry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Jewel -- Well, I've read that in. There's a second word that I can't read. At this very moment she is making me and my sisters' names out of wire. I can't wait to see them. My aunt has no real life outside these prison walls. She was married, yes, but only because my uncle, James, was visiting someone else at the prison and they fell in love. They had no real life together and they deserve a chance together outside of prison. I know that some people would say let her rot, but that's because these people don't know her. They don't know who she really is; how sweet, how kind she is. They don't know her like I do. They don't know how she spends her extra time. She prays at least twice a day, if not more, but not for herself, for those around her and those she doesn't know. I have relatives who live across the United States in Ohio that I have seen so many times that I've lost track. Yet I have an aunt in Los Angeles who I can count on two hands how many times I've seen her. That's sad. When I visit my aunt, one of the biggest things that bothers me is that she can't even touch me or touch money. Excuse me. Touch money as if they don't trust her. If she wanted to get something out of one of those vending machines, she would not be able to get anything herself. Someone else would have to get it for her. I mean I know it's not that bad or anything, but they act as if she is going to steal money from us. Only she's not a thief and she's not a murderer. She's simply a woman living in the worst place she could live, even though she has so much love for God and everyone else in the world. It would knock them and all of us off of our feet. She has stuck through it, no matter what has happened. I have waited for this moment for so long and so has my aunt. And now it has -- And now it is here. I'm nervous. I know as well as you that God has forgiven her. Now she's waiting for your forgiveness and now it's your turn to forgive. How old is your niece?

INMATE ATKINS: 14.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: 14, okay. Okay, I'll tell you what. I'm going to do this. It would be easier for you to read these since you've read them before. So what I will do is if you would like to read these as part of your closing statement, these remaining letters, I'll give you the opportunity to do so.

INMATE ATKINS: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, at this time, I'm going to ask Commissioner Lushbough to cover your post-conviction factors with you. Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Good afternoon, Ms. Atkins.

INMATE ATKINS: Good afternoon.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: You were received December 18th, 1972, into CDC, and your last hearing was December 28th, 2000. That was here at CIW, and at that time you were denied parole for four years. Is that correct?

INMATE ATKINS: That's correct.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: The period that I'm going to review for post-conviction begins December 28th, 2000, and comes forward to today. With some exceptions we may go back somewhat, but for the most part, it's that period of review. You've been at zero classification points for many years. I went back as far as 1993, and you were still at zero at that point. Currently you do have the 28 mandatory placement score that all lifers have. You have five 115's; none during this review period. In fact, you have6 been free of 115's for approximately 12 years. Is that your understanding as well?

INMATE ATKINS: (Inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: The most recent one was in March of '93, and had to do with some unauthorized documents at the workstation. Counseling chronos, you have had a couple. Both of them were dated February 7th, 2002, and both of course, are in this review period. Both were categorized as misconduct, so I went back and read them to see if I could get at least a gist of what was going on there. One, apparently you had possession of a shirt without permission. It looked as if you had returned it, but did have it at one point. And the other had to do with a creamer that was in a desk drawer. Is that your understanding of the --

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: There was a 128(b) that I'll bring up, although it is not considered to be disciplinary. But it is a behavioral thing. Apparently June 24th, 2002, there were some prints that you had created for -- from here that were on sale. You made them in hobby craft. And the staff here felt that there was a misrepresentation in that it said that the proceeds from the sale of the prints would be -- would go to the victims of crime, the crime victims. And in actuality, when they investigated it, what they found was that the proceeds were going to go to a crime victim who had brought a civil -- had obtained a civil judgment against you. Is that correct?

INMATE ATKINS: That's correct.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay, are you now not allowed to have your prints for sale or have you -- are you continuing, but with a different representation? I'm not sure what's going on.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Can I? Can I answer?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Well, I'd like to hear from her unless she feels she should not answer, then of course you can do that.

INMATE ATKINS: I would defer it to my attorney to respond.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Those were allegations that were investigated for a year and on the basis -- In fact, the Warden here apparently thought that Susan had a court ordered restitution order not a civil judgment. Of course, court orders and restitution orders have to handled through the CDC. Civil judgments don't. And so when he heard that she was paying into this and couldn't find any paperwork, they investigated it. A year later they gave her all her privileges back and she wasn't charged with anything. She wasn't even given a 115. She wasn't even given a 128, a counseling chrono.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: A 128(b), just the investigative part.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Yeah, an information chrono.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Actually you did answer my question. All I wanted to know is whether or not she had gotten her privileges back or not or if she was still --

INMATE ATKINS: Everything.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: -- deprived of that.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, everything was reinstated.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay, and that was the question. All right. Well you talked to Commissioner Perez about your education, the GED followingth 11th grade and an AA, which was General Education. And then at one point you were working on a BA, but if I'm not mistaken, funding no longer was available. Were you able to continue with the BA?

INMATE ATKINS: I'm continuing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Are you?

INMATE ATKINS: To work with my -- towards my Bachelor of Arts Degree.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: How close are you?

INMATE ATKINS: I have four electives -- four and a half electives left.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: That's good. You're close.

INMATE ATKINS: Very close.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And it's all correspondence work that you do.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: How about the paralegal course? Was that also correspondence?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: How long did that take you?

INMATE ATKINS: About six months; six and a half months. I worked on it almost every day.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Was that through a university or through Blackstone?

INMATE ATKINS: Blackstone University.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay.

INMATE ATKINS: And there's my Bachelor of Science Degree and (indiscernible) my Bachelor of Arts Degree. It's through Newport University.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay. In terms of work history, you'd been a teaching assistant at re-entry, which meant you did a lot of things such as facilitating in Breaking Barriers, for instance. You'd been a clerk receptionist. You had exceptional work reports when you were doing that. As a facilitator clerk, as recently as, well, from October of 2004 to January of 2005, you were above average to satisfactory; mostly above average grade reports. Tell me something about your responsibilities.

INMATE ATKINS: I assist the re-entry instructor by taking care of the attendance reports from him. And every three weeks, he has 27 new students in the class, so it's a very fast turnover. These women are preparing to go home. And in 1985, I was instructed to train at this -- certified as a Breaking Barriers facilitator. Breaking Barriers is a CDC mandated part of the re-entry curriculum. And my instructor and supervisor did not know how to facilitate Breaking Barriers. He had all of the videos, all of the books. He had everything, but he did not have a facilitator, so he hired me specifically to facilitate Breaking Barriers, which is a video session process that the women go through. There are 22 workshops that I assist these 27 women in understanding. Breaking Barriers bridges the gap between understanding what their barriers are to success, helping them to understand what their habits and attitudes are towards their barriers. I help them identify three different barriers, work with them through those barriers and then assist them in learning how to write affirmations that they can then take with them to achieve goals. I teach them how to write down goals and visions and then to move from where their -- what their current reality is; incarceration towards a successful reintegration, family reunification and the outside community. I think over 250 women I have assisted in that process since I started working with Mr. (Indiscernible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Do you get -- Do you ever get feedback after they're out in the community?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, I have a letter. One of the letters --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Is that one you'll be reading today?

INMATE ATKINS: This one that I will be reading today. I keep them because they inspire me and encourage me to continue. I would say that approximately five or six women out of 27 really, really are interested in succeeding. When they come into re-entry, they really, really want it. By the time they -- 20 to 25 of the 27 women have a grasp on what they need to do in order to succeed on parole.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: That must be very rewarding for you to do that and --

INMATE ATKINS: Very, very rewarding.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: -- have that kind of response.

INMATE ATKINS: It's the way that I can give back to the outside community.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: What I want to do is go on to self-help and group activities. And there's a long list of them, but I'll go through them and mention them and if you have things you want to tell me or I may have some questions. We'll go through it.

INMATE ATKINS: All right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: One of the things that I see through this whole review period consistently is your membership and participation in the Long Termers Organization.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Have you held any offices or done anything in the way of leadership within that organization?

INMATE ATKINS: I have not held any office. I have elected not to hold an office because of the amount of self-help groups that I participate in. I would have to let some go in order to take on the responsibilities of somebody in the executive body of any one organization. With the Long Termers Organization, I try to assist the women in preparing themselves to come and sit here before the Board of Prison Terms and help them present themselves in the most honest light.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Do you do a model or mock hearings so that they --

INMATE ATKINS: I have.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: -- can actually see it?

INMATE ATKINS: I have helped women with mock hearings. Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: I would think that would be very helpful for them.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: They would see it up close and --

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: -- (indiscernible) in what they say. How about the Co-Dependency Twelve Step? You were a facilitator.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Is that a part of Breaking Barriers?

INMATE ATKINS: CODA is not really part of Breaking Barriers.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay.

INMATE ATKINS: Co-dependency does enter into the dynamics of some of the ruts that women find themselves in. Low self-esteem, they may be co-dependent, they may have drug issues or alcohol issues or anger issues. And CODA is just one of many of the facets of Breaking Barriers.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Prison Fellowship Ministries. How long have you been in and are you -- first of all, are you still involved with it today?

INMATE ATKINS: Prison Fellowship comes in and does seminars on Saturdays now and Saturday and Sunday are the only days that I have to visit my husband, so I've chosen to visit with my family as opposed to participating in Prison Fellowship. And if they had other organizations -- meetings throughout the week, I would participate in those, but they don't.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: You've had two laudatory chronos having to do with Sharing Our Stitches. One in 2000 and in 2001. And you apparently were a member of the executive body for Sharing Our Stitches.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: What position did you hold?

INMATE ATKINS: I held the chairperson position for Sharing Our Stitches for a year.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Is that a rotating position?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, we try to rotate it so that everybody has an opportunity to experience leadership.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: In 2002, you were part of the -- I think it's called MARA, Mexican American Resource Association.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: You participated in their festival for Cinco de Mayo.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Have you done that more than once or is that --

INMATE ATKINS: I've participated throughout my incarceration with MARA on an intermittent basis.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And African American Women Prisoner Association. There was a special notation of your participation in Drug Awareness Counseling and Relapse Prevention.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Were you being trained or were you one of the facilitators?

INMATE ATKINS: I was participating in DAC from the first time because I wanted to be able to incorporate that into other areas of my community betterment process here. And I will be going back to DAC to contribute more probably the next time they start up a new session. They have six month sessions. So I took the last six months and because they meet on Monday, there's another organization that is very, very important to me and that's Bible Study Fellowship. They also meet on Monday, so I try to alternate between the two organizations.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay, hobby craft, you've been involved in that. Are you still involved in hobby craft?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay, how long have you been involved in hobby craft?

INMATE ATKINS: I've been involved in hobby craft as long as I've been incarcerated.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Well I'm aware of printmaking, but I also noticed that you've done some beadwork; teaching in beadwork.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And you had a laudatory chrono for that.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: I believe it's called bead and design class.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Any other classes that you've taught?

INMATE ATKINS: I've taught watercolor and have facilitated in pen and ink.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay, how about the unit garden project? That was -- I wasn't familiar with that. What is that?

INMATE ATKINS: In CIW, for several years, they had a community beautification project. And they invited those of us who like to garden to pick a section in the prison and then kind of adopt a garden and then work that garden. And I did that for several years. I helped clean up the family visiting unit gardens for several years. And then I became the -- housing where I lived, the housing unit gardener, which was my job from 1995 until 1999 -- '98, '99, when I became disabled and I could no longer do that kind of work physically. I couldn't handle it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: I know that you've been involved in AA, NA, and of course we've talked about CODA. And you facilitated the Twelve Steps. Can you tell me something about the Steps? And what I mean by that is is there one Step that was particularly difficult for you to work on?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, making a fearless and moral inventory.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Did you do that?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am. I have done it. I have done it and done it and done it and I continue to do it almost on a daily basis. I can't lay my head down on my pillow without making an assessment of my behavior (indiscernible) the day.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And is there a Step that you have found was particularly helpful to you?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, having had a spiritual awakening, I endeavor every day to practice the principles of AA in all of my affairs. And that is the relationship with my family and my relationships with the Administration here, the correctional officers and people I work with, the women in my (indiscernible). I give it away. You can't keep it if you don't give it away.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: We've kind of talked about Breaking Barriers here, being a facilitator. But what about NA? I understand you were a peer facilitator in 2001 and 2003 and 2004.

INMATE ATKINS: I was the what?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: A peer facilitator.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, through the Mental Health, I worked with the peer helper and facilitated a substance abuse group. And we met, I believe it was every Thursday afternoon for about four years. And that the peer helper that I was co-facilitating with, her job was she went to another position to do institutional classification rules and regulations and she has not yet been able to re-establish the substance abuse group. But that was very, very rewarding to help women work through their addiction problems.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Well in that same vein, I found a substance abuse program in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, that was the Inmate Assistance Modular.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And you -- that's a co-facilitator. Is that part of this NA or separate from?

INMATE ATKINS: That's separate from NA.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay.

INMATE ATKINS: NA, I attend NA every third Wednesday of the month. The AA/NA organization, self-help organization, they have Alanon meets the first Wednesday. AA/NA, the second Wednesday. NA, the third Wednesday. CODA, the fourth Wednesday, and then if there's a fifth Wednesday in the month, they have another meeting for Adult Children of Alcoholics. And so I only attend the Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: That's a lot of meetings, but clearly you have that under control and know when they are and what they are.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: How about the Shalom Sisterhood? I know that you've been involved in that as well and I know that they have substance abuse, but are there other things in addition to that that you participate in?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, we, the Shalom Sisterhood is an organization that is dedicated to reaching all cultures, giving the community here video-based understanding of different cultures and different religions throughout the world. And when we meet, we watch a series of videos; one video per meeting. And then we have discussions about the culture that we just learned a little bit about. And that's what Shalom Sisterhood is about.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: You mentioned your Bible Study and that's a -- that's important to you. How long have you been doing that?

INMATE ATKINS: I've been studying the Bible for 31 years; almost 32 years.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And that's through an organization that provides materials or do you do this independently?

INMATE ATKINS: I did many independent studies and any time that there's a Bible Study that I can get to that will give me the meat of the word of God and I'm able to attend it, I will go there. That's one of the reasons why I enjoy Bible Study Fellowship so much.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Pathways to Wholeness. That was December of 2004. What was that about?

INMATE ATKINS: Pathways to Wholeness is there are three women volunteers that come in from the Catholic community, the Arch Diocese, and they have three different groups in Pathways to Wholeness. One is dedicated to substance abuse. One, I believe volunteers meets with the women to deal with victims of sexual abuse, other forms of abuse. And then the third one is called Centering Prayer where we learn how to meditate and be still and just listen.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Creative Conflict Resolution also in December of 2004. How long of a course was that?

INMATE ATKINS: It was an eight week course. It was the first of its kind ever here at CIW. Again, brought in by the Conflict Resolution organization of the Inland Empire, the Church of Saint Vincent de Paul's.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Have you found that you can apply some of the principles that you've learned?

INMATE ATKINS: I am amazed at what I've learned through Conflict Resolution and how much I've already applied that to my life and how much more I can learn. We are in our second group currently and have plans to move forward and we hope as (indiscernible) sanctioned to be able to bring in victim's families to meet with the inmates where we can do -- have some panels where we would be allowed to answer questions and be asked questions by families of victims.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Parables of Jesus, that was in May of 2003. It looks like it was ten sessions.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Was that a lecture type of session or was it a ready -- a writing and study session?

INMATE ATKINS: Father Michael Manning, the parish in Riverside, California, did a video-based program called Parables of Jesus. And we would meet in the Chapel with our Chaplain, our former Chaplain Neal, who was the Catholic priest here. We would watch the video and then we would have group discussions about the parable.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And Toastmasters, 2002. Are you still participating in that?

INMATE ATKINS: Toastmasters conflicts currently with another program that I'm involved in. I was asked by the recreational committee to participate with them in the assistance of the cessation of smoking in the prison. And I was asked to hold an exercise program on Thursday evenings, so I cannot participate in both. And many, many women are going to by themselves without nicotine on July 1st, and they need a healthy release for that addiction. And so I opted to participate in helping my community quit smoking at this time. It's a little more important that learning how to do public speaking at this current time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay, World Aids Day. That was in 2002. You were commended in a chrono for your participation in that. Crazy Quilt Project in 2002. How long had you been involved in the Crazy Quilt Project?

INMATE ATKINS: The hobby craft manager, Blanche Bautiste, had invited several people who are skilled at stitching and creating a crazy quilt. There are 16 other -- No, excuse me. There are 12 panels, 12 women participated in making a crazy quilt, which is currently on display in the education building.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Apparently you were also a MAC chairperson in 2002.

INMATE ATKINS: A what?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: MAC. I'm sorry, WAC, Women's Advisory Commission or Council. Were you WAC?

INMATE ATKINS: No, I am not a Women's Advisory Council member, but I did help them in raising money for the 9/11.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay, and you also participated in the banquet apparently in 2001. I saw a laudatory chrono on that --

INMATE ATKINS: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: -- as well.

INMATE ATKINS: Right, yes. I was invited to participate.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: The 9/11, was that the Victim Relief Program?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am. The women in this prison raised over $6,000 of our own money. I think that's pretty remarkable considering that 75 percent of the women that work here don't have a pay slot and those that do maybe make 19 cents a day.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay.

INMATE ATKINS: So they really sacrificed for that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: I was very curious about the comedy play that you and currently some other people here put together for the general population. The reason I was curious was because the chrono indicated that people had really enjoyed it and it seemed to be voluntary.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes. There were some women that wrote a small play about dysfunctional families and they asked me to participate in it. I gladly did so. It was -- It had a good message.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: What was the message?

INMATE ATKINS: Choose wisely.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And you've been a literacy tutor. Do you continue to do that as well?

INMATE ATKINS: On occasion when I am asked to assist women in the area of preparing for their GED's and essay writing. I help them in that area.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: You also participated in Women's History Month in 2001. You had a certificate for that. Have you continued to do that? Is it an annual event? I guess is the way I should have put that.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Women's History Month is an annual event and I have gotten three awards for my contributions in art in Women's History Month. We have an art competition. We have essay competitions. Outside speakers come in and help to motivate the women to prepare to go back into society. It is the time to honor the women here in the prison and their contributions to the community here as well as to the community outside.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Additionally, we also received a certificate of completion, which is your original, so I'll return this to you at the recess.

INMATE ATKINS: Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: But it certifies that you satisfactorily completed the study, the Acts of the Apostles with Bible Study Fellowship. It was presented May 23rd,2005. That will get back to you before the hearing is over.

INMATE ATKINS: Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Anything I've left out during this review period? Anything I've failed to mention that had -- that you have done in post-conviction, vocation, education, work, self-help, anything else?

INMATE ATKINS: James?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Just in the last four years, since the last hearing? That sounded pretty much covers it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Counsel, unless there is something more to add or to bring to the Panel's attention, what I'd like to do then is move to the most recent psych evaluations. Anything else before I do that?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I have some comments about her behavior, her incarceration behavior, but I'd like to keep that to my --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Certainly. Okay, the psych evaluation prepared by Robert Smith, S-M-I-T-H, dated January the 3rd,2005. We've discussed the print concern with respect to the hobby craft. I don't think we'll -- we need to go into that further. He does note you were comprehensive.

INMATE ATKINS: Yeah, that is that pretty working as a mental health clerk when you were in reception. And Doctor Smith offers a diagnosis on Axis I of Poly Substance Dependence in Remission and Axis II, a Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with Anti Social and Passive Aggressive Features. On page six, he noted that you had handed him a document, four pages in length, which outlines your personal thinking concerning causative factors and your attitude toward the victims and events leading up to, during and after the crimes. And that this document had been made available to the Board in the past. Talks about level of insight, remorse and empathy. That these crimes are horrific and are well beyond what is common in our community. Inmate Atkins does admit responsibility and she offers what appears to be credible expressions of insight and remorse. Complete assurance of her acceptance of responsibility, insight and remorse will probably always be clouded somewhat by the factual disputes that stem from her earlier versions of the crimes. He then goes into a very lengthy discussion under assessment of dangerousness of his HCR-Risk Assessment scheme. And he notes that it isn't possible to apply this directly to women prisoners. That it, in fact, was designed for men to give some idea of the dangerousness after release. The risk ratings that he shows are basically either factor is definitely present, and that's an R or a small R, which is the risk factor is possibly present or a zero which says it is absent. He notes a risk factor present on previous violence, relationship instability, early maladjustment, personality disorder and prior supervision failure. There's a small R, which means possibly present for lack of insight. The rest are zero, which means those factors are not present. In summary, the Doctor offers these statements, and I'll just read them into the record. The inmate is mentally stable with no history of recent dangerousness in a controlled setting. There is no immediate threat of dangerousness should this inmate be released to the community. The inmate has a favorable risk profile for release to the community, conditional on her continued abstinence from alcohol and/or illegal drugs. That is if she remains alcohol and substance free. Future dangerousness is not reasonably foreseeable should be released from custody. He then goes on to say I am full supportive of a release in accordance with these conclusions. He also offers an addendum. And that addendum is dated February 15th, 2005. Again, this is Doctor Smith. Apparently there were some factual concerns that you had when you talked to him.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And he addresses them in the addendum. One is clarifying your job title as teacher's aide in re-entry and facilitating Breaking Barriers being one of your job duties. The next was that he had mentioned that you were a peer facilitator for a substance abuse module in '99, when in fact, she last performed this activity in December of 2003. And also in discussing the rationale of a rating of no risk in the area of substance abuse on page two of the addendum to the previous report, that he says he had commented that inmate Atkins had maintained sobriety for over 20 years, and in fact, as she points out, she has maintained sobriety for approximately 35 years at this point. I didn't see any 115's or anything to indicate that you had ever, since you've been in prison, used alcohol or drugs. Certainly you haven't been written up for them.

INMATE ATKINS: I have not used alcohol or drugs since I've been in prison.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Counsel, if you like, you or Ms. Atkins can certainly make comments on the psych evaluations or you can defer until closing. I'm going to leave that to you as to when you want to make comments, if you do want to make comments.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: You've covered almost everything that I would have. It's mainly (indiscernible) summation, it's so strong. There's only two things, I guess. One was the summation when he says that if she remains alcohol and substance free, future dangerousness is not reasonably foreseeable, which is capitalized. I am fully supportive of release, which you covered, but I just -- I thought it was pretty impressive. The only other thing over here was this person (indiscernible) is real annoying is when he relates relationship instability definitely present. He goes on to say that social support mitigates the risk of violence. And there is some data to suggest that persons in committed relationships, such as marriage, are more stable. And then he goes on just to say that inmate Atkins was living in a non -- in a violent drug using anti-social communal group at the time the crime was committed. It isn't mentioned that you've been married for 17 1/2 years, and nowhere did that pop out of the equation here. Because of his other evaluations, he does take into account 35 years of sobriety during incarceration. Employment, he takes in 35 years of employment during incarceration. I thought that was a little strange that relationship stability, he didn't talk about the last 35 years. But otherwise it's a pretty incredible psych report.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Ms. Atkins, I want to thank you very much for your attention in our discussion here today. I am going to return it to the Chair at this time.

INMATE ATKINS: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Before I give the Deputy District Attorney and Counsel the opportunity to ask questions of Ms. Atkins, we're going to take a break. But before we take a break, I'd like to ask Counsel to provide a list of his objections, if he has them in writing. If not, provide them verbally so that we can consider them during the break.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: The only objections I had is some problems we had in the last hearing concerning CCR 2030(c), which had to do with the prosecutor participation at the last hearing. We had a lot of talk about 2030, about the prosecutor may have reviewed this prisoner's Central File and that any information which is not available in the Central File shall be submitted. We ended up in a long discussion with the Board Member at that time who insisted that the District Attorney didn't have to use things in the Central File. And I guess I objected four times. Three times he overruled me and one time he allowed the District Attorney to overrule me. That was a little strange.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Let me make sure we're clear. The issue was that you didn't feel that the District Attorney should use any information other than what's in the Central File and available to you.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Exactly, as per 2030(c). The other thing that we had the problem last time, a different District Attorney, so I have no idea. 2030(d)(2) states that the role of the prosecutor at these hearings is to comment on the facts of the case. And for the last years he's regaled us with stories about pre-incarceration history and post-incarceration history. And I thought that was improper and in violation of this code. The other thing I'd like to point out is 2326(a), criminal charges not resulting in a prison system. No criminal charges resulting -- not resulting in a criminal -- in a conviction dismissed for any reason shall not effect the parole date unless the factual circumstances are reliably documented and are an integral part of the crime for which the prisoner is currently committed to prison. A lot of the things that we discussed during the pre-incarceration history; charges dropped. Particularly we had trouble last hearing about the Dyer Act, the hitchhiking thing, where he was bringing in things about threatening a state trooper, which I believe never happened. Nonetheless, she wasn't charged with that. She wasn't convicted of that and that does not -- it is not part of -- an integral part of the crime for which she is currently committed. So that should not have -- be relevant to these hearings. And finally,2236, which just says that the facts of the crime shall be discussed with the aim of determining the extent of personal culpability, which would be Susan's participation in the crimes. Which last time and for the last couple of years, we've had to hear about parts of the crime that had nothing to do with her. And I asked the Attorney General and challenged them about it. They seem to think that the phrase, personal culpability and legal culpability were interchangeable. I think that's a strange interpretation because this statute would mean nothing if you were supposed to determine whether or not Susan was convicted. Like I said, that was the District Attorney; different District Attorney, so I have no idea if we're going to have any problems this time. But I'd like to bring it to your attention.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, any other issues?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I don't believe so.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, at this time we'll take a break. The time is 3:52 p.m. [Off the record] [Thereupon, a new tape was placed in.]

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Let me make sure I'm clear. We are back on the record. I would like to make one correction for the record in terms of Ms. Atkins' commitment offense. She was convicted of counts one through eight, Penal Code Section 187, murder to run concurrent. And I would like to strike the count of conspiracy to commit murder, Penal Code Section 182.1, case7 number A267861, in that Counsel was correct in the fact that particular count is not relative to this case and that she was not convicted of that particular offense. I'd also like to open the record before I give the Deputy District Attorney and Counsel the opportunity to ask questions. I do -- would just like to note that during our deliberations, this Panel will be considering only relevant information pursuant to the regulations and the law. At this time, Mr. Sequeira, I'd like to give you the opportunity to ask questions of Ms. Atkins through the Chair.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. I have no questions for Ms. Atkins, although I -- It's my understanding, and maybe I'm mistaken. I thought that Ms. Atkins was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the seven murders.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: She was.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: She was convicted. The sentence was stayed, so it is still --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Correct.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- part and parcel to the seven murders.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That's correct.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And the other murder was actually a completely separate case, so it's not a count eight. It's actually a separate count one.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It's a count one. It's actually a count one, so it's count one through seven and then a count one.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yeah, I think the Panel -- I think the -- you misspoke slightly by saying that the conspiracy to commit murder on the seven murders cases was seven counts of murder was dismissed when it was --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- the conspiracy in count --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It's count one through seven, murder and then count one. And then the additional count, which was stayed.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, actually it's count one through eight, including a conspiracy to commit murder in the -- on the Tate-LaBianca murders. And the conspiracy to commit murder count was dismissed in the plea bargaining on the Gary Hinman murder.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you for that clarification.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And you indicated that you have no questions of Ms. Atkins.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That is correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Sir, do you have questions of your client?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you have any questions?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: No, I have no questions. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, at this time I'd like to give the Deputy District Attorney the opportunity to make his closing statement.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. Inmate Atkins has in the past been found unsuitable for parole and today she remains unsuitable for parole. The following factors in her background indicate her unsuitability: First of all, she comes from a history of unstable and tumultuous family relationships. Specifically, in interacting with members of her family prior to the commitment offense. Her prior criminal history included previous grants of probation, which she failed. Her prior criminal conduct exhibited an escalating pattern of criminal conduct, starting first of all in 1996 -- Excuse me, 1966, she was arrested in Oregon in the company of two other companions who were driving a stolen car. When she was arrested in that particular incident, she was patted down and found to have possessed a handgun. At that time she told the state trooper who arrested her, I should have killed you. What is significant, of course, about that statement is less than three years later, she embarked on one of the most horrendous killing sprees in California history, starting first of all, July 25h, 26th, and 27th. During that time period a musician by the name of Gary Hinman was believed to have -- to come on to a -- to come into an inheritance. Manson and his Family wanted to invite Mr. Hinman to join The Family. As part of the ritual of joining the family is that you turn over all your worldly possessions to the family. And of course, it was believed that Mr. Hinman had this inheritance. It turned out to be the opposite. Ms. Atkins and two of her crime companions went over to Mr. Hinman's house and tried to convince him to join The Family. He refused. Mr. Hinman was then kept captive and tortured over a two or three day period of time. Charles Manson came over along with Tex Watson. Tex Watson put a gun to Mr. Hinman's head. They demanded money from him. They demanded property. Charles Manson sliced off his ear and a later point I believe Ms. Atkins and possibly Ms. Krenwinkel tried to sew -- or excuse me, Ms. Brunner tried to sew his ear back using dental floss. This occurred over a period of time and of course, as was indicated in the LA County Sheriff's letter, he was finally stabbed by Bobby Beausoleil and he was killed. As he was dying, Ms. Atkins, along with the other crime companions, took turns putting a pillow over his face to suffocate him. This horrible crime did not deter Ms. Atkins from future criminal conduct. She went back to the ranch after the -- Gary Hinman was killed and she bragged to other people at the ranch, we killed him, she said smiling. She also spent a lot of time at the ranch afterwards, sharpening knives and talking about how it felt to stab someone. As Gary Hinman lay dying, they forced Mr. Hinman to sign over the pink slip to two of his cars, as he lay dying after being stabbed. Then on August 9th, 1969, Ms. Atkins participated in the Tate-LaBianca murders. She went to the residence along with her crime partners, carrying two sets of clothes and knives. Tex Watson climbed the fence, opened the gate, and as they approached the house, Steven Parent, who was visiting a neighbor, began driving up the driveway. His car was stopped. He was shot point blank with four bullets by Tex Watson and killed. This did not deter Ms. Atkins from continuing along with the plan to kill strangers to start a race war. She entered the residence with the other companions. Three of the companions were pulled into the living room. Voityck Frykowski began struggling, tried to run. He became involved in an altercation with inmate Atkins. Inmate Atkins stabbed him several times and then ultimately Mr. Frykowski was also killed. Inmate Atkins held Sharon Tate, who was eight and a half months pregnant at that time. And as she told a couple of her cellmates later on in jail, that Sharon was the last one to die of the five victims at that residence. And then she laughed when she told Virginia Graham that. She said that Sharon was crying and was begging and pleading, please don't kill me, please don't kill me, I don't want to die. I want to live. I want to have my baby, I want to have my baby. Ms. Atkins then said that she looked Sharon straight in the eye and said look bitch, I don't care about you. I don't care that you're going to have a baby. You're going to die and you better be ready. She then told her cellmate, Virginia Graham, that she had killed Sharon Tate and she told another cellmate, Ronnie Howard, that she kept stabbing Sharon Tate until Sharon stopped screaming. She wasn't the only individual to stab Sharon Tate. Between her and Tex Watson, Ms. Tate and her unborn fetus were stabbed 16 times. And of course, the other victims in the house were also killed by the crime companions of Ms. Atkins. Abigail Folger was killed. Mr. Frykowski was killed. The five victims in this case were extremely mutilated by multiple stab wounds. The victims were -- The five victims were stabbed a total of 102 times. Actually four victims, because Mr. Parent was just shot. In addition to stabbing and brutally killing Ms. Tate, after killing her, Ms. Atkins tasted her blood. She then took a towel and wiped some of Sharon Tate's blood on the towel and wrote the word "PIG" on the front door. And all of this was designed to start a race war. And the idea of writing pigs on the wall was pigs represented a -- represented the middle class, society. And then the following night -- Actually before we get to the following night, after these brutal murders were committed at the Tate residence, Susan Atkins goes home. She goes back to the ranch with her companions. They watch TV. They watch the TV accounts of these brutal murders. And then what do they do? They then decide to continue with another killing spree. She's not deterred by having been involved in the -- in the murders of five people plus the murders of Mr. Hinman earlier. She then goes out willingly as a willing participant to the Tate -- to the LaBianca residence the following evening on August 10th, 1969. She would not go into the house and she did not participate in the actual killings, but she was there. She was there as a willing participant. One that wanted to go along and the only reason she didn't go into the house is she was not asked by Charles Manson to go into the house. The motive for the Tate-LaBianca killings was also the same. It was to start a race war. A wallet of Mr. LaBianca's was taken from the residence and was planted in a gas station, believed to have been in a -- in a Black neighborhood. The theory was is that the wallet would be found by a Black individual and then later on the crimes would be blamed upon the Black person and this would start a race war. And at the conclusion of the race war, Charles Manson and his Family, of whom Susan Atkins was an integral part of, would benefit from the race war because the Blacks would kill the Whites. They would come into power, but they would be unable to rule the world, so to speak, and that Charlie Manson would then be there to be their leader. One of the most horrific types of crimes that you can possibly imagine. And both the LaBiancas were brutally killed as well and stabbed. Her institutional adjustment when she arrived at prison includes a number of 115's; disciplinary violations. The one of significance I think is the one in 1993, which is misuse of a computer. She also has a couple of 128(a)'s. And I only point them out -- this out somewhat in passing because they fit a theme with Ms. Atkins, and a theme of deception and a theme of manipulation. If you look back through her institutional history, there is -- there is that underlying theme of manipulation and deception. And of course, attempting to sell artwork under the guise that it is going to the victims' families, when really it is to satisfy her own personal judgment. It is very misleading and it is very manipulative. And it's also reflected not only in her institutional behavior, but also in a psychiatric report. I do not agree with the current psychiatric report. I find it to be very lacking in many ways. In fact, I agree with Mr. Whitehouse, Counsel for Ms. Atkins, in that if this psychiatrist can miss something as obvious as her being married 17 years, then how can one really feel that this psychiatric report is accurate. Especially when the psychologist says the specifics of the crime were not discussed in detail during the current interview. I mean you have someone who is sitting in prison with eight horrible murders and as a psychologist, you don't interview your subject regarding those crimes. And then he does make note of the fact that she has several different stories and that her stories conflict with other accounts. And this brings me to the other point of the deception; the deception and outright lies. And tied in with that, of course, is Ms. Atkins' inability to fully comprehend the horrible acts that she has committed. And she has tried to minimize them and she continues to minimize them and to deny culpability. And all of that indicates a lack of remorse. For example, just some of her comments in -- with respect to the life crimes in the psychiatric report. First of all, she says with regards to the Hinman killing, that he was murdered in a different room. And that's very misleading. She was there when Mr. Hinman died. She was correct when she said she went to the LaBianca home, but did not enter the residence. That's one truthful statement that she did make in the psychiatric report. But then again in as with respect to the Tate murders, she states she did not stab or cut any of the victims and she admits that after the murder she wrote "Pig" on the door of the residence with a towel dipped in the blood of one of the victims. But she says she was directed to do this by one of her crime partners. Well, actually what had happened was Charles Manson had told her before they ever left the ranch to embark on these murders that to leave something witching at the crime scene. And so this was planned way ahead of time. This wasn't something that was done on the spur of the moment. And then, of course, there's the two conflicting statements to the same psychologist in the most recent report. On one hand she admits to stabbing victim Frykowski over and over again on the legs, and then she turns around and says well, she thought she had stabbed the victim. What does that tell this Panel? It tells this Panel that she continues to deny her involvement in the crime. And so later on she contends that she did not personally harm any of the murder victims, which of course, completely conflicts with testimony from the trial, testimony from a number of witnesses and her own statements, not only to those witnesses, but also in Grand Jury proceedings. She goes on to try to again minimize her involvement and offer a number of excuses. And some of those excuses are contained in the Board report. She talks about this methamphetamine abuse, which I find very interesting, because when you go back to her original reports -- Well, I'll go back even further. The trial testimony in this case indicated that not one of the participants in the Tate murders was on drugs of any sort. In the LaBianca murders there was testimony at the trial that only one person, Tex Watson, had taken some methamphetamine that night because he was feeling tired. Ms. Atkins was not on drugs during the commission of either the Tate or the LaBianca murders. She's now using this as an excuse. She now says it's methamphetamine. Before it was LSD. If you go back to her original probation sentencing report, she makes no mention of using methamphetamine in the original probation report. But now it's while I was using meth, and before that it was well, it was LSD. It's very interesting she claims to have consumed quite a bit of LSD, and I'm sure that's probably accurate. But she also says very interestingly enough, that she never had any bad trips on LSD. So I imagine killing five people, even if you were under the LSD, it seems to me that killing five people, including one who is pregnant, while you were on LSD might qualify as a bad trip, which further indicates that she was not under the influence of drugs during the commission of the crimes. She also claims that she was afraid of The Family. They had this tremendous hold on her and that she was afraid because Shorty Shea had been killed. Well, Shorty Shea was killed quite some time after the Tate, LaBianca and the Hinman murders. And she uses this also as an excuse that she couldn't leave the ranch because she was being watched. People came and left the ranch all the time. In fact, a couple of her crime partners, Krenwinkel and Watson both fled the state of California. She could have easily fled after the -- after the Tate-LaBianca murders, but she didn't do that. She chose to stay. She chose to stay with Charles Manson. And of course, you know, she says that the Spahn Ranch was miles from nowhere, but people came and went on a regular basis. What this all adds up to is an individual who is one of the most horrible criminals in the state of California's history. She was involved in brutal murders. It's very -- It's actually incomprehensible that someone could be involved in such a horrendous crime. And she continues to fail in her rehabilitation. She continues to minimize her conduct. She does not have a true understanding of what a horrible murderer she is. And for all those reasons, I would ask the Panel to find her unsuitable for parole and that she be found unsuitable for a period of five years. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. Counsel, your closing statement, please.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: This is why we brought up all these things about earlier these objections. And I'm not quite sure why I bothered about things out of the Central File and commenting on the facts of the case. I don't even know where to begin. Unstable relationships with parents. This is a memorandum dated April 12th, 2001, from then Chairman of the BPT, David Hepburn, stating that unstable social history shouldn't be situations in which someone was a victim. That would be the three year -- that she was -- she had unstable relationships with her parents because her mother died. Apparently that's her fault. Her father is an alcoholic. That's her fault. That's ridiculous. He says that she failed probation. Page five of her counselor's report does not say that. It lists every time she was arrested, states that in 1969, she was stopped for violation of probation. Disposition, has not violated probation. There's not an escalating pattern of violence. There is a de-escalating pattern of violence. She was arrested for possession of a firearm in '66, and then for drugs and then for a fake ID before her present conviction. Here's that comment again about threatening a trooper, which isn't anywhere. She was never charged with that. It's not an integral part of the crime for which she is currently committed. Bringing that up, that's irrelevant under 2326. Hinman, we get stuff once again about personal culpability. We're told about Charles Manson attacking people. Charles Manson isn't in the room. Torture, we get -- torture pops up again. We talked about that. Robbery, he actually said that they went there to rob, after we talked about how in the plea agreement they dropped the robbery (indiscernible). This wasn't they dropped it. They agreed to that. She wasn't tried and convicted and we have speculation as to what was -- what the jury believed in. The District Attorney's Office walked in there and agreed that in exchange for the plea of guilty on the -- on the first count, that they'd drop the robbery. And here it pops up a third of a century later. And actually just for the fun of it, I did find the (indiscernible) here where the representative from the LA DA's Office admitted to the judge during Hinman that Susan hadn't killed Gary Hinman. Don't tell me I lost it again. No, here it is. The court: All right, you understand that it's the recommendation. Gentlemen, it's the recommendation of the District Attorney that the court sentence to life imprisonment rather than death in this case. Is that correct, Mr. Katz, who I believe was representing the District Attorney's Office.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Yes, Your Honor. What are your reasons for that? Mr. Katz: The reasons are two-fold. One, based upon the evidence, which is presently available to The People -- That's him. We believe the evidence would show that Ms. Atkins did not wield the death weapon, but rather is guilty of first degree murder on an aiding and abetting theory or a conspiracy theory to commit the murder and robbery of Gary Hinman, which was the two charges they'd agreed to drop. We also have something interesting, something about sharpening knives after Hinman. I didn't read that in the Central File. I have no idea where he got that. Did either of you see that in the Central File?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I don't recall that being in there.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Then I would like --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: As I indicated to you earlier, sir, during our deliberations, we will only be taking into consideration relevant information.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Exactly, thank you. That's why I think it's my point to -- my purpose here to point out the extent to which most of this stuff or a huge portion of this is not relevant. As for the (indiscernible) LaBianca murders, Steve Parent was killed by Susan's co-defendant. Oh, and right here we talked about stuff that's supposed to be coming out of the Central File and not out -- and he read a whole huge amount of this right out of the transcripts, which aren't part of the Central File. He claimed there was mutilation. At the last hearing I gave documentation to the Board Members from the prosecuting attorney and the coroner of the crime saying there was no mutilation. He claims Susan tasted blood. That's something that just jumps out of nowhere. Here we go again. They sat around watching TV accounts. I didn't see that in the Central File. Something about witching; not in the Central File. And then he goes into the huge thing about the LaBiancas. Absolutely nothing to do with personal culpability. And then he goes into the institutional behavior. I thought we talked about this 22 -- 2030(d)(2), that his role in here -- 2030 is the statue that gives him the legal authorization to be here. And then 2030(d)(2) is titled the role of the prosecutor. The role of the prosecutor is to comment on the facts of the case, and then we go on his interpretation of her institutional behavior. Talking about her violation. What was it, a 115 in 1993? You know I wanted to bring that up just for the fun of it. Susan has actually been disciplinary free for over a quarter of a century. The5 she got in '93, wasn't a serious or an Administrative 115, which means it doesn't count towards disciplinary infractions. Disciplinary free is a term that's defined by statute. Statute 3000. Quote, "Disciplinary free means without any finding of guilt of a disciplinary infraction filed on a CDC Form 115, Rules Violation Report, classified as either Administrative or Serious. The 115 Susan got in '93, was reduced to a performance 115, which means that she has actually been disciplinary free for almost a quarter of a century. That's more than an entire generation. An entire generation of Americans born, raised, grew up and had their own kids and she hasn't had a disciplinary infraction. At this time CDC guards can retire after 20 years. That means there's a whole group of guards that have come in to this institution, done their entire career and retired on pension and Susan hasn't had a single disciplinary infraction. He brings up this 115 or 128 informative chrono about artwork, which she wasn't given a 115 for. She wasn't even given a counseling chrono on that. And then he goes on to comment on the psych reports, commenting on counselors' reports. All of this has -- is in violation of 2030(d)(2). Commenting on rehabilitation. But mainly he said that she lacked remorse and that kind of bugs me. And so when I came up here today to talk about remorse, I didn't realize the DA was going to say anything. The Board of Prison Terms Chairman, when James Nielsen was the Board of Prison Terms Chairman in 1999, testified in front of the Joint Legislative Committee on Prisons and Parole and testified that remorse isn't something that you can see, but that inmates can still show it. Things that would include -- Here is is, a quote. "Having reviewed the totality of the record -- totality of the record, you can see events throughout the record, whether there is some remorse expressed or not. That would include things that the inmate may have said to a psychiatric or psychological evaluator, to a correctional counselor, something they may have said in a court proceeding. And further, even if they do not talk about the life crime, in the context of the hearing and in the context of the effort that they have exerted in prison, that is also indicative of remorse or empathy." At another time James Nielsen is quoted as saying that --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Sir, with all due respect, your closing statement should be utilized for you to outline to the Panel why you feel that your client is suitable for parole, not what statements Jane Nielsen -- James Nielsen has made in the past.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: The reason I bring that up is because I'm about to show you through the totality of the record why Susan has shown a superhuman effort, not just to show remorse, how she has shown remorse all the way back for 30 years. And when I get half into this, I don't want someone to say why are you doing this. The reason I'm doing this is because the Chairman of the Board of Prison Terms testified in front of the Joint Legislative Committee that this is how you show that -- someone's remorse. The District Attorney made the mistake of saying that Susan has not shown remorse and I'd like to show you both that she has. First I'd like to point out that the Los Angeles Trials Division -- what is the Trials Division stated that Susan's Grand Jury testimony was exactly what -- against Charles Manson was vital to even getting him indicted. I believe the prosecutor at one time said that without her Grand Jury testimony, they wouldn't even have been able to indict Charles Manson. In 1971, Psychologist Fishman, which you have in there, stated Susan expressed guilt feelings and remorse. She'd been in prison for a couple -- I think that it's two months after they moved her here. She does not intend to engage in verbal evasions, games or manipulations and responds much more directly, frankly and sincerely than her co-defendants. She expressed sincere feelings and was ready for a cathartic confession. Doctor Covering (phonetic). She related that her co-defendants reacted coldly toward her because of her indicting them. I'm sorry. This glare is getting to me. He ends -- This is in 1971. There is every likelihood that she will significantly change her outlook, her view on physical life and death and her relationship to society to the point that she would cease to be a danger. Superintendent Carlson states that Susan has not presented any problems. She appears more isolated normally than her two co-defendants, has more artwork in her room, has selected pictures, which are both sensitive and sentimental. They are well chosen. This is by the Superintendent of the institution that came down to see her. Doctor Bowman stated Ms. Atkins is capable of growing as a worthwhile and responsible person. She is not dangerous to herself or to others, nor is she likely to invoke aggressive responses from others. This is in 1972. This is 33 years -- This is a third of a century ago. Her correctional counselor stated, looking back, it is quite obvious that she was in need of therapeutic help and perhaps if she had been given some help in her early years, the sequence of events that later came about might have possibly altered. In 1972, Susan had her first BPT hearing where they faulted her for absolutely nothing, but decided that she wasn't suitable. This is also the year that the prosecuting attorney stated that he believed Susan would do 15 to 20 years for her participation in these crimes. Susan sent a letter to the Superintendent, Ms. Carlson, disavowing any connection with the Manson Family in or out of the institution. The staff note a great deal of anti- family sentiment. This is in '73. In 1973, she had her second BPT hearing, where they faulted her for absolutely nothing, but still did find her suitable. In fact, they -- these are what they told her to do. Get down to what God has to say about himself. Susan stated, quote, "Her past is almost as if it were a nightmare." In regards to the crimes, she states that she accepts responsibility for it voluntarily. The Board noted that the subject is searching and that is good. In 1974, Psychologist Doctor (Indiscernible) states that Susan has shown great -- Excuse me. Has shown general improvement since last interview. She's only been convicted for two years and she's already showing improvement. In 1974, she had her third hearing before the Board of Prison Terms where they faulted her for absolutely nothing, but said she wasn't suitable. They demanded that she pursue her spiritual interests. The Board -- The women's Board of Terms and Parole noted, quote, "She was asked how she presently feels about the crimes. She stated that it was senseless and brutal." She told them she was convicted more and more heavily with an understanding of the effect the crime had on the victims and their loved ones. Quote, she states that "she has accepted her part of the crimes and has to face God." The Board goes on to state that Susan didn't kill Gary Hinman. Doctor Black states that Susan's attitude, quote, "was that of a cooperative, friendly, verbal young woman." He also states that Susan appears to have learned to meet her needs direct -- by directing her positive attitude. This is about the time that Susan first asked how she could contact the victims' family members and express her remorse. This was in 1975, and she was told that it was against the rules for her to even try to contact them. Doctor Black states in his group therapy sessions that Susan expressed legitimate concerns about the emotional state of fellow prisoners. The Superintendent and the Classification Committee acknowledged Susan's deliberate break from The Family. This is the Superintendent of the institution. This is 1975, so this is 30 years ago. Doctor Black records that Susan made an emphatic statement that she does not have anything to do with The Family. She wants to document her disassociation from The Family and their conflicts. In his evaluation for the Women's Board of Parole, Doctor Black states that this woman has shown no tendencies to be a danger to others or to herself since her initial contact with me. Her personality structure cannot be correlated with classical criminal behavior. In 1975, she had, what is this her fourth hearing before the BPT, where they faulted her for absolutely nothing, but said she wasn't suitable. Susan receives a commendation chrono for offering her time and effort to help the staff. A commendation chrono for assistance she displayed by helping staff carry another inmate over to the hospital. This is the one that went -- This, in fact, when she was staying in the psychiatric -- over the other side of the fence in the psychiatric unit. This is also back before inmates were forced to work eight hours a day and so she spent her time over in the psychiatric area helping those people. And this is a chrono documenting when she helped carry another inmate who had tried to kill herself over to the hospital. Do you remember that?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ms. Gentry would frequently cut on her wrists and attempt to kill herself by slicing her neck. She was a neighbor of mine and I was asked to help carry her over to the infirmary because she had sliced her wrist and we thought she was going to die, so I helped.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: And did she end up passing away?

INMATE ATKINS: No, she survived.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Susan receives a commendation chrono from staff for voluntarily -- volunteering to help without being asked, for doing extra work on (indiscernible); another commendation chrono. The reason I'm bringing this up is you'll see 30 years later, she's still getting commendation chronos for helping. Susan received a commendation chrono for volunteering to help clean up a health problem in the psychiatric treatment unit. Program evaluation committee states in the last five years, Susan has no disciplinaries, has good attitudes, is respectful of staff. Doctor Black again, who has known Susan for 15 months, stated that Susan told him he was once -- that she was once anti-social in nature. Quote, "By contrast now, for the first time in her life, she feels patriotic to the point where she prays for her country and those who have been elected to its administrative offices." He claims Susan was expressing herself with some insight. Asked whether she experienced guilt over her behavior, Susan stated yes, it's a deep conviction. I have done something wrong. It took me almost five years before I could even face what I did. It was wrong. I could not justify my behavior. Doctor Flanagan concludes by stating a fair prognosis is offered with respect to this woman becoming a conforming member of the community. This is also over a quarter century ago. Susan's counselor states, Susan is rated as very good in her cottage with apparent excellent adherence to the rules. Susan's programming has been (indiscernible) by significant improvement. In 1976, she had, I think, her fifth hearing before the BPT. She was faulted for absolutely nothing. They said she wasn't suitable. The Board states that, quote, "The Panel was impressed with Susan's sincerity and in her endeavor to carry out her new lifestyle and goals. Time will be the true test for stability." This is 29 years ago. The Board -- This is a quote from the Board's decision. Quote, "The Board explained they consider her making excellent progress. They were very impressed with her improvement." The reason I'm bringing this up is because within ten years the BPT will say that she hasn't shown any improvement at all. The Lieutenant stated that Susan wants to help those peers who may be going through emotional problems. Susan was commended by the Women's Board for improvement since her last hearing. The occupational therapist states Susan is good as the hearing -- good at adhering to the rules, has a good attitude towards staff and peers, is a good worker. Quote, "Is regarded non-verbally by many of the residents as a good resource person." Correctional counselor, her counselor states, Susan has demonstrated above average behavior in her living unit. She is not considered a custody risk. The PEC Committee -- What's the PEC Committee?

INMATE ATKINS: Psychiatric Evaluation Committee.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: States that, quote, "Susan has demonstrated above average behavior, does above average work, is not considered a custody risk." Work supervisor states that Susan has ignored peer pressure. Has claimed she may become stronger from it. The Superintendent, Associate Superintendent and a correctional counselor, all three of them have a chrono in here commending her for getting good reports in 1977. A commendation chrono for volunteering her free time to help out when there's a shortage of workers. The Chief of the BPT, Howard Way, in 1977, stated that Susan will be a good parole risk some day. A Lieutenant after six months of being with Susan stated she has always conducted herself in a mature and responsible manner. She is always present and appears to be a very positive element in PTU. The Acting PTU Administrator commends Susan for being disciplinary free, showing good behavior, never abusing her privileges, improving work output as well as her efforts in school and (indiscernible). He states she is a source of stability for those less stable. She encourages women to do what is right and encourages them not to fight the system, but to program and cooperate with staff and abide by the rules. The Program Administrator states -- There's a lot of stuff here. Quote, "If Susan continues with this attitude and behavior demonstrated during the past year, she should be able to live a crime free life when she is paroled and released to the community." A correctional counselor states that she has demonstrated good behavior, continuing to make good progress. Once again, another counselor's report. If Susan continues with this attitude and behavior demonstrated during the past year, she should be able to live a crime free life once she is paroled and released to the community. I'm going to skip a lot of stuff here. This goes on forever. Susan is invited -- In 1978, she's invited to speak at the Believers Fellowship in Fort Lake Worth, Florida. The West Palm Beach Sheriff's Department agreed to supply security for this -- for the trip, but the CDC wouldn't let her go. In 1978, the Lieutenant claims Susan has above average adherence to rules. Attitude towards staff exceptionally polite. Relates well with all. Also is influential in the unit in her religious vein and has been instrumental in beginning a religious group with staff supervision twice a week. She can be a very positive stabilizer when weaker individuals need assistance. Once again, the Superintendent, Associate Superintendent and the C&PR commends Susan for receiving very good grades and comments from school supervisors. In '78, another Lieutenant documenting that Susan has above average adhere to -- adherence to rules. Attitude towards staff, exceptionally polite. Stated that Susan has continued to demonstrate consistent politeness towards staff. Commended by the staff for taking the initiative with another inmate to clean the entire clerk's office when it wasn't done by the house aide. These women are resident clerks and it is not their job. Here's one from 1978. Susan received a commendation chrono from a nurse for, quote, "her thoughtfulness and help to another resident who was bleeding profusely. She helped me place pressure bandages on the wrist. She showed much concern and dedication to the life of another. I think she handled the situation very well. It is good to have someone like Susan during an emergency." Another commendation chrono for volunteering in the kitchen. Psychologist Doctor Rose states that he's known Susan for eight years. Quote, "She has improved greatly through the eight years of incarceration in this institution as witnessed by the undersigned." She gets another commendation chrono by the Lieutenant Arnold for always doing her work beyond expectations, for always being respectful, polite and courteous. The Program Administrator states he has known Susan for approximately seven years and quote, "Susan has undergone dramatic changes since his arrival at CIW. Subject's positive attitude and behavior are reflected by her participation in the program. She continually demonstrates a cooperative attitude and helpful attitude. It should be noted that subject has no disciplinary documentations. He wrote that for the BPT hearing in 1978, where she was faulted for absolutely nothing. Actually I should say no institutional behavior. Absolutely no institutional behavior since incarcerated and yet they still found her unsuitable. She states that she wants to -- at her BPT hearing, she wants to help young people keep from making the same mistakes that I made, particularly in the area of drug abuse. If I can give -- If I can give some person in here hope who has no hope, then maybe I can give something back to society. If I can give back to society -- to society, something which I have taken away. Like I said, if I could give my life today to bring back those eight people, I would gladly have given it yesterday. The Board itself knows that Susan has made, quote, "dramatic changes." They state that Susan isn't an institution problem or custody problem. They state, quote, "As far as custody and that is concerned, you're certainly way above the average inmate we talk to and see." They claim Susan has made giant strides and that they are impressed that she's done -- with what she's done in prison. They warned her about being too good, stating that they -- a goody two shoes could be dangerous. After her Board hearing, the PEC as well as the Board of Prison Terms acknowledged the progress that Susan had made and her correctional counselor commended Susan for taking the Board decision with understanding and for presenting herself well at the Board hearing as well as at the prison's post-Board hearing. There's another documentation in here from the Superintendent and Associate Superintendent saying that Susan is no problem. I'm going to try to pick out the highlights. This goes on forever. Susan's counselor states in his report to the Community Release Board -- It's not even the Women's Board of Terms and Paroles any more. He states that he has known Susan for over a year and has daily contact with her. He claims she, quote, "displays a friendly, cooperative attitude towards staff and peers alike." Overall adjustment in the PTU has been viewed as excellent. Attitude towards offense, admits guilt for offense, as she did in previous CRB hearing. Verbalizes deep remorse. Prognosis, if Susan continues in her present attitude and behavior, she could function as a productive member of the community upon her release.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Counsel, I'm going to have to change the tapes. [Thereupon, the tape was turned over.]

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Counsel, I note that you are barely up to 1978 or 1979. Many, if not all of those comments are in the Central File. I've read many of those documents, so I'm going to have to ask you to bring your comments to a close within the next ten minutes.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Unfortunately, these things have been in the Central File for over 30 years and they've never once been brought out in these hearings.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Those documents are available to us and they are reviewed in advance of these hearings.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: In 1978, Susan had another Parole Hearing where they faulted her for no institutional behavior, but once again found her unsuitable. The BPT commended Susan for her institutional conduct and accomplishments. Susan tells the BPT, quote, "Nobody knows the gravity of my crimes like me. Nobody knows the heinousness of my past better than I do. It's engraved and burned in my consciousness. I can't change what happened. I can only live each day to make sure it never happens again in my experience." Sergeant -- Excuse me, Psychiatrist Doctor Johnson states that Susan's account of the crime, quote, "are essentially in agreement with the entries in the Central File, except that she is much more critical of herself than the observers of record. Family stresses, conflict and trauma largely underemphasized by Susan seem to have established the basis for the subject abuse and joining up with The Family. An indicator of the extent to which Ms. Atkins has changed her outlook and comprehension and maturation may be her view of the position of the Board on her case. She sees the Board Members as being in a dilemma. If they can accept the fact that she has truly changed and is an entirely different person, then they have the problem of sending her back to a society which will not tolerate her, because of the crime for which she has participated. She reflects this not critically, but with an air of sympathy. Impression, remarkable mobilization of mental and emotional assets while incarcerated. Shows excellent judgment, positive value system and truly -- and truly presents a transformation through finding the positive elements in the present environment. This young woman appears to have undergone a permanent change with such that she would no longer constitute a danger to the community." Susan's counselor's report also states there is no reason why she could not become a productive member of the community. But in 1980, she had a hearing and they didn't fault her for any institutional behavior since incarceration and still didn't find her suitable. They stated her institutional adjustment has improved, so has her disciplinary record, psychiatric evaluations, academic records have all shown improvement. Susan Atkins tearfully told the prison Board, nothing could ever undo or outweigh the ugliness of my past. The realization of what I've done repels me as a person. She told the Board, quote, "that the egregiousness of my offenses would never be outweighed by the good I've done. Today I agree with that. Nothing I do from this day forward will ever do or outweigh the ugliness of my past." Ms. Atkins cried repeatedly when Deputy District Attorney described the grisly aspects of the crime. 1981, Psychologist Doctor Jamarcus (phonetic). It appears that Susan has improved greatly from original entry and appears very likely to continue improvement. 1981, the Board -- she has a Board hearing and they fault her for no institutional behavior. She did absolutely everything they told her to and they didn't find her suitable. Susan tells the Board, quote, "She is filled with remorse and horror and anguish for the things that I have done. But nobody knows more than I do how much I pay emotionally and mentally and physically every day of my life for my mistakes. I will do the rest of my -- I will do time the rest of my life, whether in prison or I'm released. I will continue to do time for that." The BPT acknowledges Susan's, quote, "gradual improvement over the years since reception." Susan's counselor at the former 1982 hearing states that Susan's overall adjustment has been productive and positive. She still expresses remorse and sorrow for her offense and accepts responsibility for her actions. This writer agrees with the report of the year before that if she continues, there is no reason she cannot become a productive member of the community. She shows a -- Doctor Arnold states she shows increased insight, motivation to improve. Her behavior and performance in this institution has been highly regarded. In 1982, she once again wasn't found suitable for parole. Susan receives a commendation chrono from staff who states, quote, "I would like to commend inmate Atkins on the manner in which she handled herself during an institutional lockdown. She helped alleviate a great deal of stress and tension among her peers. She acted in a responsible manner throughout the lockdown. I found inmate Atkins to be a stable and responsible inmate when a problem occurs on the unit." 1985, she has a Board hearing where she did everything that the Board asked her to do the time before. They fault her for no institutional behavior, but they determined she wasn't suitable. Susan states, quote, "A lot of people have asked me how would I feel if one of the family members of the victims came to one of my hearings. I have always said that I welcome that because I need to ask face to face for forgiveness. I leave every -- live every day with the -- with the knowledge of what I've done. If it weren't for a lot of people, a lot of caring people, I wouldn't be able to deal with it. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror every day. I still have a problem with that. I still have problems knowing that I even participated in something as horrible as what I participated in. I look at myself today and am appalled that I could even have been involved with something like that. How do you ask someone to forgive you for something that is almost impossible to forgive. How do you forgive yourself. These are things I have dealt with for years and years and years. 1985, that's also the year that the District Attorney claimed that she shouldn't be let out, found suitable for parole because who is she going to take up with if we let her out. I can generally guarantee it won't be someone that we're proud to have her with. I have to -- In '86 and '87, she was part of the weight training group over here that received a -- that Arnold Schwarzenegger came out and commended her for. I'm going to just jump to the end here and wrap it up. In 1988, she did everything the Board asked her to in '85, but they didn't find her suitable. Oh, in '88 and '89, those are the two years that the Board of Prison Terms announced that Susan had failed to demonstrate evidence of positive change since incarceration. That's also the year after that Governor Deukmejian wrote to the Board of Prison Terms and told them it was their duty to see that she never gets out of prison. 1989, did everything they told her to and not suitable. I want to just find the highlights because I've only got a couple more minutes. In 1989, the Board of Prison Terms asked for a comprehensive psychiatric review to be done on Susan. And when they finally got it, this is what it said. It was done by Doctor Clavelle, dated 12/7/92. Susan has made substantial progress during her more than 20 years of incarceration. Her review resulted in the conclusion that inmate Atkins has made progress accepting her part in the perpetration of the crime and her guilt and remorse about the crimes and trying to understand what got her into the lifestyle. Conclusions: A. There is no significant relationship between the crime and any present clinical diagnosis. B. During observation at this institution, she has significantly psychologically improved. And C. In a less controlled environment, this inmate is expected to improve further. That was '92. What security level were you at in '92?

INMATE ATKINS: The same one I'm at now.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: The lowest possible for life prisoners?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: So he's talking about parole. Right?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: In '93, once again, she did everything the Board had told her to the year -- the time before and they found her not suitable. Susan states on the record, I take absolute and complete full responsibility for my actions and whatever that entails, whatever punishment. Whatever my life is to be is a direct result of that. I am willing to fully take responsibility for that. I wish it never happened and I can't change that fact. I would give my life if it could never have happened. In '94, Susan was asked by the Department of Treasury, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to help them in an International Association of Chief of Police colloquy for Federal, State and local law enforcement personnel in the subject of cults after the Waco incident. In 1996, she did everything that she was told to the time before and they still found her unsuitable. Susan states, I've made every effort I could to make a list of all the people that I've harmed. That list is greater than anything this record reflects. The DA couldn't talk about all the people I've harmed and this state couldn't talk about all the people I have harmed. There are silent victims here. There are family members of the victims that aren't represented here. They are their friends and families; all those people. How does someone like me make amends directly to people like Ms. Tate. My sorrow and my genuine remorse for what I have done to her sister and what I have participated and what I said to her sister without harming her. How could I do that without harming her or other family members. I don't know how to say I'm sorry and have her believe that except to do what I've been doing for years, longer than I ever was free. And that is I intend to live my life in a way I harm no one. That was '96. I didn't mention yet that sometime in the -- Was it the '80's?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Or the '90's when Doris Tate brought her group into the institution.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: And you wanted to be a part of it?

INMATE ATKINS: And I was (indiscernible). I was not allowed to.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: And they locked you in the back because they didn't want an incident, which means that she came all the way out here with her group and went to the reconciliation.

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, it was the victims too.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: And you weren't --

INMATE ATKINS: It was to allow the lifers here to understand the gravity and the nature of their crime and to directly confront family members of victims. And I asked to participate and I was told I couldn't.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: And I don't doubt they never told her that, so she came all the way out here and as far as she knew, you just didn't bother showing up. In 1992 -- 1999, Warden Poole documents her opinion that Susan has shown, quote, "positive institutional adjustment that her job has received exceptional evaluations." That Susan has, quote, "exhibited exemplary behavior within her institution." That's from the Warden. That's pretty cool. In 2000, once again, Susan did everything she was asked for and was found not suitable. The Board commended Susan for her programming and states she has done so many things. I'll just read some of them. This is also last time when the Board said that Susan couldn't address the victim family -- the victim's family members. She couldn't apologize. She couldn't even look over at them. And so Susan gave me something. I'm going to just -- There's other things here obviously. In 15 of her 16 Parole Hearings, she's done everything the BPT demanded of her and they still won't find her parole suitable. In fact, not only that, they sent her down for three and four years at a time. And Susan gave me this and I want to know if you can help us. She wrote this and she'd like you to give this to the --

INMATE ATKINS: Support people.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: The victim's support people.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We will -- The process is -- the procedure is that we will give it to the District Attorney and the District Attorney will in turn check with the family to determine whether or not they would be interested in accepting the letter.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Can I read it into --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes, sir.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: -- the record?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Excuse me.

INMATE ATKINS: May I read it?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Is it an apology to the family or something directed at the family?

INMATE ATKINS: No, Ma'am (indiscernible) it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I will give that to the District Attorney and the -- he will speak with the family and they will decide whether or not they want to accept --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: The reason we brought this up in this --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- the letter.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: -- forum is -- Excuse me. In this forum is because it's difficult to come in here and address these issues and not be able to apologize. And then when they make their statements, they say that we've never tried to apologize. And I don't think they realize that the Board of Prison Terms and the CDC won't allow us.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That's inaccurate, sir. As I've indicated to you, the process is if Ms. Atkins wants to make a statement to the family, a written statement to the family, she -- we provide it to the District Attorney. The District Attorney speaks with the family and the family decides whether or not they are willing to accept the statement.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Is that in the rules and regulations?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Sir, that's the process and that's the process we --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: The reason I'm bringing it up --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- will follow.

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: The reason I'm bringing it up is because you're saying that we are not representing the facts correctly because there's a process. This is a process that's not written anywhere. We're not telepathic. We came in here. We've tried to apologize. She's apologized; tried to state this in her counselor's reports. She's tried to -- tried to bring it up here and it's only now that we come in with a letter that we find out there's a process.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Would you like to provide it to me so that --

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Very much.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- we can hand it over to the District Attorney? Thank you. Does that conclude your statement, sir?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, Ms. Atkins, this is your opportunity to provide a statement to the Panel relative to your suitability for parole. If in your statement you wish to indicate that you are sorry for what you've done to the family as well as the victims, you may do so. However, you have to address the Panel.

INMATE ATKINS: Okay, thank you. First of all I'd like to read the letters if I may.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes, ma'am.

INMATE ATKINS: To whom this may concern: I know that my aunt, Susan, is a changed woman. I think she deserves a chance to prove it so here is why. She teaches people about the Lord in her prison. She is also an artist. She draws pictures of people and things. She makes beaded jewelry for us on Christmas. We never really have had a real life with her. You see, I am 12 years of age and have only seen my aunt five, maybe six times. Pretty sad, isn't it? It's very difficult for me when my niece does come to visit to tell her that there are people who can't see their relatives ever and that she's a very lucky little girl that she gets to see her aunt. At 12 years of age, she can't comprehend that. And I've tried to express that to her in age appropriate language and she still does not understand. And that's -- so that's why she wrote this. I know she has limited time left in her life. My aunt, Susan, could never invite us to stay at her house because she doesn't have one. She hasn't done or gone anywhere since she was 19 years old. She's mistaken; I was 21. I'm sure she hasn't gone or seen very many things. In fact, the only way she knows anything is from her husband or watching TV. When we get time to go and visit her, she prays for me. All I have to do is ask. Sometimes she even offers. Everyone in my family loves her and misses her a lot, so we just ask you to give her one more chance to prove herself. I have waited for a real relationship with my aunt, Susan. I miss her every second of every day of every year, so all I ask is for you to give her one more chance. She loves me and I love her. Her dearest, dear niece, Alicia Atkins. I know that each family member here every day, they miss their loved one. Every second and every minute and I cannot give that back to them. I cannot take that pain away from them. I caused that pain. I wish with all my heart and I pray with all of my soul that one day they will be able to heal. I'm not even asking for forgiveness any more. I don't think that's possible, but I desire more than anything that the people present in this room who are so deeply deeply wounded would be allowed to deal. I've read many of the 150 letters that came through the Doris Tate legacy website. Many of them were redacted from the confidential file and I have received copies of them. People who love me ask me Susan, why do you read those letters. Why do you subject yourself to so much hate. And I tell them because I have to. I have to feel, I have to understand, I have to experience what these people feel towards me. It's the only way to make continued amends. The people in the families and the victims are begging the Board of Prison Terms of parole to stop them from having to come and sit here and face me and see me ask for parole. And I don't think that those people understand that that's something that the law affords me; an opportunity to ask to be found suitable for parole. I don't come here today to ask to be found suitable for parole. I come here today to ask that there would be some way to mediate healing for the people who have suffered so much. Some way that the Board of Prison Terms and parole and the California Department of Corrections in conjunction with organizations that are dedicated to serving the community of the families of victims, the families of murder victims to help mediate healing. I don't know if the families of the victims want to ask me anything, but I do know that every time they've come, I've heard every word of theirs and I hold every word that they've said or that they've (inaudible). Family members of the victims have passed away and never heard me say that I am sorry, that if I could, that I would take it back. And I can't take it back. Thank you. I can't see all --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Would you like to take a break?

INMATE ATKINS: No, Ma'am. Thank you for offering. I live my life; a life that's a gift. Every breath I take is a gift that I know I don't deserve. The people in this room who believe I don't deserve it and I agree with them that they (indiscernible) why I am in prison. I don't deserve anything. And yet there are people who love me. There are people who I am able to help through this gift. The District Attorney says that I'm manipulative. The District Attorney who has never spent five minutes, not five seconds with me has assassinated the quality of my character based on my commitment offense. And that's his job is to assassinate me in your eyes and to assassinate my character. I don't know whether he's succeeded or not. But after 35 years, almost 36 years, almost 37 years of incarceration, the quality of my character today is not defined by the walls that hold me in; the physical walls. The quality of my character today is defined by the work that I have done to make amends to everybody that I've harmed. That is, as I said at my last hearing, greater than the people sitting in this room. I do know the gravity and the nature of my commitment offense. I do know that although the death penalty was abolished because it was unconstitutional, in my heart it would have been right, had I been executed. But somebody greater than you, somebody greater than me, somebody greater than the hatred towards me in this room decided that there is a purpose for me. And what the devil meant for evil, 36, 37 years ago, God Almighty is going to use in some way to bring good and to bring restoration. I firmly believe in the process of remorse and repentance and regeneration and rehabilitation and finally, restoration to the community. The community outside and the community inside. This is from my brother. I am writing this letter on behalf of my sister, Susan Atkins. It has been 36 years since I have been able to have a real conversation with my sister. I can remember when we were a family and times were good. Then our mother passed on. We were all young. Susan was 15, I was nine and our older brother, Mike, was 18 and went right into the service. My brother went into the Navy. Our father ended up having to sell both houses and all of our furniture to pay for our mother's hospital bills. My mother's death was very hard on all of us. Our father -- Our father turned to alcohol, which left my sister, Susan and I home alone a lot. We were very close and become -- and became dependent upon each other. One day our father left us. Susan was going to school and working full time to keep a roof over our head. The landlord would not accept our rent money from Susan as she was not of age to be my legal guardian, which led us to look for somewhere to live. Susan reached our brother, Mike, in the service and even though Mike had just recently married, Mike took me in. That left Susan alone to find -- to fend for herself. A few years later I heard Susan was in San Francisco and that's when and where Susan met up with Charles Manson. I was a freshman in high school a few years later when I first heard about the Manson murders. This made life pretty tough for my family and me. It was hard to make and keep friends. If their parents found out who I was, some friends and neighbors just would not talk to us anymore. Our whole family was on trial and eventually we lost our dad. Some years later I met a wonderful girl who accepted me for me, Steven Atkins and my family. We married and started our lives together. We now have two beautiful girls that adore their aunt, Susan and uncle, James. We visit as often as we can. When the girls were younger, they had a lot of questions. Why can't aunt Susan come to visit us. Why does it take so long to visit aunt Susan. It was difficult trying to help the girls understand that this is our only way to visit aunt Susan. Aunt Susan always helped talk with the girls to help the girls understand why things are this way and why we have to go and visit aunt Susan and why she can't come to visit us at our house. We are hopeful and pray that Susan will be granted release, a release date. Then our children can have a real close relationship with their aunt and uncle as our own girls are very fond of their aunt, Susan. Susan has been a very true inspiration to us in so many ways by helping the girls understand all of her blessings and prayers and bring the desire to my family to walk with the Lord. We are a family in need of our sister and our aunt and we wish to become a closer family almost after 40 years. Please grant my sister, Susan Atkins, a release date. Sincerely, Steven Atkins. The last letter I want to read is from a young woman that I just met through Breaking Barriers. I did not solicit this letter. She came up to me the day after we completed the Breaking Barriers session and she handed it to me and told me to go and read it. And so I kept it and I'd like to share it. Dear Susan, I felt I should write to thank you for helping me open doors I could never find on my own. The amazing thing for me was how quickly I've managed with your guidance to acquire a whole new perspective on a dilemma, which has haunted me since 1998. You showed me how to find a healthy solution to a matter where if left to my own devices over time, I would have found myself back in here doing life. Within my core, I believe Christ put you in my path for this reason and I don't know if anyone else could have reached me the way you have, Susan. In the past five years I've gone to groups and programs. I've sought out counselors and paid psychiatrists. Nothing took away my fantasies. I don't know for sure that they won't again surface, but I now own a piece in my heart about the past like I've never known and I'm no longer bound by the struggle I once was. You are an amazing woman, Susan Atkins. I needed you and I truly believe our Lord crossed our paths for a reason. I was drawn to you months before that Friday night at our purpose driven life Bible Study, and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out why. I then read Helter Skelter and to be honest, a part of me could even relate more, and that is so sad that somebody could relate to that. That part of me was still trapped and I was so eager to get to know you and to talk to you and to see how you found a way out of that mental prison you were once trapped inside of. I saw your light that Friday night; that night where we washed each other's feet and I so wanted to talk to you about what haunted me, but I just didn't know how. Thank you again, Susan. I know Wednesday is a big day for you. You are already in my prayers. You are a beautiful woman with a very big heart and you have made such a positive impression on my life. God willing, come Wednesday, you will hear time served and spend the rest of your life in freedom. You deserve it. I don't hear that very often. Your sister in Christ, Tamara Bagpard. To whom it may concern, I have known Susan for almost 20 years now. Although we don't get to visit Susan in person as often as we would like to, we keep in touch through letters and pictures and occasional phone calls and visits. I grew very fond of Susan immediately. Susan is all -- always has a calm, kind, gentle loving touch in her voice, letters or cards. You can always sense the smile on her face or feel the love and concern in her voice. I feel very blessed to know Susan. She walks with the Lord and has planted seeds within me, my husband and our children. Susan's countless, unconditional support she gives to her nieces just amazes me. Susan is always encouraging, loving and full of guidance, praise and a strong desire to be with her family. We have all lived too long without Susan by our side and interacting with us on a day to day basis. Susan was a child that may have thought she was more of a young adult. Her life would have been definitely different 30 years ago. Family didn't talk about issues like we do today. People didn't seek counseling when they had troubles or needed some emotional support and stability. The loss of one's mother at a young age would be difficult on anyone. I know Susan has changed her life a long time ago. Susan is not a threat to society. I know that Susan feels remorse every day of her life for not stopping the horrible tragedy that has hurt so many people. I ask you to take a good, long look at the person in front of you today and see her for the person she has become and not the horrible person that the media and the world has portrayed her as. Please see that Susan has changed and grown and deserves a chance to prove it. Thank you, Kelly Atkins, my sister-in-law. Those are the most valuable letters and the letters of my husband and my family. They are the most valuable letters I have ever received because they tell me that my purpose in life is indeed being served. I thoroughly believe, Commissioner Perez, that God works out all things together for good to those who love God and to those who are called, according to his purpose. I do believe in redemption. I believe that the United States of America is basically a Christian nation with churches, synagogues and mosques in every city, every village, every town must believe that redemption is possible or the pews would be empty. If regeneration, repentance and remorse and rebirth are not a part of the heritage of the American people and if redemption is not made available to all people, when I read John 3:16, the God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever would believe on him would have eternal life and would not perish. I am a whosoever at God's mercy and God's grace has touched my life. And God's mercy and God's grace is a part of my life everyday of my life. And if one piece, one piece that needs to be bridged and that is reconciliation. And I do want to, through the Board of Prison Terms and Parole, make available at any time, in any way that the families of the victims, if they ever desire to, to confront me face to face, ask me questions. I will answer any questions that they have. I will answer them honestly. They deserve that from me. I've just never been able to bridge that gap and I need help. I need help from the BPT. I need from the CDC. I need help from the community. I think it's time that there be some healing and that's why I'm here today is to offer that healing. To offer a way and to ask for a way. Will you help me? Will you help the families of the victims? Will you help the outside community find a way? Will you help the District Attorney's Office? Will the District Attorney's Office help? Will the Police Department help? Or will the legacy of hate and revenge and retribution continue today? It's not the time served. It's not whether I stay in prison or out of prison. There's prisons beyond the walls and the fences of CIW. There's a prison of un-forgiveness and that prison of un-forgiveness hurts every single heart that holds it. And I understand the unwillingness or the inability and with forgiveness, if should -- if forgiveness should come, it does not mean an abandonment of the victims. It does not mean a disloyalty to the victims. It does not mean that I don't do what justice demands. It does not mean that the law is thwarted. But forgiveness and restoration and reconciliation means healing. And that's what I'm asking for today, for everybody in this room.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you, Ms. Atkins. Does that conclude your comments?

INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 3042, the Board of Prison Terms will be considering comments from two of the victims' next of kin, specifically as it relates to the views of the person responsible as well as the crime and the impact that that crime has had on your life.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: So if I could, for the record -- I'm sorry.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: I'm going to change the tapes so that it's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, that's fine.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: -- not interrupted in the (indiscernible) speech. [Thereupon, a new tape was placed in.]

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: On the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We're back on the record. At this time, at this point I will ask those victim's next of kin to go identify and herself and make her statement to the record.

MS. TATE: My name is Debra Tate. I am sister to Sharon Tate. I would like this Panel as well as the perpetrator and her husband/representative to know that it is not mine to condemn or forgive. It is my healing took place the same way your healing is taking place, but without motive. My mother, my sister and myself have all given to try to heal the pain at -- that occurs at the hands of others. Similar, not unlike, but not nearly as heinous as yourself. It is not Biblically my job to judge, therefore, I'm not even going to go there. I let that go years ago. I do not harbor any hate as that is a waste of time and is offensive to the God that I serve. However, the Bible also says that you have a great obligation to man and man's laws and it is that I will address. Due to the acts and the choices that you made 35 years ago, not only did you create the victims that uniquely to myself, I knew all of them and loved all of them. I'm the one person that's spent time with Abigail Folger, Voityck Frykowski, Jay Sebring. With the exception of Gary Hinman as he was a visitor, all of the people in that house as well as my sister, Sharon, and I do not want you to forget her eight and a half month old baby. Not a fetus at that point, by law, whose lives were taken. At that moment in time, you also took from me, my mother, as Sharon was my best support, my best friend, my everything, which is why I spent a lot of time with those people. In addition to that, upon your actions, I lost my physical mother, leaving me alone, not unlike yourself. My choices were a little bit different than yours. I didn't want to live. I felt guilty for being present on this earth. For many years I exposed myself because I am a good Catholic to dangerous situations, hoping that it would take my life. Each one of these people in this room, including my niece, who had -- did not have the privilege of seeing or writing letters or understanding any of this to her aunt. My own daughter, who went through great mental trauma recently when she was e-mailed a picture of that brutal act upon her aunt and went into mental distress, checked herself into the mental hospital because the face laying on that floor was the face of her mother years ago. You couldn't tell us apart in photos. My daughter has since tried to turn it around into something good and go to college, which she had to resign from due to funds. Something that you have not had a problem with as I understand it. She wants to be a medical examiner in a forensic environment so that she can help answer the questions that so many, too many families have in this day and age. It's not getting better in this state, as you Commissioners well know. It's getting worse. And although I abide by the law, I understand the law, in the law of hearts, Susan, you do not deserve to be free of the freedom of forgiveness. There are people out there, many, many, many, many people who think that it is impossible that people such as yourself could come out. There are many people out there, thousands, hundreds of thousands that are still very much afraid. There are people who do not want to write letters that I have assured would not get to you, and obviously I was wrong. It has. There is a higher power, but it -- that you or everything in this world is serving as we well know. You and I are just pawns and players in that. Technically, I cannot guarantee that in a free -- the freedom of society, that the same aspects that you displayed once before, lack of personal fortitude and weakness, would not manifest themselves again. And as the speaker of hundreds and thousands of people, they aren't wiling to do that either. And I'm asking the Board to please consider maximum denial. I am sorry. I didn't mean to be this long winded. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you.

MR. DIMARIA: My name is Anthony DiMaria, the nephew of Jay Sebring. I want to comment first on some of the things that we -- that I heard today in the room before I read from the letter that I have written. These crimes were committed by a bloodthirsty clan involving conspiracy, hostages and coercive murder. They worked together like piranhas and shared equal responsibility. The incarceration behavior of Susan Atkins is commendable. But in short, for any law abiding citizen, is normal. Ms. Atkins is incarcerated for what she did abnormally in diabolical fashion. In no way can it atone for these slaughters; most heinous. The issues of whether Atkins could kill again and the mental state pales in comparison with the gravity of her crimes, and with the most germane principles of accountability, reckoning and justice. I feel no hatred towards Susan Atkins. I feel the imperative need for justice. In a letter that was read -- written or read by Commissioner Perez, like Charise, I would like to see my uncle, but I can't, because he was murdered by Susan Atkins (indiscernible). First, I'd like to comment on why after so many years, our family has decided to present at these hearings as of late. The reasons are many, but I will touch on just a few. The murder of Thomas Kummer, also known as Jay Sebring, dealt our family unimaginable loss and unbearable suffering. The press following the slaughters was deplorable and in many ways was as repulsive as the murders themselves. The exploitation and lies were lurid. It was impossible for us to imagine that uncle Jay, after being shot, stabbed and beaten to death, would be butchered again in the media as he lay defenseless in his grave. Sadly, each of the victims suffered the same malice. It was as if we were in the middle of a bloody feeding frenzy, literally and figuratively. My grandparents made a definitive decision to shield their children and very young grandchildren from the evils that ripped our family apart and turned the world upside down. In our grief and shock we sought shelter in the only place that we knew. There was trust, love and the truth. We turned to each other. It was all we could do to cope. It was all we could do to survive. We trusted that justice was at hand with guilty convictions and the subsequent sentences of death. Then the sentences were commuted to life with the possibility of parole. Actual parole for such cold blooded mass murderers seemed impossible; especially considering the abhorrent, inhumane nature of these murders and knowing firsthand, the irreparable hell they caused. But when my mother learned that parole was, in fact, a real possibility, she stated the need of justice for her brother. We are here seeking justice. I would like more than anything to share with you who Jay Sebring was and what he brought to the world, but there aren't enough words and there isn't enough time and this is not a worthy forum. As the Board is convened here today to consider parole for Susan Atkins, I feel it is more salient to know that Susan Atkins, herself, sentenced eight precious souls to death. For them there is no parole. Ms. Atkins sentenced hundreds more to a lifetime of heartbreak and hell. We are all a shell of the person we were before Susan Atkins shattered our lives. Our struggle to cope, it's forever. Some of us have become walking ghosts. Some of us talk to ghosts. One thing is certain. The magnitude and profundity of Susan Atkins' murderous rampage has no rehabilitation, no recovery. For those of us living, those who have passed on, those murdered, there will never be parole. These crimes did not end 36 years ago. They have become a part of who we are and what we must endure. It's on TV, a t-shirt, an album cover, a joke, a reference in the middle of a movie. It strikes in the middle of the night. It's in my grandmother's eyes on Christmas Eve. It's in my mother's tears. Just last month, it was at an art gallery where stolen crime scene photos were sold to the highest bidder. Their faces shot, stabbed, mutilated and their bodies naked. I brought some of these photos that are splattered all over the Internet for anyone to see. This repugnancy is protected by the freedom of speech only to raid each victim's right to privacy. I ask that you look at these images. I have them. May I pass them to you?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We will not (indiscernible) them.

MR. DIMARIA: Okay, okay. Then I ask any time you see these images, they're all over the Internet. When you see these images, when you see the bloody, distorted faces, see your mother's or father's face, when you see the bodies naked and mutilated, see your son's, your daughter's body. See these faces, defenseless and prone in death and see your own face sensationalized for the world to see while your family grieves. Nothing was spared when Susan Atkins murdered our loved ones. Not their lives, their identities, their reputations, not even their privacy. This vile exploitation is not such the media's responsibility, but it is a direct manifestation of the hands and the mind of Susan Atkins. These atrocities are as devastating and malignant today as they were 36 years ago. Time doesn't level it. It doesn't diminish the destruction and the loss. Not 36 years, not 50 years, not 100 years. This is a life sentence imposed by Susan Atkins. The tragic repercussions extend beyond our families. They have become a sinister societal cancer. In March of this year, four Pennsylvania teenagers were convicted of murdering their friend. They state within testimony that the Manson killing spree was an inspiration and that they listened to Helter Skelter over 40 times before committing the murder. The victim was killed with a hatchet. Jay Sebring was an extraordinary man and brought so much to everyone he touched. He was a leader, an innovator. He was a maverick with revolutionary talents and ideas. Because of Jay Sebring, I know that if you have a dream, if you follow your vision and live life with passion and regard for excellence and integrity, anything is possible. Dreams come true. Because of Susan Atkins, I know that anyone, anywhere, anyone in this room can be slaughtered with their families at home in the middle of the night. Because of her, I know that a wonderful dream can turn into an unimaginable nightmare. Though I don't understand how my uncle's murder and mass murders of such heinous nature could possibly lead to a parole hearing, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of a man who was a profound source of love and pride for all his family. I am proud of his talents, his many accomplishments, but most of all I am proud of who Jay Sebring was; his character, what he stood for. The last thing he did was to attempt to defend himself and those dear to him at gunpoint. In the face of death, he stood up against an unacceptable evil and fought for what is right and precious. Today you see just a few of us whose lives have been shattered by Susan Atkins. We are standing here today along with our family members and friends that can't be here. We are compelled to love, fighting for justice. If for no other reason than because Steven Parent, Voityck Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Rosemary LaBianca, Leno LaBianca, Sharon Tate, her son, Paul, and Jay Sebring deserve justice. They deserve justice. As Susan Atkins is here seeking mercy from the Parole Board, I'd like to note that she, herself chose to have no mercy seven separate times, snuffing out seven precious lives and a defenseless unborn child. Never forget that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you, sir. Please identify yourself on the record and your relationship to the victim.

MS. DIMARIA: I'm Margaret DiMaria, Jay Sebring's sister.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Can you pull that mike a little closer to her, please. Thank you.

MS. DIMARIA: I think I need to go back to the day that my husband and I went to (indiscernible) and to my brother's service. My father was with us, my brother. My mother was too sick. Our son, Anthony, was too young. And when I saw my brother, I wanted so badly to do something to change what could not be changed. But even worse than that, to see my brother barely resembling himself, because of what they had did (inaudible). It's (inaudible) and (indiscernible) whatever (inaudible). It's kind of hard to be here today because I have a hard time understanding someone (indiscernible) they found guilty of so many heinous murders and sentenced to death and now through processes, this has been changed and we are here (indiscernible) parole hearing. When I hear Susan Atkins say she wants forgiveness, she wants to end hatred and revenge, I have no revenge. I have no hatred. I (inaudible). I saw my parents go through horrible pain and keeping it to themselves, all of this trying to protect each other. Going back to the service, when we went to (indiscernible) and (inaudible) buried, we have a service for our family members and his friends and the people he grew up with that loved him, that admired him. And (inaudible). He was my oldest brother. So good with (inaudible). So full of life; he loved life. He loved people. He loved doing everything he could out of every minute of every day. He helped a lot of people. I'm still finding out the people that he helped. He always (indiscernible) when he started out and (indiscernible) wasn't able to (inaudible) work. Anyway, (inaudible) then we didn't want my mother to see him (inaudible) the way he was. So my husband told me to try and (indiscernible) to have my brother (inaudible). It was (inaudible) to try (inaudible). He was in that shape because of Susan Atkins (inaudible), because of (inaudible). Her niece from the letter she's not a murderer, then tell me what (inaudible) came from that she (inaudible) she was (inaudible) murders she has (inaudible). She's as much a murderer today as she was 36 years ago. My brother is as dead today as 36 years ago. She has all of these things that she's done, all these committees, all of these organizations, all of these degrees. And I am0 years old and I don't of anybody that has done all of these things. I don't know of anybody. But incarcerated, she's done all of these things. And I think that's a big word; incarcerated, she's done all of these good things. I'm sure she (inaudible) before that horrible night, before all the murders. Over and over and over again (indiscernible). Talk about change, she could have changed that night. She could have stepped in front of any one of them and said we can't do this. That didn't happen. And at the time my brother was murdered, I was (indiscernible). I didn't have (indiscernible). I had several miscarriages (inaudible). But this isn't really about me. When you look at me, I want you to see my brother and all the other victims. I want you to know that all these things are still going on. Our youngest daughter, many years later, when we thought we had everyone protected and saved as much as possible from this, she came home from school one day (indiscernible). Somebody had a t-shirt on with one of the murderers. And people were laughing; her classmates were laughing. The person that was wearing it had no idea. They were saying this person was great. He was terrific and somebody to look up to. These things are still going on. There is this influence. I thought our youngest would be safe from that. None of us are safe from that. But society also is not safe from that. We have to -- I feel I'm here to represent my brother and the other victims, but I also feel an obligation to our society. We all have to abide by the rules and when we don't, we have to pay the consequences. And the punishment in this case for murder, heinous murder, it can't equal the crime. It's impossible. But we're asking for justice. We're asking for justice to continue and for people to be protected. There are still people that have very big concerns. When Susan Atkins admits that she was so easily influenced and was influenced, I believe it can happen again. I believe it's not worth taking the chance. When I found out that they were all arrested, I thanked God and I felt thank God (inaudible). No one else will ever have to go through this. No one else can possibly be murdered. They can't influence anybody else. And now we're here today. It's hard for me to understand why I have to be here. But I know I have to be here and I will be here. I have two pictures that I brought and they are not of the crime scene. I would like you -- They're in frames. I would like you to see them. I would like you to see my brother as he was. But if you can see them, I would ask that the cameras not be on them. There's very little that we still have that's precious to us that we can say (indiscernible) today, but they are not for others to (inaudible). And I would (inaudible)?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Let's (inaudible). Just leave them upside down on the table directly in front of you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: That's good. Yeah, maybe over here. Yeah.

MS. DIMARIA: There's an inscription on (inaudible). It's written to my parents (inaudible). The other is a picture of (inaudible) and I (inaudible). The picture was taken when my brother (inaudible) to come to California and stay in a motel and stay in a suite and do something that he never did; ever in (indiscernible) life. But maybe (indiscernible) life was still (inaudible), teach us (inaudible). Direct us. Two totally different people; one very gentle and one very regimented and strict; both loving (inaudible). And that picture of my parents was taken (inaudible). They lost (inaudible) was murdered and they looked at that for their rest of their lives. (Inaudible) to say.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. We will now recess for deliberations. The time is 6:12 p.m.

[Thereupon, the tape was turned over.]

RECESS

--o0o--

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS DECISION

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: This Panel -- Ms. Atkins, the Panel reviewed all information received from the public and relied on the following circumstances in concluding that you are not suitable for parole and that would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison. The first and foremost issue that we took into consideration is the gravity of the offense. A review of the record indicates that the offense was carried out in an especially cruel and callous manner, in that the victims in this case were shot and/or stabbed multiple times, to include the stabbing death of a pregnant Sharon Tate. Multiple victims, specifically eight, were attacked and killed in three separate incidents. The offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner in that all the facts in this case suggest premeditation to an extent. Some of the victims in this case were abused and mutilated in that one of the victims had his ear cut off and numerous other victims were stabbed to death over a period of time. The murder of the first victim, Mr. Hinman, on July 25th, 1969, did not deter you from later committing additional offenses. It should be noted that Mr. Hinman was stabbed repeatedly over a period of time. One of his ears was cut off and he subsequently died as a result of a stab wound from -- a stab wound to the heart after a lengthy period of time. The motive for that particular crime was trivial in that it appears that it was committed for the purpose of robbery. These conclusions are drawn from the Statement of Facts, wherein according to the record, you and your co-defendants, known as The Manson Family, on or about July 25th, 1969, caused the deaths -- death of Mr. Hinman by repeated stabbings. On August 9th, 1969, members of The Manson Family, to include yourself, Ms. Atkins, went to the home of Sharon Tate and proceeded to murder the victims. Specifically, Ms. Folger, Mr. Frykowski, Mr. Parent, Ms. Polanski and Mr. Sebring. The victims were killed via gunshot and/or multiple stab wounds demonstrating an extremely high level of violence and savagery in the commission of these crimes. During or after the murder, the words "PIG" were written on the wall or door utilizing blood of one of the victims in an apparent effort to incite a race war. On or about August 10th, 1969, you and your co-defendants entered the LaBianca residence and proceeded to participate in the murder of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Death again was accomplished by multiple stab wounds. Again, the blood of one of the victims was utilized to write slogans intended to start a race war. In a separate decision, the Hearing Panel finds that the prisoner has been convicted of eight murders, and it is not reasonable to expect that you would be granted parole during the next four years. As a result, we are going to deny you for four years. Again, the reasons for the four year denial, the main reason is the gravity of the offense. According to the record, the offense was carried out in an especially cruel and callous manner in that the victims in this case were shot and/or stabbed multiple times to include the stabbing death of an eight and a half month pregnant Sharon Tate. Multiple victims, specifically eight were attacked and killed in three separate incidents in the sanctity of their homes. The offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner in that the facts of this case suggest premeditation. The victims were abused and mutilated during and/or after the offense in that one victim had his ear cut off and numerous other victims were shot and/or stabbed to death over a period of time. The motive for the crime, the first crime, the death of Mr. Hinman was very trivial in relationship to the offense in that he was murdered for the purpose of money. The murder of the first victim, Mr. Hinman, did not deter the prisoner from later committing other offenses. Mr. Hinman's death it is noted resulted from multiple stab wounds over a period of time and his death subsequently occurred as a result of a stab wound to the heart after having had his ear cut off. These conclusions are drawn from the Statement of Facts, wherein according to the record, Ms. Atkins along with her co-defendants known as The Manson Family, on or about July 25th, 1969, caused the death of Gary Hinman by repeated stabbings. On August 9th, 1969, members of The Manson Family, to include Ms. Atkins, went to the home of Sharon Tate and proceeded to murder the victims. Specifically, Ms. Folger, Mr. Frykowski, Mr. Parent, Ms. Polanski and Mr. Sebring. The victims were killed via gunshot and/or multiple stab wounds during a period of time, demonstrated -- demonstrating an extreme level of violence and savagery in the commission of these crimes. During or after the murders, the words "PIG" were written on the wall or door utilizing the blood of one of the victims in an apparent bizarre motive to incite a race war. On or about August 10th, 1969, you and your co-defendants entered the LaBianca residence and proceeded to participate in the murder of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Death again was accomplished by multiple stab wounds. Again, the blood of one of the victims was utilized to write slogans, once again with the motivation to start a race war. It's important to note that the victims in this case were not a threat to you or your co-defendants in that they were in the sanctity of their home at the time of the offense -- offenses. A review of the record indicates that you have an unstable social history and prior criminal arrests, which includes arrests. You have one conviction for possession of marijuana and you have arrests for receiving stolen property, possession of a concealed weapon, reproducing driver's license, possession of dangerous drugs, use by a minor, grand theft and grand theft. You also have extensive use -- a history of extensive use of narcotics to include LSD, marijuana, hashish and methamphetamine. It's important to note that the psychiatric report dated January 3rd of 2005, written by Staff Psychologist Robert Smith is somewhat inconclusive. And the reason I state that is because if you look at page six of the most recent report, Doctor Smith writes, these crimes are horrific and are well beyond what is common in our community. Inmate Atkins does admit responsibility and she offers what appears to be credible expressions of insight and remorse. Complete assurance of her acceptance of responsibility, insight and remorse will probably always be clouded somewhat by the factual disputes that stem from her earlier versions of the crime. We do note for the record, ma'am, that you do appear to have realistic parole plans with your husband in your county of last legal residence. And it does appear that you do have acceptable employment plans; again, as a paralegal in the business of your husband. In addition, you also have marketable skills that you would be able to utilize upon your release to parole. You have a paralegal certification that you would be able to put to use. You have completed word processing courses and you have worked for an extended period of time as a clerk within the institutions and as a receptionist that would appear to provide you with the skills necessary to obtain that type of employment on the outside. The Hearing Panel notes that responses to Penal Code Section 3042 indicate an opposition to a finding of suitability by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the Los Angeles Police Department and numerous or a number of victims' next of kin. The Panel makes the following findings: And that is that you need further therapy in order to develop insight into the commitment offense and the underlying cause of the offense. Nevertheless, we would like to take this opportunity to commend you for a variety of things. First of all, we'd like to commend you for your completion of your AA and for being very close to completing your BS. We do encourage you to complete that. We'd also like to commend you for your extensive participation in AA, NA, Breaking Barriers, CODA, (Indiscernible), Bible Study Fellowship, Sharing Our Stitches, Mexican American Resource Association, the African American Women Prisoners Association and a variety of other programs that you have participated during your lengthy incarceration within the California Department of Corrections. However, these positive aspects of your behavior do not outweigh the factors of unsuitability. And as a result, we will deny you at this point for four years. In the meantime, ma'am, we are going to ask the Department of Corrections to conduct another psychological evaluation for your next parole hearing. And specifically, we are going to ask them to evaluate your violence potential in the community and your insight into the crime, the significance to which drugs had to the commitment offense and to estimate your ability to refrain from using these substances in the future and to also evaluate the extent to which you have come to terms with the underlying cause of the offense. We also recommend in the meantime that you continue doing exactly what you've been doing recently. And that is that you remain disciplinary free, take advantage of whatever self-help, therapy, vocational programs may be available within the institution and continue to maintain a positive attitude. Good luck to you, Ms. Atkins.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Good luck.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: This concludes this hearing. The time is 7:40 p.m. Good luck to you, ma'am. [Off the record]

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We are back on tape on the Susan Atkins' case. Mr. Whitehouse so eloquently pointed out that I have made an error, which in fact, I did in regard -- in reading the decision. And that is that according to the record, Ms. Atkins did not enter the LaBianca residence in Los Angeles. And we do have a miscellaneous decision from our Executive Officer Marvin Speed to that fact. And it specifically states: A review of the record does not support the Panel's statement that the prisoner entered the LaBianca residence on the night of the murder. The transcript -- That previous transcript as a result was corrected and I would like to correct the record for this particular hearing. But again, Ms. Atkins did not enter the LaBianca residence at the time of the murders. That concludes this hearing. The time -- Is that correct, sir?

ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: This concludes this hearing. The time is 7:44 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

PAROLE DENIED FOUR YEARS