We've tried.

Tex was sentenced to death, along with Charlie. Both would have fried long ago.

But California repealed Capital Punishment, so both their sentences were commuted to life in prison. "Life Without Parole" wasn't an option back then, so incredibly, both these winners come up for possible release every so often.

In his book, "Helter Skelter, the True Story of the Manson Murders", prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi quotes Tex Watson as saying, "You'd better hope I never get out".

So far, so good.

Shartorius: Not to be picky, but they would not have been "fried", which we associate with the electric chair. Had the courts not ruled as they did in the 1970s, Manson and his crew, as well as Sirhan, et al., would most likely have been killed in San Quentin's gas chamber.

The dumb @ss still thinks he may get out someday and is afraid of another life in prison sentence.

Justme-123,

Thanks, I was unaware of that.

I used the term "fried" in reference to "toast", "kaput", "gone". However I can see where the term strongly suggested the chair.

Thanks again!

Also that wasn't Watson who said that. One of the others not associated with the Tate/LaBianca murders did. Still, thats quibbling. I doubt any of them will get out, especially not Watson considering he did most of the killings.

Any method used to keep these scumbags under lock and key for the rest of their lives is a good thing. They should have gotten the death sentence but we'll have to live with life imprisonment.

They're so institutionalized that if they ever do get out, (which they wont) they wouldn't know how to act in our society!

No sh%t. Ole Tex must have been getting some pretty good care to have lasted this long in prison. With any luck, when him and Charlie and all the rest finally kick off, we'll get to hear what's on those tapes. Although, it'll probably just make people want to kill the azzholes all over again.

Once upon a time I knew a guy named Charles "Chuck" Watson...he was a one legged farmer. Truth! He's long since passed away, though...

DG_W

Once upon a time I knew a guy named Charles "Chuck" Watson...he was a one legged farmer. Truth! He's long since passed away, though...

daahhhhhh [drool]

So all the vitriol for this guy and his crimes aside isn't anyone concerned that his attorney-client privilege is being violated? I know, I know, he's a horrible murderer, however he still has the same legal rights and should enjoy the same legal rights as any one of us.

Actually, a large part of your rights cease to exist upon conviction. Attourney/Client priviledge is not actually a gurenteed right either. The Constitution, read it, love it, weep over the destructions ravaged upon it in recent decades.

The One and Only, nope, no attorney-client violation! Tex, like an idiot, SOLD those tapes to a writer to raise money for his appeals. Once he sold them, they lost any privilege. In other words, he's screwed and he knows it. He doesn't give a crap about the victims' families. He said something on those tapes that will nail him and some of the other Family members and there is no statue of limitations on murder. There are other murders that police have attributed to the Family but there was no proof. Tex's ramblings may allow them to re-open the cases.

Keith, you would be wrong. Attorney/Client privilege is sacrosanct. You do NOT give that up after conviction. But, in this case, Tex sold the tapes to a writer, which means that they are no longer considered privileged. Tex gave up his rights when he sold them to a third party.

I concur with hollywoodunderground. I had to deal with a lawyer a few years ago and I signed a contract dealing with the privilege and it contained a clause that said that if I discussed the case with anyone but my lawyer the agreement was broken. I suspect that this is probably standard. Once he released the tapes to one person he broke the agreement.

Count Ibis, and HollywoodUnderground:

You may be right....but you may well be wrong. LOOK closely at the article's quote:

"Police note that in the 1970s, Watson allowed the tapes to be released to a prison chaplain, Ray Hoekstra, for the purpose of writing a book on Watson published under the title, "Will You Die for Me?""

Now, here are the issues.

First, an attorney client privilege is not unlike the "Priest-Penitent" privilege. Each one allows and indeed, mandates that there is confidentiality. That Watson gave the tapes to a priest, raises the issue of that privilege. Now, this is where it gets..interesting.

The article is silent as to what the tapes were given FOR, other than to be used for "writing a book". IF those tapes were to be used BY the priest (not someone else) for the purposes of the book, and then ONLY for the priest to get an understanding of the "person" and not "the deeds", then the tapes may very well still be privileged. IF the contents of the tapes were not used in the book, again, the privilege may very well still be intact, which would preclude the police from even listening to them.

Thus, Count Ibis, what probably happened when you signed with your lawyer, was that the non-disclosure only applied to to people NOT cloaked in the privilege. Let me give you a "for instance". Say you were in an accident and you hired a lawyer - you know that what you tell him/her is covered by the privilege BUT - if you discussed the accident with your DOCTOR, it would STILL be privileged under the Dr./Patient privilege.

Hollywoodunderground - the article states NOTHING about selling them; nor does it say anything about appeals.

My conclusion, as a lawyer, is that we do not have enough facts to say whether the privilege applies or not.

Sees: I think Leslie Van Houten has a slight chance of eventual parole, very slight, but I agree that the rest of them have zero chance.

Let them all out............in pine boxes!!

Justme, I agree. Van Houten's case is very different from the others for legal reasons. She was released from prison and lived freely in society for quite a while because of an error made during her trial. Later, she was convicted in a new trial. Also, she didn't participate to the same extent the others did.

Does it or even should it matter what level or degree the involvement was? They were all involved, period. I agree with schoolyard, they can all leave in pine boxes. There is forgiveness, but that does not absolve one of the consequences of one's actions. I had to set my criminal ex straight on this when he tried boasting about how Jesus died for his sins. Yes, Jesus died for your sins so you may be accepted into heaven. However, you still must reap the consequences of your sinful actions. You reap what you sow is still valid even to and for those who are born again.

I thought you were going to say something realistic after you said you "set your ex straight" for the Jesus garbage. Lmao Instead you confirmed the idiocy and used an extremely idiotic way of saying society has deemed that you must pay for your crimes...lmao.... I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

The saying in prison is "As long as Folgers coffee is on the shelf, none of them will parole" YES, I heard this first hand. They committed a crime, they are doing their time, let it be. If the tapes reveal new information and proof of other murders, then add time to time and be done. Why do people think we need to dwell on the past. And if they have asked from their hearts for forgiveness, it will be given. Read the good book if you do not believe me.

Have a wonderful evening all. I do enjoy reading the bolg though, it is quite intertaining, so Thank You

Interesting that you mention Folger's coffee. A lot of people don't know that one of the victims was Abigail Folger, great-grand-daughter of the founder of Folger's.

Yessah! Rule is what a client shares with their attorney is kept hush-hush. But, if his objective was to have it published then they probably puts the kabosh on that argument. I dunno how many surviving family members the families of those crimes are still around. Her husband the pedophile is still around but he's got his own problems. Let he LAPD have 'em. Give us something other than Obama - Romney crap to look at

People don't lose their Constitutional rights while in prison....

Technically you do lose some rights. Right to vote? Right to bear arms? Those are the two that come to mind. There may be others. You not only lose rights in prison, you lose them because you committed a felony for a long, long time, if not forever. However, I don't know if legally the cops are entitled to hear these tapes due to the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege. I'd fight it.

Fight it for what, Mike?

I believe under California law that attorney-client privilege ends when either dies. I don't trust "born again Christian" Watson at all. There may be a deeper reason he wants those tapes kept from law enforcement. There may indeed be clues to other unsolved crimes in those conversations.

The privliege is held by the client; the death of the attorney has nothing to do with it. Watson waived privilege when he sold the tapes to a 3rd party.

Thanks, scullymf

No, you don't lose your rights while you are in prison...ACLU has nothing to do with that. It is simply the law

You lose some rights, depending on your crime. Some are obvious, such as freedom to come and go as you please [if your incarcerated]. But with certain crimes you may lose your right to vote, own or possess fire arms, etc.

I checked to see why the tapes were not covered under attorney-client priviledge and found that in most states, attorney-client priviledge does not apply if:

By disclosing the tapes to the person who wrote the book, he disclosed the communication to someone who was not his attorney. Dumb move.

Jack - actually you do lose some rights, especially if you're convicted of a felony.

Convicted felons lose the right to vote and the right to bear arms.

Yes, they lose some rights--freedom being the most obvious. They do not lose the right to medical care and confidentiality of same, nor do they lose their right to practice freedom of religion (within reason). They do not lose their right to purse happiness--they just have to find it in the confines of prison walls and regulations. They can't vote. They can't have any type of weapon--not just guns. They cannot make money off of the crimes they committed. They have the right to an education and/or work. They have the right to receive mental health treatment--if deemed necessary by a qualified therapist. They don't have the right to a TV--they have to buy that for themselves. They have a right to two meal a day, one of them being warm. Most get three...Unless they have behaved badly then they get a nutritious concoction call nurtriloaf--not very tasty, but it will sustain life. They have more rights, but that is pretty much the majority--Oh, of course, they have the right to sue just about everybody for just about everything.

Uff Da: Thanks for sharing that. I was wondering why the tapes would even be a question since last I heard, what a client says to their attorney is a confidential thing. But if he gave up that right already for a book deal... Yeah. Dumb move.

Except Watson is from Texas. And the town he's from went out of their way to prevent his extradition to face his crimes in Ca.

I sort of agree with you here. Except this stuff happened before it's just that not everything was reported. Some crimes became national news but most were local news and some never even got that far. So people were shocked by this (as they were with the murder of the Clutter family in Kansas) but as news became more widespread and more of this was reported people realized that this isn't all that uncommon after all.

Oh come on. "Crimes like this" are barely noticed in today's society?

The crimes here include the brutal stabbing death of a nine-months pregnant hollywood superstar.

What Hollywood stars are pregnant right now? Pick one, and tell me that if someone stabbed her to death, it wouldn't be headline news in every market? It would be THE story, eclipsing everything else.

No, when he allowed the tapes to be released to a prison chaplain for the book he forfeited his attorney client privilege in regard to the tapes.

Attorney client privilege is out the door once the client makes the contents of those discussions public to anyone.

If those tapes disclose that Watson was an accesory to any other non-charged murders he can be charged and face trial for those murders.

CPO, I think what the LAPD is looking for in those tapes is Tex incriminating other family members in unsolved murders that they have long thought that The Family had been involved in but had no proof. Remember, there is no statue of limitation on murder. That's what Tex is fighting for.......he doesn't give a damn about the victims' families.

The privilege belongs to the client. If the attorney had released them without Tex's permission or knowledge, he would have been disbarred. However, it is true, that if Watson releases the information to a third party, he loses that privilege. He lost it when he gave it to the chaplain knowing that it would be published. If he had just given it to the chaplian then priest/penitant privilege would exist...He knew, however, that it was for the purpose of writing a book...If you are on the golf course with a friend and discuss your upcoming criminal case with a buddy, you lose your attorney client privilege....Just a FYI...Most criminals can't keep their mouths shut and that is why they end up on the other side of the bars.

But when he sold those tapes (another article last week said he sold them to the guy who wrote the book), then the attorney/client privilege should have been voided.

That would depend on the conditions of the sale. But I don't think Watson sold them, rather I think he released them for use by the author, which would limit the information from the tapes and still maintain attorney/client privelege. The author could give the LAPD info regarding the tapes, but that would be heresay evidence that couldn't be used to further prosecute Watson, either.

Not when you sell them to a writer to raise money for your appeals! Then privilege is waived. Even if he didn't sell them, when he allowed a third party to listen to the tapes, privilege is waived. But, in this case, the tapes were used for research for a book, which means that they were made public. Ergo, privilege is gone. Tex is screwed.

He can't incriminate himself for a crime that he was already tried and convicted of...Besides, he broke the attorney client privilege when he gave the info to a third party. If there is information in there about unsolved crimes...Too bad for him. He should have thought of that before he released the tapes to a third party for the purpose of publication.

The privilege belonged to Watson and he gave it up...for a book...until then, it was private and protected. That is the law and, if you don't believe me, look it up for yourself. He shot himself in the foot, but he is a lifer so what, exactly, does he have to lose? Think it might interfere with his parole when he turns 90 because he may face more charges? Should have kept his info to himself. It belonged to him....until he gave it to a third party. Now, it is up for grabs and the police have a reasonable interest in the tapes...unsolved crimes. They might as well have it. Could give some family somewhere closure. Besides, why would the state even prosecute? They would just keep the info and, if he was paroled, arrest him again...and then try him for new charges. There is no reason at this time to further prosecute Watson--They would likely save their ace in the hole in case he is paroled--which I seriously doubt will happen.

The lawyer didn't own them. The privilege belongs to the client...unless he shoots himself in the foot, like Watson, and gives the information to a third party. Regardless of what you want, he does have rights. Many don't like to hear that, but it is the truth and to change it, you will have to change a bunch of laws.

Amen Taxman! Some people just don't get it.

Yes, but he sold those tapes to the guy who wrote a book, so the attorney/client privileges should have ended then.

Taxman and abanksone are both right.

taxman...Not exactly the case. The intent of the law is to protect the JUDICIAL PROCESS to receive a fair trial by one's peers. There are many attorneys out there that know that their client is guilty as sin, but have to provide a decent defense. They don't allow clients to purger themselves--that would get them disbarred--but they have to provide and aggressive defense because our system is based on an adversarial system. They have to be able to talk to somebody...so that the attorney can know the facts and decide what defense would be best for the client. It isn't designed to protect the innocent so much as to protect the process.

Abank....BINGO!! You win the cupie doll.

Dont you mean " In hell, Ice water people want" ,, Like the Icon

Oh, Gawd, the technicality police are here!

The way I read it, Watson had already released the tapes for review and publishing by the pen chap. Seems to me that after they have been released from client priviledge they become the property of whom ever is in possession.

Put Chuck and him in a cell and place it on pay for view. That'll help pay pack the 'debt to society' (or at least chip in for the cost of keeping the zoo stocked.)

Neale...No, he isn't.

Nope, Mad, they are not privileged. Watson shot himself in the foot and released them to a third party--privilege went away.

What if it was your family they butchered?

Yeah, okay, long as they drop them off at your house, and you take full responsibility. And just so we're clear, you don't have any pregnant women around, I hope.

Yeah, Me (or you), why should these turds ever get out? Will their victims come back to life? And speaking of rights, victims' rights go up in smoke when they take their last breaths at the hands of these scum. So it blows me away that cold blooded murderers don't lose ALL their rights forEVAHHH!

To all of you who think he should be forgiven for his sin(s), by who, the Tooth Fairy? Santa? the Easter Bunny? Kerney Thomas? Peter Popoff?....the list goes on and on....

So it is the Easter Bunny.

Well said. I agree.

Why does he get to have a ministry that anyone outside the prison knows about? He should be allowed to have a bible and maybe draw a picture of Jesus on the wall or something, but to have a "ministry" that extends beyond his cell? To have a website? It's unfortunate that while everyone in the world knows who Manson is, very few people understand that Tex Watson had the biggest role in the murders. Any white guy who grows long hair and a beard, sooner or later somebody jokes that you "look like Manson". Then you get Tex Watson, who looks like a regular guy. Nobody gives suspicious looks at regular looking guys...

And now they are letting Bruce Davis out? Admittedly, you have to be pretty intensely interested, even if you remember from '69, to know who Bruce Davis is. But if you understand who he killed and are willing to speculate on why he killed them (e.g., that Helter Skelter is not the whole story), it makes no sense to let him out of prison EVER.