• Bobby Beausoleil • 2025

PAROLE HEARING

Tuesday, January 7, 2025

BOBBY
BEAUSOLEIL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: And we're on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Good morning everyone. Thank you for, um, waiting. The time is now 9:23 a.m., today's date is January 7, 2025. And the reason for starting late was a myriad of technical illness type related issues, as well as some legal (inaudible) things to be straightened out. So we are conducting this hearing today by video conference. Mr. Beausoleil, can you see and hear me?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, I can.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: If at any time that changes, please alert me, we'll pause and -- and make the necessary adjustments. For the record, I can see and hear you. And I kind of wanted to let you know too, that I have multiple screens, and this goes for everyone. I have multiple screens, and that means, um, I -- or I actually now. And so if I'm looking around, it's not a function of distraction, it's just a function of the job, the camera doesn't follow like it might will, uh, like might do so in a newsroom, so it's fixed. So if I'm not looking at the camera, uh, it may look like I'm not paying attention. We both have multiple screens. So that will be the case for both myself and Commissioner Newman. Uh, Commissioner Newman, can you also see and hear Mr. Beausoleil?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I can. Good morning Mr. Beausoleil?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Good morning -- good morning.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: So today, this is a subsequent number 21 Parole Suitability Hearing for Mr. Beausoleil. We note that you are present in the Board of Parole Hearing Room at CMF in Vacaville, California. This is California Medical Facility. All of the participants today are remote. We will identify ourselves for the record. Uh, a couple of things to put onto the record as well is your release dates as they have been calculated by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. And so I'm going to put those -- right here. You do have a Minimum Eligible Parole Date, MEPD, September 1, 1974. You also have a Youth Offender Parole Eligibility Date as of September 2, 1986. Court of course -- the law had not yet been enacted, uh, at that time. And you have an Elder Offender Parole Eligibility Date that's noted to be November 6, 1997. Again, the Elder Parole Eligibility statute could not come into law at that point in time. But, but what it does mean for us today is you qualify for two things to give different consideration. You committed this crime while under the age of 26. I have down that it's 21, but we'll tighten that up in a moment. And because of that commission of the crime under the age of 26, the Panel is prepared today to give great weight to youth offender factors. And also because of your time of incarceration and your current age, the Panel is in position today to give special consideration to elderly parole factors, and that's a combination of your age, length of incarceration, and any physical diminished capacity that might reduce the physical likelihood of future violence in the future. That includes such things as maturation, as well as physical and mental diminished ca -- capacity. Um, we'll -- we'll go over what some of those might be. You originally were sentenced out of Los Angeles County. We do have a representative from Los Angeles County. Your admission date in the CDCR is listed as June 23, 1970. Your sentence at the moment is life with possibility of parole. The term was given seven years to life with possibility of parole. Of course we all know that initially you were sentenced to death, uh, which would since been commuted. The Los Angeles County case number, which I'm referring to, which is murder first degree County case number is listed as A as in alpha, 057452. The murder first degree is listed in terms of commitment offense on July 20 -- I'm sorry, July 27, 1969. Although the -- the beginning of the entirety of that crime looks like it began on July 25 with the homicide portion, the 27th, the victim in the crime Gary Hinman. Now the hearing is being audio recorded. So for the purpose of voice identification, I will identify each participant. When I do, I ask that each person to state your full name and spell your last name. I will go first. My name is William Muniz. My last name is spelled M-U-N-I-Z. I'm a Commissioner with the Board of Parole Hearings. I am participating today by video conference. Commissioner Newman?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thank you. Good morning everyone. My name is Kathleen Newman, N-E-W-M-A-N. I'm a Deputy Commissioner with the Board of Parole Hearings. I'm also appearing via video conference on Teams.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Mr. Beausoleil, um, your first and last name, please spell your last name.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Robert Beausoleil, B-E-A-U-SO-L-E-I-L.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: And what is your CDCR Number, sir?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: B28302.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you. Uh, counsel, please.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning, uh, to the other, uh, those other members of the Hinman family present, and anyone else who is here. Uh, my name is Jason Campbell. I represent Mr. Beausoleil. I'm appearing, uh, over Teams, uh, via video. My last name is CA-M-P as in Paul, B as in boy, E-L-L.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you so much. Uh, we have a representative from Los Angeles County, please.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Good morning. Julianne, J-U-L-I-A-N-N-E, altogether Walker, W-A-L-K-E-R, Deputy District Attorney, uh, appearing by Teams. Good morning.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Good morning. We do have a representative from our Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services, or OVSRS. We have her identify in her participation in today's hearing may change, um, but we will discuss that in a moment. Can we begin with Anna?

ANNA MEJIA: Anna Mejia, M-E-J-I-A. I am a representative from the Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you. Now, generally speaking, I am cautious to not have everybody state their full name necessarily, but I can read everybody's name on the screen. So I'm just going to call you guys out as is listed. The first one on our list today, please give your first and last name and spelling of your last name and relationship victim in this case hearing. Kay Martley?

KAY MARTLEY: Kay Hinman Martley, M-A-R-T-L-E-Y. Gary Hinman is my cousin.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you. And next on the list I see Chris.

CHRIS CAMPION: Sorry about that. Good morning. Uh, I'm Chris Campion, C-A-M-P-I-O-N, and I'm a support person for Kay Hinman Martley.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you so much. Next on the list is supposed to be Cheryl Pickford. We did receive information today that she will not be able to make it, and she's listed as a niece of the victim. We also have, um, Debra Tate, a representative for Cheryl.

DEBRA TATE: Hello, my name is Debra Tate. I am a family representative appointed by Cheryl Pickford.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did we get your last name spelling? I'm sorry.

DEBRA TATE: Tate. I'm sorry. T-A-T-E.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you so much. And then we have Anthony DiMaria, if I pronounce it correctly.

ANTHONY DIMARIA: Correct. Thank you, Commissioner. Good morning to everyone. Uh, my name is Anthony DiMaria, DI-M-A-R-I-A. And I am speaking as a Hinman family representative.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right, and in this case I have you listed as a representative for Cheryl.

ANTHONY DIMARIA: That is correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um --

ANTHONY DIMARIA: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: And the last one I see on our list, I'm not sure I see in attendance, would be Antoinette Ramirez Rose, Rhode, I'm sorry. Victim representative for Cheryl as well, but I don't see her. Oh, I'm sorry. She was actually the person who switched with Anna. My apologies. I'm just going off the list. So really quickly, Mr. Beausoleil, were you able to hear all of us as participants as we just identified for the record?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I -- I am and -- and I did, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you. Also in the room are going to be Correctional Officers there at CMF. They may be relieved from time to -- from time to time throughout the hearing. Their function is the security to the institution, not participation in the hearing. For that reason, we don't identify with them like everyone else. Now, as I mentioned, this proceeding is being recorded, that's mandated by Penal Code section 3042 (b). It will be transcribed as the official record of this hearing. You will receive a copy of those who are in attendance. Otherwise you can request a copy, but no other recordings are authorized, including a recording available by video conference software. A violation of this provision may result in exclusion from this for future hearings. Now we are going to take a quick break. We do need to check the quality of this recording. We do need to ensure that all parties can be heard. Commissioner Newman?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thank you. We're going to go off record. The time is 9:33 a.m.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: The time is now 9:33 a.m. This hearing is being conducted by a video conference, that's authorized under Penal Code section 3041.6. As such, Mr. Beausoleil today, if you need to speak with your attorney at any time during today's hearing, please ask. We will allow you and your attorney to have a confidential phone call, which based on how many people are in this video conferencing domain today will have to be accomplished by way of telephone communication. But if you need that confidential communication, please ask. Do you understand?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I do, sir. Thank you very much.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. So, Mr. Beausoleil, we're not here today to reconsider the findings of the trial and appellate courts, nor are we here today to retry your case. The Panel accepts the findings of the courts. Purpose of today's hearing is to find out who you are today and whether you pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released. We will consider many factors including your criminal history, your behavior, and your programming since you've come to prison, your parole plans in the event you are released, as well as any testimony we hear today. After we've asked all of our questions as a Panel, that would be myself and Commissioner Newman, then your attorney and also the Deputy District Attorney from Los Angeles County can also ask clarifying questions. After that, we'll move into closing statements. Both attorneys today will be given ten minutes each for closing statements. And after that you also may make a closing statement and address the Panel. After that, we do have some identified individuals who are allowed to make statements today. We will allow those victims to make their statements. They speak last prior to us going into the deliberation process. And there are no questions and I will ask that there be no interruptions to their comments today that are made. Our expectation today is that all parties in this hearing will treat one another with dignity and respect. Once we move into the deliberation process, our responsibility as a Panel is to ensure that we consider all relevant and reliable information and we follow an obligation to not act arbitrarily nor capriciously in this determination. Now, Mr. Beausoleil, I strongly encourage you today to complete -- to be completely honest with us today. I also intend to swear you in, so I'm going to ask that you raise your right hand if you are so able. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. Thank you. You can put your hand down. Now, Mr. Beausoleil, what is your date of birth?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: November 6, 1947.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: And I mentioned earlier that you were 21 years old at the time of the crime. Is that accurate?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. And how old are you today?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I am 77.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I have down that you've been in prison for 57 years and four months or thereabouts. Does that seem to be fairly accurate?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I -- I'm going to take your word for it. I've kind of lost calendar to be honest with you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: What do you -- what do you think -- according to your calendar, where do you think it's at?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Pardon me. I didn't --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: According --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: -- clearly get that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Sure. According to you and your math, where do you think your years of incarceration are at?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I think there are around 56, uh, 56 and a half years, something like that. I -- I'm not positive, but, um, I haven't really counted back, you know, I have to do that with my old birthday. So, um, it's just one of those things I don't pay that much attention to it. I just live. Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Uh, the one -- what we have is 57 years, four months. So I think that's going to be close enough.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Now, before proceeding, we do need to conduct a review under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Uh, something that I'm sure you're very familiar with. And what really that is about is effective communication. So we want to make sure that we understand you and that you understand us. Otherwise these proceedings, uh, are really not going to be in the best interest of everyone. The reality is, uh, this is an important factor, especially where there's a liberty interest at state and for you there is. So what we have here today is I have opened SOMS, which is the Strategic Offender Management System, and I have your ADA tab open. I -- for some reason, my BPH 1073 feed has closed, I need to reopen that. This document, the BPH 1073 actually has information regarding effective communication. It was documented by your correctional counselor. And so I'm going to compare and contrast what is available to us in this BPH 1073 document. That's just a form number and what's available to us in SOMS to make sure that we're both accurate. But before I do an -- and loose one, I can -- I can do this, I have more screens today than I've ever had. Let's talk about your glasses. Are your glasses for reading or distance?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Both.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. And if you had to read today, would those glasses work well for you?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. We do have a planned accommodation because of your glasses. It is a magnifying device. If you need that magnifying device, it should be in the room. If it's not, please let us know, we'll summon the custodial staff and make sure that it's made available to you today. Now, according to this document, you're listed as DLT and DLT is actually -- this is an acronym, and there's many within CDCR. Um, it's -- it's for the -- the Disability Placement Program. And it does say that you're supposed to have mobility, um, because your mobility that's impaired, you need level terrain. So were you able to get to the hearing room today, the BPH Hearing Room by way of level terrain or through assistance?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Well, yeah, I'm ambulatory. Yeah, I'm fine as far as (inaudible) yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um, it also states here, DPV, so, um, that's vision impaired to some degree. Um, but it looks like you have your glasses on and I don't think that's going to be necessarily a concern. Your grade point level in both of these documents is listed as 10.9. Um, and I -- I thought I saw in the last hearing they mentioned 12.9, but, uh, 10.9 is adequate. Do you believe that's an accurate, uh, Test of the Adult Basic Education?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No. It -- it is not. I don't know why it's -- it is that I, um, uh, 10.9 was -- was what it was when I came to prison. Uh, I passed the GED many years ago. Um, and so, uh, and I've -- I've been doing a lot of college work, so, uh, over the years and, uh, including just this past year. And, um, so no, I -- that is not accurate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. Um, the reality is, as a Panel we're more concerned if it's lower and necessarily higher. Um, it's fair -- fair enough to state that it's probably higher. Now, according to Correctional Counselor Jay Perey, P-E-R-E-Y. On December 4, 2024, this correctional counselor noted no accommodations we're given in terms of discussion. I want to know, how do you hear today's video conference?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I hear fine. I have good ears.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Good enough. Now, it does say here that you also have some compression stockings, knee braces, orthotics, wrist support brace, do you have all of those items?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I have compression stockings that I use very rarely. Um, I -- I have a, uh, a thing for my thumb, which I have a tricked thumb, so I -- I have a brace for that, but I don't use it. I haven't had to use it in -- in a while. So other than that, I'm -- I don't use any orthotics or anything like that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. Yeah, 'cause it does say that you have some therapeutic shoes or orthotics, but we're just double checking here.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Mm-hmm.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um, lastly I want to talk a little bit about your education. You mentioned your GED, I have a note that somewhere in around 1970 you get your GED see your college work you've already done. So I'm not concerned about your ability to read your comprehend and it looks like a lot of the submissions were either you in typewritten form or in handwritten form. Is it fair to say that you did those, um, those documents, your -- your actual writings?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, it is.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. And that does -- that gives us good, uh, gives us a comfort level that you are not in any way impaired by your ability to read or comprehend. Lastly, I see that you've never been part of the Mental Health Delivery System. Is that accurate?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That is true.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: And I also see that you've never been included in the Developmentally Disabled Program, and those are for individuals with cognitive deficits. From what I see in the file, you've never been in that program, is that correct?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That is -- that is true.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: So let's talk about medication for a moment, because medication can affect your ability to think clearly. Are you taking any medication today that might interfere with your ability to proceed with today's hearing?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No, not at all.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. So in terms of your general health, do you feel well enough to proceed?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. Lastly, what I want to tell you is that you need to use the restroom, if you need to get a drink of water, or if you need to take a break and get up and stretch, we -- we are willing to accommodate those kinds of requests. So all you have to do is ask, okay?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Commissioner, can I just confirm, uh, Mr. Beausoleil, you're not wearing your compression stockings, your knee brace, your orthotics or your wrist support today for your hearing?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Is that correct? And --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- you're able to proceed without those accommodations?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right, very good. Okay. I just had to clear the record. Thank you.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: That is all right. So, um, based on your answer -- I'm sorry, counsel, does your client require any other reasonable accommodations for today's hearing?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No, to my knowledge, no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you. Now, based on your answers to these questions and the information we have, Mr. Beausoleil, the Panel doesn't see any reason why the hearing cannot be held today. So I'm going to check in with your attorney to see if there are any -- I'm going to start just right here. If there are any preliminary objections?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, yes, I do have a -- a handful of objections. Um, first of all, uh, with, um, Ms. Walker being present from the District Attorney's Office, I would, uh, ask that any questions that she might, uh, present only be done through the Commissioners as is required through, uh, in the, um, code of regulations. Uh, and she can ask, um, clarifying questions if they're, you know, passed through the Panel first. Um, also I've advised Mr. Beausoleil not to discuss the facts of the commitment offense. Um, they've been discussed in past hearings. Uh, he did, um, speak with, um, the -- I forget the -- the name of the psychologist who conducted the Comprehensive Risk Assessment. Um, so we will rely on the statement of facts and the -- the Court of Appeal opinion as the, uh, official state of facts. And then as well as anything Mr. Beausoleil has said in the past, uh, at other hearings or/and the Comprehensive Risk Assessment. Uh, obviously to the extent necessary to describe his insight and -- and that sort of thing, he will be willing to answer questions. Um, I would object to the consideration of the 2000 plus page petition, uh, that Ms. Tate has presented. Uh, she's presented it for the last few years, seems to be an ongoing petition. There are, you know, people signed it years ago, but there's -- those people have no relationship to Mr. Beausoleil or Mr. Hinman, there -- it's a lot of misinformation in there. There's violent, uh, rhetoric in there, uh, directed at Mr. Beausoleil and other, um, and other individuals. So, I -- I would just ask the court, or excuse me, the Panel, not consider that. Um, and then I would object to any statements being made from -- by Ms. Tate or, uh, Mr. DiMaria. The, um, I believe that Judge Ryan in the Los Angeles Superior Court made it very clear that, um, Ms., uh, Martley is, while she is, uh -- uh, a family member of Mr. Hinman, is not the victim next of kin, that would be Ms. Pickford. Uh, actually, I -- I believe that is actually untrue. I believe that there's a sister who is a living relative of Mr. Hinman, who would be the next of kin. I don't believe that you can, you know, keep going down the line until you find someone who is willing to be present to, uh, to participate as next of kin. And I -- at the point to Judge Ryan's statement that, uh, let's see, that Pickford as next of kin may provide her own statement as well as designate two representatives to make statements on her behalf. Martley, on the other hand, may attend hearings and make a statement, but designate a support person who may attend with her, but not participate in the hearing or make a comment. So, um, I -- I, you know, I don't -- I don't believe Ms. Pickford is the victim next of kin. So I -- I believe that whomever is the next of kin would have to be present and -- and appoint Mr. DiMaria and Ms. Tate to make statements on their behalf. So I would object to any statements that they would make. I would also, uh, ask the Commissioners to consider Judge Ryan's comments and his opinion about the content of any statements that, uh, any of the victims or victims representatives make and limit them so that there's no discussion of crimes for which Mr. Beausoleil was, uh, not involved, um, because that was a -- a problem at the last hearing, I believe and -- and I -- I will interrupt to lodge a due process objection, if I feel like those, um, those comments are being made, uh, because they have been, um, judge Ryan acknowledged that they were inappropriate and they should not be part of the hearing record. Um, lastly, I would object to the consideration of the recent report that was included in the 10-day packet. Um, which, so let's see. It was prepared by, uh -- uh, investigator by the name of M. Garcia, uh, prepared and, uh, signed on November 20, 2024. I believe that this report, first of all, I mean the -- the -- the fundamental claim in it, that there was a -- some sort of per -- you know, statement of perjury or something, uh, is -- is false. I mean, it's very obvious that he's referring to Twitter, that the -- the investigator answered his own question through the -- this basically saying that the -- the reference to the Twitter link. Um, in any event, there's a lot of additional information in this that is totally irrelevant, as, you know, including references to other individuals, private citizens, uh, who are being -- whose names are being smeared in here for absolutely no reason. I don't believe that this should even be part of the record and I don't believe there's anything in here that the -- the Panel needs to consider. I -- I -- I believe it was done in bad faith. I believe the fact that this was -- that this complaint was apparently originally made by Mr. DiMaria at the conclusion of the last hearing. And there was no investigation done until recently, until in anticipation of this hearing shows the bad faith of the investigators, uh, to bring this up and the inclusion of totally irrelevant information in here as well. So I would object to any consideration of that. Um, and, uh, I would object to the use of any confidential information, um, if there's any that's, uh, being considered by the Panel. Those are my objections.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. I was just taking some notes there. Um, so that concludes the current kind of pre-hearing objections at this point in time?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. I have that -- I'm sorry, that was a question. And then, um, for our sake, what -- we're going to just take a quick break here in a moment, but I wanted to make sure, um, are there any motions or any documents that we did not get in our packets?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No, I -- I -- there's no additional documents that, uh, I would want to submit. The, um, I don't have a motion. However, I would -- if -- if the Panel is inclined to allow Mr. DiMaria and Ms. Tate, uh, to participate as victim representatives, I would ask that there be some showing that, uh, the -- that the victim next of kin, which I believe would be Mr. Hinman's sister, has approved them as victim's representatives. I -- I, you know, this has been an ongoing problem. I've been raising it at every hearing, I've been raising it with the courts. I would like some clarification of this issue and some, uh, some actual, uh, proof that -- that they have been -- that they are a per -- authorized to appear as representatives of the Hinman family, especially in as much as Mr. DiMaria's comments, he's making independent, uh, commun -- he has independent communication with members of the CDCR and advising them to engage in investigations, uh, which I -- I believe, you know, goes beyond the -- represent the -- the role of the victim's representative.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Your Honor, I -- I've had my hand up for a bit, but if I could --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see, thank you. Please.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Uh, one thing before I get into any of counsel's comments is, um, I see there's a meeting guest, um, not identified. I -- I am concerned, um, on behalf of the, uh, victims next to kin and representatives that the meeting guest might be, um, an observer to whom they may object. So, I don't -- again, maybe it's just somebody from CDCR BPH, but, um, it -- I would in particular inquire whether or not it's a Sophia (inaudible), um, who is the purported granddaughter of Charles Manson, 'cause we'd object to that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. Uh, I -- I see what you're talking about.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (Inaudible) anything about that?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I -- I see that on the screen right now, and I don't see anyone else. I don't know who that is, quite frankly. And I'm looking at our attendance list, which we can break it down. Uh, meeting guest -- meeting guest, if you can hear us, I'd like you to identify for today's record. Yeah. I have no idea who our meeting guest is here.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, for -- for the record, I -- I appreciate that Ms. Walker raised that. And I would join in the objection to anyone who's unauthorized, you know, uh, we -- we certainly would not have not asked anyone to appear.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Are you referring to the person who's appearing in together mode?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um, yes, I would say so. And -- and when you break down the people icon, it drops down on our right hand and it just shows as meeting.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. Well, I'll delete it. How's that?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you. Well, if they -- if they chime in again, we will address that when it happens. Um, but we have a number of objections. We're just going to collect our thoughts on that and be able to speak to these objections. I know they were handled a little bit differently in the last hearing, but, um, we're going to just take a break and then come back. So, just so everybody knows, when we do return, we do need to identify everyone once again before go onto the record so that we can say with reasonable, you know, certainty that everyone has returned. That is part of what we do. So the time is presently 9:54 a.m.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Your Honor --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Was -- excuse me, I'm sorry Commissioner. Was -- yeah, I was just going to ask Ms. Walker if you had another point you wanted to make. Your hand was still up.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: I did -- I did. Thank you. Uh, oh, I'm sorry. I guess I could take that down, huh. Um, I'm just getting back used to this. Sorry. Um, I too have an objection, um, or a comment to make about, um, Mr. Campbell's behavior --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I don't believe that the DA is authorized to -- to make argument here. I don't think that's the role of the District Attorney in these hearings.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Well, I -- I would

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I object (inaudible) --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: I would disagree with Mr. Campbell --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Counsel -- counsel, uh, please, uh, I -- I want to hear what the statement is. I don't even know what the statement is. Please, uh, do not try to control the hearing. Uh, Ms. Walker?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Thank you. That's a good segue into my concern. Uh, during the last hearing, it was quite apparent. I -- I've never in my life read a -- a transcript quite like it, where Mr. Campbell continued to interrupt the Commissioners, um, the -- the victims next of kin and representatives. And it was really, it -- it was stunning to me. And I would ask that the Commissioners, counsel Mr. Campbell to not interrupt the victims' representatives and family members and if he has objections, we know what they are, and he can make them and bring them in the habeas corpus or whatever he's going to do afterwards. But I was thoroughly shocked at how rude he was to these people, and I would hope that this Panel will not allow it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I -- I absolutely disagree characterization as a personal attack on me. I do not appreciate Ms. Walker appearing in this today's hearing all of that, I -- Ms. Judge Ryan, uh, confirmed what I had argued --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Mr. -- Mr. Campbell, we - - we have a long way to go here.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Understood.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um, in -- in that you provided an objection to the DA asking questions directly to your client, uh, it -- it's -- it's sort of a precursor, uh, which is essentially what she's done here. So, uh -- uh, there are going to be some ground rules that we're going to ask for both. Um, but give us a moment to address these objections and allow us to move through the hearing. Um, because there is, uh, quite a bit, we have court order to have this done within 60 days, and we really do need to get it done. There's a lot to accomplish here, and we'll set some guidelines and address these objections when we return. The time is now 9:57 a.m. We'll be back in about ten minutes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're off record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you. The time is now 10:13 a.m. All parties previously identified have returned after this short break. I wanted to be able to put onto the record and address the issues the counsel has brought up, specifically as they relate to objections. Um, with regard to the first objection to the DA speaking directly to, um, your client counsel, we're going to overrule that. That actually is a procedural format we're going to follow. We always follow that. There always is a tendency to -- to ask questions directly to a client and, uh, Mr. Beausoleil, sometimes there's a tendency to want to answer directly. We will police that so that it's done in the appropriate fashion. Um, with regard to the determination, according to Penal Code 5011, for Mr. Beausoleil not to ask answer questions about the facts of the crime, that's absolutely within the context of the law and, um, so we will grant that because that is appropriate. If you choose not to, and that we have other information relevant, we will not ask those questions. And if we do ask questions that are somewhat corollary related, counsel, please, uh, understand. We -- we -- we are not trying to bring on your right to object to those answers or to simply direct your client not to answer. Uh, with regard to the objection to, uh, petition that were signed, uh, I think I noted 51,000 petitions, uh, that were signed and 5,000 comments that were made. I did read that some of those were highly inappropriate type comments. However, we're going to overrule that. Panel is obligated to give, uh, weight as they seem fit in terms of what's relevant and reliable and we will make that determination, those -- those will remain in -- in the file. It did -- it did, uh, make for a long file online file review. Um, with regard to the objection to Tate and DiMaria making comments today, we do know what Judge Bryan had, uh, specified. What we have as the Board is that Ms. Pickford is and next of kin and for that reason, her intention was to be here and then somehow that did not occur, but she did designate representatives. And so we're going to overrule their objection to allow Ms. Tate and Mr. DiMaria to speak. Uh, we're going to grant it in part in that there is a decision by the judge that speaks of what would be appropriate in this context. And what we will guard against and ensure for proper context is that comments today relevant to, uh, that will be made by representatives Tate and DiMaria should be made with reference to suitability for Mr. Beausoleil should be made with relevance to impact statements, victim impact statements and should also be limited and circumscribed solely to the crime from which he has been convicted. The comments, uh, about other crimes, which Mr. Beausoleil was not convicted, we will -- we will guard against those comments and ask that they not be entered in. Um, I know that the last Panel had to sort through that. We -- we will limit those comments and keep comments, uh, to the context of the crime that we're discussing, meaning the murder of Mr. Gary Hinman. Then there is an objection to the content. Um, and we certainly understand that that was already, um, decided by the judge. And we as a Panel, we will take the responsibility. So, uh, we will overrule your objection to the content counsel. Only in that we as a Panel are going to police that. We want to make sure the comments are circumscribed to this crime. Uh, also your objection with regard to the investigation provided by IRSD, an investigative branch of the BPH, uh, citing that you felt that it was in bad faith and you object to that, we overruled that the Panel's re -- responsible to consider all relevant and reliable information, and essentially to give it the weight that would be appropriate by this Panel's consideration. You did object to confidential information. That also is overruled, uh, in some ways, the intent of the Panel to not rely on confidential information in every time that that's, uh, possible because of the fact that it can't be shared in its entirety. Um, we overrule that. Um, but in a moment, if we do use confidential information, we'll state that we did. And if we don't use confidential information, we'll also state that, because that would be critically important. We don't like that to be a mystery. Lastly, uh, the request or proof that the next of kin is Ms. Pickford and, um, that the representatives today are, uh, identified appropriately, that's my twist on what I heard the objection to be, uh, consistent with the judge had said as well. Uh, that will be overruled. It is not, uh, within the guidelines for the department to relinquish the information about who has filed for and how the determination was made to reach that. Ms. Pickford is the next of kin. I know that that was the content of -- of what was provided to the judge, and the judge certainly ruled on that. Uh, the judge also said that that was in fact by the department last time, done in good faith. And again, once again, we're operating under the fact that that was also in good faith. What I did want to state today is procedural guidelines for hearings and suitability hearings will be under control of today's Panel. Um, I don't want to limit counsel or the -- the DA making objections or interjecting and interrupting at appropriate times. Um, if we feel that it's inappropriate, we'll certainly ask the comments to be held. And certainly those types of clarifying questions can be asked later under clarifying questions or in closings statements. Uh, it's not my intention to just limit everybody from having a voice, but also we want to make sure that the hearing today is such that we can flow through the procedural process of hearings and get to everything that needs to be said. And where there is objections, we'll definitely hear them. Where there are concerns, we will hear them, but we also want -- excuse me, our hearing to flow in - - in the best way possible. And as I mentioned, we do want all participants today to treat one another with dignity and respect, great matters to be discussed here today. Certainly, um, that being the -- the liberty interest, uh, Mr. Beausoleil, central and critical to him and counsel, as well as public safety, we weigh those things and their grave matters to be concerned. So we'll move through them in the most appropriate way possible. And I don't want to limit unnecessarily, but we will also control any issues we believe to be, uh, too heavy handed in any regard, one way or the other. Um, in saying that, today, the Panel has reviewed your Central File Mr. Beausoleil, and the Comprehensive Risk Assessment. You are encouraged today to help us correct or clarify that record as we go through today's hearing. The Panel has reviewed the confidential portion of your file, I already mentioned, we'll advise you if we're going to rely on that confidential information or not. In that way, it won't be a mystery to you. So let's talk about, um, a little bit about why we're here today. The reality is, we had a decision that was rendered by the Superior Court in California, County of Los Angeles that was, uh, forwarded to us. It would appear August 29, 2024. There's some considerable -- some important considerations that were made here. Uh, this was based on the recent habeas corpus, and it was in fact granted in part, so to sort of address the bigger issues in a general way moving forward, I do want to begin essentially with the conclusion and that would be that this hearing be hold within 60 days. And what we do see is the judge did consider that combining the heinous nature of the commitment offense with the 2020 RVR for unauthorized bill business dealings is not supported in the record. And what that basically means, anytime the Panel denies someone, there has to be a nexus of current dangerousness, a current, uh, nexus to current dangerousness. The judge also did conclude that the Board did not air in allowing, uh, Kay -- Kay Martley to appear as next of kin. And obviously that has shifted. The judge did say though comments that are made by representatives that have already been approved so far and were previously approved should be kept to the scope of this crime, suitability and victim impact. Uh, as a result, um, the judge did conclude also that information about who should be designated as next of kin, um, similar to the 1707 process, was not something the judge would grant to push over. The reality is all of this was from hearing January 28, 2022. That hearing was, uh, Commissioner Cassady and Taylor at CMF. So that hearing essentially is vacated and moved to the side. And we're going to proceed today and consider, once again, does Mr. Beausoleil, uh, represent an unreasonable risk to public safety. And if so, you would be denied and if not, so then you would be given a grant by this Panel. So let's begin a little bit by talking about what have been the recommendations in the past for you to prepare for the next suitability. And I want to omit this last hearing. Um, I want to know, what have you been told to do in order to get suitable to be found suitable for parole? Do you remember?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, to continue self-help, uh, to upgrade vocational or -- or educationally, uh, stay, um, disciplinary-free.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. Now we know -- we know the scope of the last hearing covered a lot of the ground with the 2020 RVR. We're not going to make a lot of effort, uh, to discuss that today. And so, uh, for -- for good reason, right? The judge already determined that that does not create that nexus to current dangerousness. So you set that aside. Does that make sense to you, sir?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. Um, the RVR being what it was, and a guilty finding was not sufficient by the judge's standards to reach, um, a finding that a nexus could be drawn. So we're going to kind of move on from that to some degree. I'm going to cover a few things in the Comprehensive Risk Assessment. Now, you've not made -- you do not want to answer any questions about the commitment offense, so I'm going to ask a general question. Counsel, please feel free to object if you think it's hinging into that area, uh, of discussion about the life crime. Uh, that's not my intent. I want to get some general things onto the record. Mr. Beausoleil, are you responsible for the death of Gary Hinman?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, I am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. I want to talk about what was going on with you at the time. And my purpose here isn't to get into the details of the commission of the life crime, it's to get into a better understanding, uh, your insight.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: So with that in mind, why do you think you were able to commit a crime of this nature without going to the details of what you did?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I had at that point, lost the center of myself. I had lost, um, I was, um, I had gotten involved in some -- some bad things with some bad people, um, and got in over my head. Uh, I -- I was actually being manipulated and didn't understand that that's what was going on. And, um, you know, that I was -- I was entertainment. I was this young want to be kid and, um, uh, you know, I was being -- I was being played. And, um, I got into a -- a situation, uh, that I should never have been involved in. I've never -- I don't have any criminal, um, orientation and had no prior, you know, criminal involvement. Um, and, uh, when it came down to it and -- and I got basically trapped into a situation that -- that was, uh, beyond what I could cope with at that time, at -- at the age that I was and -- and with the experience that I had, um, I lost it. I, um, I was desperate and I believed that the only way that I could get away, uh, and run away was to kill Gary. And, um, uh, from that moment, I, uh, (inaudible) me. Um, uh, and so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um, I -- I think I have some same information here on where you were. Um, with regard to these comments you made, that you lost your center and the fact that you've been involved with people, that you were being played and you got involved in something that you believe was over your head that you should not have been involved with --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Excuse --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: -- explanation --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Excuse me, Commissioner Muniz.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I apologize for the interruption. I think we lost the DA.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Let's go off the record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. The time is 10:29 a.m.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. The time is now 10:34 a.m. We have identified everyone who was previously here and they have returned. We had some technical difficulties and it's pretty important that the Deputy District Attorney continue in the hearing due to some technical difficulties here. These things happen all the time. So, Mr. Beausoleil, I was talking a little bit about how you got to commit the crime, uh, being cautious not to step into the questions about the crime, but I did want to ask, um, one -- one of the things that we did see that was provided in our information was a quote from you back in 1973 that, "You better pray I never get out." Now it -- is that a comment you recall making?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, vaguely yes. I -- I did make that comment. Um, I did make that comment. It was, um, it - - it was at a time when I -- if you want me to go into state of mind, I -- I will. I -- I just -- that is a true statement.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. Um, also what I wanted to know is, um, there's information that in that 1973 situation where you were, I think called in as a witness, you referred to the Manson family as brothers and sisters. Did you -- did you consider them brothers and sisters?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, to the extent that I considered everybody who was in the counterculture, uh, brothers and sisters, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. I refer --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I still -- I still call everybody brother and sisters, so I call officers brothers. So I'm just -- I'm that way and that's what I'm -- that's what I meant. Uh, um, I -- to be clear, I have never been a member or follower of Manson was not a member of the commune, I was not a member of the so-called family. And, uh, I've said that from the very beginning and Mr., um, the -- the judge recently went through the whole case records and affirm that what I've been saying all along is true. So, um, I do want to clarify that, I -- I know what people infer from comments like that, that I've made. Um, and just to -- to clarify, uh, what I -- what I speak broadly when I speak to brothers and sisters.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. But let's go -- let's go back to the comment about "You better pray I never get out." What -- what was -- where were you at in that time of your life that you would make such comment?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: It took me years to begin to heal from the trauma that I, uh, inflicted on myself when I inflicted those fatal wounds on Gary Hinman. And, uh, I struggled for years without help on my own trying to work through that, uh, just the self-loathing and the shame that I felt over that. And, uh, I was kind of locked -- locked into that and during that time, I, uh, being in prison and being in prison, I never experienced anything like that. And being, um, uh, around really -- really dangerous people at San Quentin and trying to survive in that, I bury my shame and my self-loathing under a veneer of, um, of bravado, uh, of, um, so I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: So let me just -- let me ask -- interrupt you here really quickly, because you mentioned that you were around a lot of dangerous people. Do you -- do you consider that and that you killed Gary, you yourself were a dangerous person?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, absolutely. Uh, yeah, I would admit that. Yes, absolutely, I was dangerous all during that time because I hadn't -- I hadn't really dealt with what I had done. I had -- it was -- it took me years to get to a point where I could just begin to crack that nut open and understand, begin to look inside of myself and, um, and realize just how far away from the truth of who I really am. I had -- I had, uh, I had, um, drifted and so, uh, I began to bring myself back to myself at that point. But yeah, I -- I was -- I was a dangerous person. I will admit.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Well, safe to say that individuals that are incarcerated in prison can also be dangerous, I'm not trying to say that they were not. It is prison is a dangerous place for sure. Um, I'm looking at a very poor copy. Uh, it's an original copy and it is on page 50 of 423 of the Master Packet (inaudible). "The definition of remorse is a strong feeling of guilt, something to the effect of having a torturing feeling of guilt. And I have none of those feelings of guilt. So there's no way possible unless I acted -- I think I -- I'm reading that correctly, which I will not do to feel any remorse." Uh, this was a statement you were making, um, looks like while in court.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Oh --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: So let me ask you the --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, uh, this was during my court trial in 1970.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um, this looks like it is from the Superior Court of California Los Angeles. And it is, um, I think it's to your time of sentencing. So let me ask you this. When did you feel remorse for killing Gary?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I always felt remorse, but I -- I didn't think that I could show it and I couldn't really show it to myself. I really couldn't because I was not prepared to deal with it at that point. It took years, it took me years, it took about four years before I was able to -- to begin, um, I -- I was almost, I got into a situation with Aryan Brotherhood, and I was, uh, in the infirmary and I -- my jaw was wired shut, um, because I had -- my jaw was broken in five places and my hand was broken. And, um, I -- um, I knew that my life was in grave danger and it would remain so for some time. And I just -- it woke me up -- it woke me up. Uh, I began to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Yes. So let's -- I'm -- I'm going to make a statement here and my statement is, um, because I participate in hearings such as this all the time, I'm going to say that remorse is process. And, um, I want to know when the remorse though first began, if you could just kind of answer that. When did it first begin where you felt remorse for Gary's death?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: About 1974. In -- in -- in 1974 is when -- is when I began my road back.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. So I want to talk a little bit, um, about remorse and I'm going to be dangerous here a little bit because according to what we have in the file, you did return to the house to, um, basically address some of the evidence there. Did you -- when you realized that Gary was dead, did you not feel remorse then when you went back to the house?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I never went back to the house.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That was testimony -- testimony of somebody said that I did. Um, I never went back to the house.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I -- I -- I couldn't bring up stuff like that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. And if you -- if you did not go back to the house, then, uh, fair enough, um, the question might just be moot. Um, I also wanted to know, when do you believe you felt a healthy or well developed sense of remorse? At what point? Started in 1974, when do you suppose it -- it got to a really healthy place? That's not to say it can't continue to grow, but when do you think it got to really healthy place?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I would say that the place that -- that time in my life when, uh, I fully, um, was able to embrace empathy for Gary Hinman to reach back with empathy to what he had experienced by what I did to him was, uh, in 1982, um, I was in the hospital, um, I had been stabbed in the heart and both lungs. Uh, I was killed basically, uh, the, a surgeon, um -- um, cracked my chest open and sewed my heart up and massaged it and got me back to life again. And, um, it -- the correlation between what had been done to me by -- I could only refer to the man as, as someone who was deranged at the time. Um, he -- I was stabbed twice, I stabbed Gary twice, I couldn't -- I could not erase that correlation and, uh, if -- if I would've wanted to, um, it was extremely painful, it physically and emotionally to have experienced that and to be able to, at that point, to fully go back in time and -- and, uh, and know what Gary had gone through because of what I did. Um, it really, um, that was the point where I just -- it -- it was as hard as it was. Uh, it was the point at -- at which I really fully came back to who I was. It was a blessing as -- as hard as it was and, uh, as frightening as it was, um, it was a blessing because it -- it fully -- it fully brought me, um, back to a place where I was fully centered in a moral compass that has stayed with me to the present day. And, um, uh, through that experience, I had to learn how to forgive a man who had done just the most, um, horrible kind of violation, uh, on towards me. Um, I had to learn how to forgive that person because carrying a grudge against him would've been a burden, I could not add to the burden I was already carrying with respect to my guilt for having killed Gary. So I learned to forget that (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um, I know the answer to this question, but I'm ask it anyway. Is it, uh, it's one of the ones I generally ask. At the -- the time of the commission of the life crime, were you under the influence of any drugs or alcohol?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No, I was not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. And according to what I've seen in your file, your clean and sober date is, uh, January 1999?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, yes. That's the last time I smoked marijuana. Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Do you -- do you owe restitution?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I do not. I -- I -- I mean, I don't legally owe restitution. I -- I'll always --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I'm speaking --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I'll always owe Gary -- I will always owe Gary.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I'm talking about court ordered restitution, is what I'm talking about. Um, have you ever engaged in circumventing the process for restitution?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Um, no. I -- I -- I don't know of any instances when I -- no, I -- I've never had any, so I don't -- I've never tried to avoid it. I'm not sure -- I'm not sure why -- why you're asking that question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Uh, the reason why I'm asking the question is, uh, there's two ways to circumvent restitution. The first one being that if you owe restitution, you have whomever is putting money on your books, um, circumvent the process that it can be collected by having that money put on someone else's books. And by, so doing restitution cannot be taken out of those monies.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I see -- I see.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: But the -- the other way would be to have someone who owes restitution to allow them to put money on your books so they don't have to pay less pay that behavior.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Excuse me, Mr. Muniz. I -- I keep losing your picture for some reason, um, uh, for, you know, you're the person speaking to me, but your picture keeps going away. Uh, and I'm not sure why. It's just, um, uh, I don't know if there's anything that you can do about that, but, um, I -- I'm trying -- I want to engage with you because you're speaking with me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. Um, perhaps what might make this is -- Debra, you are, um, not muted, um, so maybe you can mute. Uh, what does happen, uh, and I'm just now looking at that. So thanks for bringing this to my attention there is, um, you know, this stuff over my head. There's algorithms in these video conferences that when people speak and their microphones are on, then the algorithm has to determine who -- who to pick, uh, who's going to get the audio and that's why simultaneous, uh, speakers mess with the recording. So it's good to not interrupt one another if it's not at all necessary. Um, but -- but if you make noise, you'll -- you'll notice that my screen probably has a blue outline around it. And generally what that is -- is when we're speaking, then the computer is focusing on that person. Uh, I don't have control of how the computer does that and the technology. I did want to ask you one -- one quick question, um, 'cause I -- I find it interesting and that was, um, a write-up that you had received, well, way back, I mean, way back in 1972. And the context of that rules violation report is so old it doesn't even look like in any way, shape, or form, like the modern day version of rules violation reports. But it's a product of you being incarcerated for a long time. So on page 144 of 423 day Master File, it says that you got a write-up for contraband. Um, and this had to do with the visit you had with Inmate Manson of Bravo number 33920. Do you remember that writing?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I do not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. So it says on --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's strange.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I'm -- I'm going to read it to you. On April 20, Inmate Beausoleil was escorted from condemned row number two to condemned row number one for a visit with Inmate Manson, B33920, which was Beausoleil's legal documents he had approximate approximately three blank papers signed by what appeared to be Sergeant Plaza -- Plaza's (phonetic) signature, hard to read, really bad, uh, original. At first they looked like harm -- they looked like they were harmless, but in checking again, I felt like they could be used like a blank check since all the page was clear, you know. Do you remember this write-up at all?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I have no clue what you're talking about. No, I don't remember it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. And, um, did you ever have any --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I remember there -- I -- I do -- I do want to say that I had a legal visit with -- with Manson. We were allowed to do that, uh, because he was the codefendant and I didn't know anything about what had happened on a lot of different levels with relation to my own crime and, uh, what had happened in subsequent offense. And I wanted to, um, uh, you know, at the time I thought maybe writing that I should write a book about what happened 'cause I felt like a lot of things needed to be clarified. But anyway, I was talking to Manson and because of, you know, of the -- of a legal, um, as a legal visit, uh, under, you know, of course, supervision. But, um, and, you know, he was just -- he, um, he -- he just kind of blew me off. You know, he - - he -- he did what he does or did and, um, just, um, uh, just behaved in a -- in a strange way where, uh, he was noncommittal about anything really wouldn't answer my questions. And so that was the last -- that in fact was the last communication I ever had with him. And that was the first communication I had had with him, uh, since, um, uh, I saw him at County jail, uh, when I was going to trial. So that's the context for that, I don't remember a write-up. Uh, I certainly wouldn't. Yeah, I -- I don't remember a write-up and I don't remember doing anything, um, that I shouldn't have done, you know. So I'm not sure what the circumstances were on that or -- or what the result was. I don't recall it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Looks like you were written-up for having some forged documents, um, that you don't recall them, is -- is fine. It was in 1972. Um, with regard to the actual crime reading from the appellate decision, it does say, there's no question as in sufficiency of the evidence, some of the testimony will be summarized. I'm not going to read it in its entirety, this is on page 24 of the Master File. Um, it does say defendant was an acquaintance of Charles Manson, who lived at the Spawn Ranch in Los Angeles County with a group of persons referred to as the family. Mary Brunner -- or Brunner, Susan Atkins and Danny DeCarlo were among those who lived at the ranch. And it goes into some of the testimony. Brunner testified in substance as follows, on Friday night, July 25, 1969, she enacted the company defendant to Hinman's house to demand money. Defendant was armed with a gun and with the knife in a leather sheath, when Hinman did -- the reason I'm reading this, by the way, sir, the reason why I'm reading this is I'm not going to be in position to ask you questions. I'm just going to put this onto the record. When Hinman did not cooperate, the defendant beat him with a gun. Hinman did upon defendant's command sign the pink slip to two of his -- his pink slips to his two cars, Brunner and defendant Atkins stayed at Hinman's house. The next two days, during the first night, Manson and Bruce Davis arrived, and there was another fight in which Hinman's face was cut, but one of his ears was severed. Again, not asking questions about that 'cause I think you might have different take on that. Manson and Davis then left in one of Hinman's automobiles. Sunday evening, the defendant said they were going to kill Hinman. And after dinner, while Brunner was in the kitchen and Atkins was in the bathroom, Brunner heard a noise in the living room. She and Atkins rushed in and saw Hinman had been stabbed. Defendant had a knife in his hand and was near Hinman, who was on the floor. They held a pillow over Hinman's face until the noisy breathing stopped. Before leaving the house, Brunner took cash from the cash box, Hinman's wallet amounting to about $20, and then they drove away in Hinman's remaining automobile. Um, there is testimony about you going back, and I'm not going to really speak to that. Um, there isn't a whole lot of other information I think I want to talk about there, but I did want to talk a little bit about your Comprehensive Risk Assessment. But with so many files up here, it's tough to go through them. Comprehensive Risk Assessment looks like you were interviewed on September 30, 2024, as well as October 7, 2024. And you did participate in this interview, which is a good thing. One of the things that I will note for the record, because, uh, you were considered a youth offender, uh, was that at the age of 14, it looks like you were sexually abused. And that can be extremely traumatic situation. That's not something anyone should have to go to -- go through, I'm sorry. But we're not doing anybody's suitability hearing, we're doing yours, sir. So that -- that is not fair for you to have had to go through. Uh, it does say that after you were raped, that's kind of when your personal troubles began. And I did want to ask this because this is kind of interesting. It says, Mr. Beausoleil and some peers stole ornaments from a yard, and they were arrested. He stated that he was deemed out of control, was sent to a boys' camp for ten and a half months. So what is it that you were deemed to be out of control for?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I was deemed to be out of parental control. My parents, uh, had, uh, my four -- my four siblings to take care of. And I was just too much because I was -- I was, uh, I had the begun running away from home when I was 12 -- 12 years old. And I, uh, as I discussed with, uh, the evaluator, um, I was, um, not running away from something. I -- I had a good home, uh, and I was not being abused at home. Um, I was running two things, I was running -- I was just interested in the world. I just felt stifled in -- in Santa Barbara. Um, I wanted to, uh, to -- e -- eventually I left home, I left home when I was 15, um, for good. And, um, uh, began, um, trying to find my way into the music business and eventually did. Um, and that was my, um, my interest. My interest was to be a musician. And -- and so Los Angeles, in the Los Angeles area was attractive to me and I kept running away from home, um, because of that. And, uh -- uh, so the circumstances of, um, being out of control was just not, you know, my parents had difficulty keeping me at home and, um --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I -- I think you've answered -- I think you've answered that question. Hold on one second. Sorry. That was -- that was, um, my break to cough there. Thank you. Um --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: -- taking a look at what is recorded in a Comprehensive Risk Assessment on -- under juvenile arrests, it looks like that was your only arrest as a juvenile. Um, did you commit other crimes as a juvenile you were not held accountable for?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No, I -- no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. Looking at your adult arrest history, um, you had this, um, violation of law. Not exactly, um, what one would consider the crime of the century, plant or possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of hypo or syringe, (inaudible) of some sort, I'm sure, possession of restricted dangerous drugs that was dismissed, plant or possession of marijuana in 1967 also dismissed, traffic violation, no disposition noted there, possession of narcotic paraphernalia in 1968, no disposition noted. Robbery 1969, I think you gave an explanation for that, no disposition noted. Burglary 1969, evidence insufficient and traffic warrant 1969, grand theft auto 1969, which, um, may have been related to the life crime. Um, you've never been under supervised release, is that correct?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's true. Except as a -- except as a juvenile. I was on probation for a while, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Was that when you were in the boys' camp or after the boys' camp?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: After the boys' camp, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Any violations while under that?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. All right. Um, I'm going to defer to Commissioner Newman as we proceed.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thank you. Uh, can you hear me okay Mr. Beausoleil?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I can, yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. And is my picture frozen for you? It's -- everything's frozen for me on my end.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Picture is there, but you're not moving.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. Um, I don't really have any questions about the information that we've covered, uh, till this point. Um, hmm. Okay. Um, so I'm going to move into post-conviction factors then. Now it doesn't look like my camera is working at all. All right. I want to talk to you about the investigative.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: There you are.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, great. Good. Uh, the investigative report that was prepared by, uh, BPH, your attorney made an objection to our use of that report early in the hearing, but it was overruled. So have you had an opportunity to read it, Mr. Beausoleil?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No, I have not. Um, my attorney -- I didn't even know about it till yesterday. Um, it was sort of buried in the packet and he, um, he found it yesterday. Uh, I don't know how long it had been there. Um, but he read, um, portions of it to me so I know what's in there, uh, in a general way and, um -- um, you know, enough that I -- I know what -- what it is.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right. Well, good, because I'm glad you know what it is. I do want to talk to you about it. It basically, um, is, uh, kind of a delving into your business, um, platforms. Basically, there was, um, one of the victims' next of kin made a statement in your last hearing that there was five social media platforms attached to, um, your website. And, uh, you denied that. So basically, the investigation goes through each of those platforms, and I know that since the last hearing, you have made the content on your website free, people can download music and photos now for free. Why did you decide to do that?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, may I clarify a couple of things that you said?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Yeah, please do.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Uh, well, you know, first of all, um, uh, the -- those websites have not been business platforms for some time and they were not business pla -- platforms at the time of my last hearing, they had been, uh, all -- when I received the write-up --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Mm-hmm.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: -- that I received in 2020. So that was -- goes back well before the hearing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Yeah.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, in 2020, I, um, I requested that everything be demonetized and made for free.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: And that was done fairly rapidly. It's not -- it wasn't that hard to -- to turn off certain revenue streams. And I stopped doing artwork for sale.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Right.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I haven't stopped doing artwork.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I haven't stopped (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Let me stop you for -- right there, and thank you -- thank you for correcting the record. You're absolutely right. I think that that was part of, uh, statements that were in the, uh, administrative hearing on your RVR. And, um --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- at the time though, I think you said that you did it 'cause it was during COVID and you were going to, uh, demonetize it, make it free for everyone. So yes, it's been some time now, and I think at the time then, and I'm talking about the time of your RVR in 2020, you indicated that you hadn't made any artwork that was for sale since you came back to California. Is that correct?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's true.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, and no music, uh, either, no -- nothing that had not been approved in -- in Oregon.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. So I -- I think that here, the thrust of the investigation wasn't so much, are you selling things, right, "Making profit off of your artistic works." Really, it was more about your credibility during the last hearing, right? Were you being forthright with the Panel when discussing your, um, social media platforms?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I was.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I was.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: The investigation also indicates that your phone calls were monitored and about 30 minutes after your last hearing, you made a phone call to Beth Hall and discussed the outcome of your hearing. Um, so the -- the -- that's not really what I want to discuss with you, but some of the supporting documentation that's attached to this is a concern of mine. And -- and one is about your, the recency of your activities on social media platforms. (Inaudible) Instagram, a most recent post-it indicates was October 24, 2024. So I'm really mostly interested in the mechanics of your work here. How are you making your social media posts?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Well, uh, my friend, um, uh, Beth, as you mentioned, her name and -- and I -- I -- I really regret that she -- her name, I mean, she's a private citizen.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Mm-hmm.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: She's a sweetheart of a person. She's just really a good person. And, um, you know, she's a -- she's a married woman. I saw our relationship is not that kind of relationship. Uh, but we have a good friendship and I just really, um, I just wanted to say that I kind of want to minimize any kind of, uh, de -- thing that might be interpreted derogatory because she's just a good person and I -- I -- I feel for -- for -- for that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right. We don't need to use her name. We'll just call her your agent. How's that?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That would be perfect. Because she's -- that's kind of how she functions.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. All right.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Um, she's -- she is a little quirky, and I admit, you know, uh, that I have quirky friends. I mean, I'm a little quirky myself, so, um, but yeah, so how that functions is that when there is -- there are comments, I do a post. So -- and that usually is like a poem. I'll put a poem up or I'll put, uh, a, uh, com -- sometimes it is quotation from somebody else. My last one was, uh, a -- a quote from Leonardo Da Vinci. Uh -- uh, "If not love what then" but -- and just little things like that I do --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: But how? I'm interested in the mechanics of it. How do you make your posts?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I -- I ask my agent to, um, to do a post. You know, I will send something and I would like this to be posted on the Facebook for the fans. It's a fan page, so --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Mm-hmm.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: -- it's not my personal page. It's a fan page.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Right.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: It has my name it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. So you will email this content to your agent, and then your agent will then post for you?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Well, usually it's mail. I use a regular mail.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. But you have access to email on your tablet, though, correct?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Well, now I do. That's very recent. Yeah. Not at the time of the hearing or anything like that. Last hearing I didn't have that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: So, uh, so up -- up until I -- I haven't done -- I -- well, I think the -- no, even Leonardo Da Vinci, I sent --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: (Inaudible) comments on your social media posts and then your reply to those comments. What's the function? How is it that you are able to post your replies by the same mechanism?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: So it, uh, yes, uh, um, my agent will print, um, uh, will print it out and send it to me in the mail. And typically, it, uh, in fact, invariably what I do is I -- I write, write on the paper that she sends it to - - to me on, and I fold it back up and I send it back to her to -- if there's a comment to be made, I usually thank people, I -- I like to express my appreciation when somebody makes kind of remarks about my art, something like that. So I, um, I -- that's what I do. I -- I just want to be cordial and appreciative of the people who go on to -- to those media platforms and to, um, you know, to -- to comment and to say that they like the work. I want to let them know that --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thank you.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: -- I -- I appreciate your comments.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. Thank you. Uh, it further goes on to -- you're on a lot of social media. I'll just say right now, it must take a lot of time. Uh, they identify Facebook, Instagram, YouTube -- YouTube, SoundCloud, Twitter, White Dog Music, restblade.com (phonetic), Spotify, and then you have two websites, uh, bobbybeausoleil.com and, uh, bobbybeausoleil.love. And I think I read somewhere else that you're on Fine Art America. So, I mean, that's just a lot. Why?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Can I clarify a few points? So -- the ones you just read.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Yes.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Let me make a few comments. I am not on Fine Art America, because that is a -- a, um, I was on Fine Art America and to sell our prints. Um, I'm not anymore. Um, I am not on Twitter. I was not in -- when I made that comment to, uh, to the statement that Mr., uh, DiMaria, uh, had made in his remarks, um, I didn't even know it was recorded that I was speaking to myself. But, uh, but I had said that, uh -- uh, something that it, uh, that it -- that -- that it wasn't that I was speaking specifically of Twitter, which I had instructed, requested to my agent that she, uh, deactivate because I hadn't used it in about ten years or so. And, um, and so, uh, I just -- I deactivate. So I was, you know, I made that comment.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: And, um, so to clarify that point, uh, it -- I wasn't denying, uh, anything having to do with Facebook or any of those kinds of, those are, you know, SoundCloud, all that's true. I mean, and it has been. Uh, and, um, uh, I'm not ashamed of that. I don't --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. All right. Well, that -- thank you for saying that. That leads me to my next question, because back in 2020, when you got in trouble for all of this, you could have just taken it all down. You could have deleted your Facebook accounts, you could have deleted Instagram, you could have removed your posts that were there, uh, but you chose not to, um --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Mm-hmm.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: So I want to say that I feel like you were attempting to comply with the letter of the law, um, Penal Code section, what is it, 3024, that you're not allowed to monetize yourself while you're incarcerated? Is that the one? Um, but --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: So you -- you complied with the letter of the law, but maybe not necessarily the spirit of the law, because by demonetizing your work making it available, you're still leaving the door open for further commercial opportunities. So tell me why you chose the path you chose rather than taking it all down?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I -- I think your interpretation is yours. You know, I don't see it as promoting myself. I see it as something completely different than that. And I've discussed this in past hearings in quite at length, and I -- I am, I -- I have a spiritual -- my spiritual tradition, uh, is founded on, uh, what is called the Dharma. And the Dharma is, uh, it speaks to the Dharma is purpose of life. And it, um, it further, uh, is expressed that purpose in life is to share whatever one's gifts are, whatever -- whatever the universe or whatever you want to call it, has given a person at birth, uh, insofar as what their abilities are, what their aptitudes are, to be able to share that with the world. I have -- I don't care about the money. I, you know, I don't care about the money, I don't care about promoting myself, I care about the fact that what I produce and that I express and the fullness of being an artist, uh, is shared with the people.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. I -- I -- I hear what you're saying about Dharma. I can appreciate that perspective. But when the clinician, Dr. Sanchez asked you that same question, uh, in September, um, you told her that, uh, it says, "I inquired what steps he's taken to prevent additional problems relative to business dealings to include, for example, closing his website, Mr. Beausoleil stated that while some people might share that perspective, that he should shut it down, that would make him look guilty and admit that CDCR was right in accusing him of wrongdoing when he believed he was acting in good faith." So to me, that sounds like a little bit of hubris.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I -- I -- I can understand how you might interpret it that way. It was not intended that way.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. The clinician also - - she -- she also said on page 10 of the CRA that you presented as though you're entitled to special treatment and as someone who believes he's above the rules. Do you agree with that statement?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I do.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I mean, that was her assessment, not mine. I'm just saying what's in the CRA.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah. I -- I don't know that I agree with it, but I don't know that I disagree with it. I - - I am -- I'm an eccentric individual. I know that I'm an oddball. I admit to you that I, you know, and I -- I -- not -- I -- I don't want to be sound -- I don't want to sound like I'm being di -- disingenuous, and I don't want to sound like I'm just like thumbing my nose at the CDCR. I'm doing what I believe is the right thing to do. I have a life, I have things that I produce as a -- as a creative person in life and I have a responsibility to share them.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I used the -- I used the vehicle that is available to me, and it's legal. I'm not flirting with, you know, any -- I don't know about spirit of the law. I, you know, the law says what the law says, and -- and I'm not, um, you know, uh -- uh, like I said, I'm not thumbing my nose at the CDCR. If there are people who believe I should take it down, then they should say that to me, and I'll make myself in compliance.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: But nobody does.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. Well, I'm going to move on, and I appreciate your comments. So -- but before I move away from this investigation, uh, let me ask you, do you feel like you were truthful in your statements to the last Panel?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I do. Absolutely. And -- and I -- in regards to the remark that was used in the -- in the report, I mean, there's just one thing where it says, I was not being honest and that is, I -- to my way to -- in my understanding, the, um, the Twitter account had been disabled, and, you know, so there may have been a remnant of, uh, you know, like the little icon may have been left on the page or something, I don't know, as far as the Twitter part of it. Um, and so I was referring to that and -- and I was, uh, you know, uh, a -- again, I didn't know I was on record with that, but, um, but I was -- I was referring to that only.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. I just have -- I want to move to a different topic. I just have two other areas I really want to, uh, that I have questions about. One of them is your programming since the last hearing. Um, you know, I -- I will say overall in having done, you know, thousands of Parole Suitability Hearings, oh, I'm going to say that your programming is limited. When I look at programming of other incarcerated persons, since the last hearing, you have engaged in some visual and performing artwork. You were engaged in Narcotics Anonymous, which is good, but you, uh, stopped going because apparently that, the time of that NA meeting conflicted with something else you were doing, right?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes -- yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: So, that NA meeting is on Saturday mornings from 12:00 p.m., to 1:00 p.m., correct? And that apparently conflicted with something else in your schedule. You also were assigned to a victim awareness program. You were assigned in June 2023 and dropped in October 2023 for lack of commitment to the program. So can you tell us why you didn't go to that program?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I don't re -- uh, what was the name of the program again?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Victim Awareness.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I don't recall ever going to that program.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I -- I have been brought in -- okay, let me clarify something. Uh, I do sound here, I'm the sound man for a lot of events.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Mm-hmm.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I was probably put on a ducat to bring sound so that I would be there and be able to put the sound equipment together for that event. I was not, um, I hadn't signed up for that program.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. All right. That's fine. And that makes sense to me. Sometimes that happens. Um, so have you ever engaged in a victim awareness class?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes -- yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Can you tell us when?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: In Oregon, I did, uh --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: When?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: -- and not only did I -- this was, uh, oh my goodness, um, when a, uh, there were a number of programs that I -- that were of that sort of involved with the victims that I was engaged with and it goes back to the nineties, it began first of all with, uh, Los Romanos. I was, um, uh -- uh, El Los Romanos is a youth outreach group, and kids were brought in from, uh, probation -- probation officers, school teachers were bringing children who were having problems with the law and to meet with us. And so I was engaged with that for about five years, and eventually did -- I -- I was a video producer up in Oregon, I was the, um, the video, um, media specialist.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. So let me -- hold on. Um, I appreciate, um, that work with -- at risk youth. That's important. Um, I -- I don't really have a full, um, listing of your self-help programming that you completed in Oregon, but I tell you, since you've been back to, um, California in 2015, I did take -- I do have that. (Inaudible) um, the only thing that (inaudible) in California is NA, AA and in the last almost five years, it's been 39 hours of treatment. You also participate in visual and performing arts. Um, but that's the only thing I saw reflected in your own writings, now, I do see that you, uh, are engaged in other things that aren't reflected in the writing. You indicated that you're a hospice volunteer, that you teach guitar and music theory, and you also teach restorative yoga and Tai Chi to, um, other incarcerated persons. So basically, uh, I have some concerns about your lack of programming, and I'm just wondering, um, if there's a reason for that, or is it a time issue or, um, because frankly --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Well -- well --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- the purpose -- oh, I mean, we're still working on rehabilitation here, you know, or do you feel like you've already done what needs to be done?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Well, like I said, I -- I engaged with a lot of programming of that sort in Oregon and, uh, and it's comprehensive and went from there to, um, producing, um, video series for various programs, you know, a -- a lot of them and so I know I'm well versed in self-help processes, you know, going all the way back to the Breaking Barrier series, which I has been in -- in -- in Department of Corrections across the country and I produced the, an updated version of that, which was distributed across the country. I mean, it's, you know, I've been doing this stuff and engaging with these principles for a very long time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: My focus now -- I'm going to say that my focus now, as you said, I -- I consider being involved in yoga and teaching yoga, a self-help program, I teach guitar and teach the creative arts to people -- to people every opportunity I get. That is both, um, helpful to me to keep me engaged in those processes, but, uh, I -- it is been invaluable to me for, in -- in -- with respect to pulling myself out of negative thinking and negative behaviors. And so I work now in education. You have -- you have a Chrono from my, uh, supervisor who, um, employs me in doing all sorts of things in relation to teaching art, teaching music, uh, and, um, performing, um, music for people --

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

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: -- or engaging.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. Thank you. I'm -- I will -- since you brought it up, your -- your position as a teacher's assistant, you started that in April 2024, ongoing, you get satisfactory work results, but I notice when I look at your time cards, you're working around 40 to 50 hours a month. Uh, you're also attending college. I noticed you completed about 15 units. The reason that I asked about when the victim awareness course, and -- and I hear you when you say that you didn't know that you had a ducat for that, and that makes sense to me. Um, but you couldn't give me a date the last time you took a victim impact or victim awareness course, and you said it was in Oregon sometime, and then you went back to the nineties. I'll tell you why I asked that question Mr. Beausoleil. And the reason why is because I read the letter you wrote to Ms. Pickford dated November 12, 2024, just a couple of months ago. And honestly, um, I -- I thought it lacked, um -- um, what's the rank? Uh -- uh, well, I tell you what, when I read it, I had a hard time deciphering who the victim was. Was it you or was it Mr. Hinman? You wrote that you and Gary, had (inaudible) you talked about (inaudible) spent in this letter talking about yourself, I thought showed a lack of sensitivity, a lack of remorse, a lack of insight.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Are you ask -- okay. So am I, uh --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I'm just –

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Let me say that --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I guess that wasn't a question, but that was my assessment of your letter and so I'll give you an opportunity to respond to that.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Okay. Thank you. Um, I -- I understand your -- your perception of that. I -- I -- I relate to it. I, um, uh, I may not agree with it, but I would say that you -- you are right in that I do see myself as a victim of my own -- my own actions as -- as Gary was. I do see he and I, both as victims. I don't see just him as a victim, I see myself as a victim too. And I -- I believe that I victimized him because I was being victimized and there -- I mean, that's simple, just simple facts of the -- of what was happening, what was alive in the moments that those things happened. I don't feel -- I don't agree with you that, um, I don't give value, maybe I didn't write that letter as well as I should have. Uh -- uh, your assessment is your assessment. And I -- I don't know that I agree, and I don't know that I disagree with you necessarily, I don't, uh, it -- it -- the letter could be lacking in some way, but I believe that I expressed myself from the heart, uh, to Ms. Pickford, uh, and in apologizing to her for robbing her off the opportunity to know her uncle and -- and the pain that I caused to Gary. I have -- I don't -- I don't know, um, I -- I don't know -- I can't -- I -- I --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know from your standpoint.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: From your perspective.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right. I -- I think -- I think you and I are going to agree to disagree on that. I understand your spot, your position. You know that, I -- I, um, just one last thing I want to cover the last Panel, um, talked to you in depth about the 2021 115 and I don't think we need to do that today, but the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Taylor, did say that the rules violation and the thinking and behavior behind that would probably be termed criminal thinking. And we thought it might, uh, you might want to take some classes in that it would look good to another Board to see classes in criminal thinking. He went on to say that your understanding of the 12 steps wasn't as good as it could be. You might want to go back and review that. And that your understanding of violence avoidance might be somewhat esoteric. He made some recommendations. But my question for you Mr. Beausoleil, is what -- what do you do with those recommendations that come to you from BPH? I mean, do you feel like they're relevant to you at all that you need to, you know, um, consider that viewpoint in terms of your rehabilitation or are you satisfied with your level of rehabilitation as it is?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I think we can always improve -- improve on ourselves and I do work on that all the time. Um, I am -- I don't know, I -- I've looked at the programs that are -- are being offered, I haven't seen one that I believe I can -- I can draw more from than what I can give and what I learn about myself when I do give and when I serve. And that's I think where -- where, you know, I'm hoping with programs being administered as my own path to self-help, there have not been like specific self-help recommendations that I recall. I recall that I was, you know, get some selfhelp --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Mm-hmm.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: -- and I do that. So I do it in the ways that I think are actually going to be self-help in my case.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: And I -- I -- I wish you -- you were in agreement with it, but I --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I didn't say I wasn't in agreement, but I will disagree with you because last time the Panel specifically told you that criminal thinking, uh, is appropriate, uh, and, you know, might go back to your 12-step programs, he indicated that your understanding of the 12 steps wasn't as good as it could be. So you might want to go back and take a look and review that.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Commissioner I -- I -- I would just like to object, and I've been trying to -- to stay silent for most of this, but, you know, the court did conclude that he acted in good faith. So for the Panel to refer to it as criminal thinking and I believe Commissioner Muniz already said that we weren't going to -- that that was going to be stricken, but the Panel referred to it as criminal thinking, and there's been a legal determination that it was not criminal thinking. He thought he -- he's acting in good faith.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So I --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: That's fair enough.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: -- I think that --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Uh, you're right -- you're right Mr. Campbell, you're right. I'll move on. So, Mr. Beausoleil, I don't have any more questions for you about your institutional adjustment. Uh, you've submitted a lot of documents, uh, you've got good parole plans. I want to talk to you a minute about that. But before I do, I want to check in with Commissioner Muniz and see if he has any questions in this area.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Sure. Um, at the present, I do not.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, I -- I -- I think that you've gone back and forth over whether or not you, um, intend to participate in transitional housing if you're found suitable for parole, but you did submit a letter from Francisco Homes, I believe. Um, so is that an understanding that you do believe that that would be appropriate?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, as I -- as I told Dr. Sanchez in the -- in the evaluation, uh, interview, uh, my intention is to follow whatever instructions I'm given by the parole authorities. I don't know where they will find the -- the best place for me in terms of their estimation.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Mm-hmm.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, so I -- I will follow their -- if they want me to do halfway house, I'm perfectly fine with that. If they want me to have a different residence, I have several --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: -- on record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Hold on. Do you think that would benefit you to go to transitional living?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I think the sooner I can get with my family the better.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Mm-hmm.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I don't know, I -- I am not a drug user, I've never used hard drugs in my life. I do know they have a lot of drug programs there -- there, and I, you know, if I were someone who had, um, you know, a -- a history of, you know, I've never put a needle in my arm, I've never used marijuana.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I've never used any hard drugs, so I have smoked marijuana and I have not smoked marijuana in 25 years.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: And so --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I'm hearing you say you would comply if it's a special condition of parole, otherwise you probably would prefer to live with family?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I haven't got much time left Ms. Newman. I'm 77 years old, I have one life, okay. Um, I'm on borrowed time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: And yes, I do want time with my family.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right. Well, you have support from the family, uh, your granddaughter that you included a series of letters from her, as her, um, you know, as she gets older, her letters are more, um, uh, profound in her relationship with you, I'll say. Um, so that was kind of cute the way you, uh, included, you know, her growth process. You have support from your brother and sister-in-law, uh, stepchildren. You have job offers. Uh, you have a great deal of support, uh, from, uh, professionals. Um, you know, you -- you, um, have a plan, relapse prevention plan for marijuana use, which is fine. Um, I think that you have plenty of options for housing employment, um, you know, you certainly would have the ability to profit from your artwork at that point in time. So, um, I -- I personally don't have any concerns about your parole plans. I don't have any other questions for you, but if you do have something else you want this Panel to know, I, uh, you know, now feel free to let us know at this point.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, with respect to my parole plans, my ultimate goal, uh, in terms of where I will live is in Oregon. I would -- when I was up in Oregon, I thought I would eventually parole there whenever that parole was permitted. And, uh, that had always been the plan. So, uh, my brother and his wife have offered me to have 18 acres in - - in rural part of Oregon and, um, they have offered me -- they've given me a little plot of land upon which to build something. And I've been working for the past several years on an architectural design that it started out as just something for myself, but as turned into something that I think would be helpful to people who are maybe current there, 70,000 homeless people at press account and, uh, that's a shame, uh, as far as I'm concerned. And so I think what I've designed, it's an architectural design, I've been working on it since the pandemic, and I intend to publish it and make it available for free and, um, uh, and make it available to municipalities because I think it's really a -- a viable way to bring, um --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay, I'm going to stop you. I'm -- I think it's sufficient that you have --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Ms. -- Ms. Newman, can I mention, the reason I mention that is because the time that it has taken me to do that design and the way it has consumed me has not left me a lot of time to do a lot of extra stuff other than my college, other than my job, other than the volunteer work that I do and that has consumed me. And I believe that is, again, the best help, best self-help in my opinion, is when you're helping others and so that's where my focus has been and I just wanted to say that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: All right. Thank you. I have no more questions. I appreciate your time. I'll ask you to return your attention to Commissioner Muniz.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. We've been going at this for about, I'm -- I'm going to say two -- two and a half hours. Let's take a quick break. Uh, the time is 11:40 a.m. Let's come back in ten minutes and come back at 11:50 a.m.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Let's take a quick break.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Off record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. The time is now 12:04 p.m. All parties previously identified have returned. We took a quick break, uh, with the hearing, getting a little bit longer. A couple of questions I wanted to ask you Mr. Beausoleil, the -- the first one being with regard to -- with regards to the life crime and I'm not going to ask you questions about the life crime. Guess what I would like to ask you, and I -- I think on some level, your attorney, um, asked questions of this nature in the last hearing. Do you believe that you have leveraged your crime to advance your purposes? And I don't necessarily mean, you know, we -- we -- there was discussion of business dealings and -- and kind of revenue resources, but do you believe just in general, you've used your crime to advance your own name?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I'm glad you asked that question. Thank you for asking that because I -- it gives me an opportunity to really speak to the fact that I would never leverage, intentionally leverage my crime. Uh, the most despicable thing that I can imagine that, uh, that I know that I've ever done, uh, or that I can imagine doing and, um, I, you know, my crime is reprehensible and I speak to it openly to the Parole Board. I have done so for many years, I spoke through the -- the risk assessment and I -- I'll be out front with you that I've spoken with the media, um, several filmmakers have, uh, interviewed me in -- in regard to the crime and, um, and I wanted to be understood that I've never asked for or received a nickel for any, um, for any of those participations in -- in interviews in relation to that. I've always been forthcoming. Um, I've been forthright, I believe, and honest in my responses to the questions that were put to me. But I will never in my life intentionally profit from my crime, if my skills -- if my skills --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I have -- I have -- I have follow up question to that.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Do you believe that you have in any way used what connectivity you did have with Charles Manson to leverage your own personal image advancement and interest?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: God, I hope not. I mean, I never would intentionally do that. No. Uh, you know, he -- I -- I'm going to be honest with you. In the -- in the life crime that you are speaking of, that man betrayed me. He betrayed me as a friend, betrayed by trust. At the time of my arrest, I was trying to put as much distance between me and his people and anything that related to him as I could. Um, I -- I tried to get information from him later, uh, because I was mystified by a lot that had happened, especially with other crimes and -- and how other -- how one thing had gone to another. I didn't know anything about all of that and -- and I attempted to have a conversation with him about it. But other than that, I just don't, you know, um, I -- I want as much distance between me and him as possible. There is nothing significant in my artwork, in my music that is in any way significant to him. And, uh, God, I -- I hope I have enough -- enough skill and talent and ability of my own that, um, in the way that I express it has that I -- it -- it comes across to other people as being, um, you know, solely my own, uh, creation and not influenced by any sort of association or acquaintance that I had with you. Um --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I think you --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: -- so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I -- you -- yeah, I think you've answered the question. Um, I'm going to be referring to the Comprehensive Risk Assessment here. And, um, in particular, there are some issues within the context of Comprehensive Risk Assessment to speak to some assessments. We already talked a little bit about, um, your arrest history as juvenile, as an adult and supervised release in the community. Um, the file does reflect all the information about your prior rules violation reports, uh, many of them are very -- very aged, the most recent being the 2020, which, um, the courts have adequately told us, don't present a nexus to current unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. And then it gets into some assessments and I want to talk about some of these assessments. You don't necessarily have to agree with the assessments, but because none of us in this room, to my knowledge, are forensically trained, uh, to do these assessments, we will defer here, uh, to make sure this is what, um, you have to contend with, if that makes sense. So with regard to the first assessment under clinical assessments on page 9, there is a diagnosis for cannabis use disorder in a controlled environment. Uh, and all that really means is that you -- the criteria is met in DSM five to have that diagnosis that cannabis use disorder is -- is nothing new. You're -- you're pretty well aware of it. Additionally, on major mental health, they took a look at your major mental health concerns, and they said that you did not meet the cri -- criteria for major mental health disorder at this time, nor have you ever had any issues in your history. Uh, personality disorder, this is one that you'd previously objected to and the clinician did determine that on page 10, "He has exhibited narcissistic personality traits that have at times resulted in problems for him." But then it goes on to say that essentially the determination was that you met the criteria for other specified personality disorder with narcissistic traits. Um, let's talk a little bit about your parole plans, but then it does get into, um, the HCR-20 Version III, which is an assessment for risk of violence. So taking a look at this assessment, we did expand this, so I can see it without glasses. Um, the beginning is the analysis of historic risk factors and current relevance. So these are the historical factors that were present in your life that may have current relevance. And it begins with talking about some of these which have at least a moderate degree of relevance. And that would include history of violence, personality disorder, problems with supervision response. Then it goes on to say that problems with other antisocial behavior, relationships, employment, substance use, trauma and violent attitudes, um, were historically found for -- were of low relevance. So that means that they've been mitigated in terms of consideration. And lastly here, there was the no evidence found in your file of having any history of major mental health disorder. So when it comes to this particular historical presence and current relevance it's not, that's how I'm going to refer to, it's not presently relevant and has it been historically problematic for you. Now, one of the things that the clinician did note here was, uh, Mr. Beausoleil I'm reading off of page 11 for those that are following along on the CRA. "Mr. Beausoleil's juvenile problematic behaviors escalated to murder when he was 21 years old and after faced -- after being faced with stressors that he was seemingly unprepared to manage." Now, I kind of want to talk about that for just a second, and I want to ask you, in terms of stress, what is your plan for dealing with stressors in the community? And I -- I don't even, it -- it's kind of hard. You -- you were in a unique situation, uh, prior to the commission of this life crime. But -- but what is your plan moving into the future should you be released on parole? What would be your plan to manage stressors? Because they're not always something we can completely anticipate. What's your plan moving forward?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Um, at -- if -- if I were to feel any inclination to resort to any sort of substance, uh, to, uh, for, you know, if I was under stress and felt like I needed to relieve that stress through some sort of, um -- um, you know, drugs or alcohol or (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: (Inaudible) or anything like that, do you have one now presently in prison?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No, I do not. We -- that's not something that is part of the program at this present time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: (Inaudible) you sponsor in the community yet?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I do not. I didn't -- I do not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um, I -- the file reflects your clean and sober day being 1999. I'm going to move on to (inaudible) page 11, analysis of clinical risk factors. And here it says there's insufficient evidence to suggest he experiences problems with self-awareness. That's one of the issues they take a look at, violent ideation or intent problems with major mental health disorder instability, problems with treatment or supervision response. The clinician basically determined that those are not present. Um, it does -- does go on to say that, um, there is no evidence that was found by the evaluator that despite his frustration with the system he lives in, he has not expressed violent intent or ideation or intent. Moving on to the last, um, risk factors, the analysis of risk management factors and current relevance. Um, clinician goes into a lot of detail here. Um, the one probably left out there was, uh, the stress in the community, but it -- the clinician says on page 12, based on the information, his opinion of this evaluator that Mr. Beausoleil does not present with evident problems with professional services and plans. That's one of them. Living situation, personal support that would be of relevance to future risk of violence. Uh, it does say, it should be noted that Mr. Beausoleil's responses in the committee has not yet been tested. Um, in many ways that falls under the category of -- of obvious. And he has been -- he has had problems with supervision in prison in the past, uh, not necessarily at this point relevant. Um, the stressors are the ones that are already in interest. The clinician at the bottom -- beginning at the bottom of page 12 and into page 13, talks about youth offender factors. There are some critical youth offender factors here that we're going to take and give great weight to. Um, but the most important part of youth offender factors, it is isn't just the diminished culpability of youths as compared to adults, but also the hallmark features of youth and then the subsequent growth and maturity. And so we will definitely give great weight there. When we take at -- take a look at elder parole, the clinician did mark this and, um, we'll be talking about that and give it special consideration. You do have some medical conditions that, um, certainly raise the eyebrow of any Commissioners in any Panel to take a look at these cases. Um, age length of incarceration and physical diminished capacity are relevant matters that -- that require us to give special consideration. At the end of this, uh, Comprehensive Risk Assessment, uh, 15 pages worth, there were some i -- i - - items that are listed essentially at your most relevant and risk factor consideration. And that begins with your history of violence in the community and in CDCR, which -- which is to some degree, um, some time ago you haven't had violence for many years. You had a history of engaging with negative peers, uh, both in the community in the beginning coming to prison. Um, it does say to his credit, does not appear that he is -- this has happened in many years. The third bullet says that you have narcissistic personality traits that have likely made it harder for you to conform to reality prison. And the last bullet is, we've broken the rules in CDCR as recently as 2020. We've already kind of noted that. So I'm not going to, uh, rehash that. These are the most relevant, salient (inaudible) or mitigating considerations the clinician noted. Uh, you've not engaged in documented acts of violence since the 1970s, that you have been reportedly clean, basically clean and sober, meaning substances and alcohol since 1999, and you've remained engaged in positive activities in prison. Um, you refer to some of the Chronos that are listed in your file where you volunteered your time and have done those positive things. It also says that you have support in the community and your parole plans appear realistic. Your -- the -- the recommendations that were provided to you to remain disciplinary-free and sober -- I'm sorry, remain disciplinary-free and sober. And also you're encouraged to continue in your path towards rehabilitation. The clinician did determine that you represent a low risk of violence that is not new for your risk consideration. And there is a paragraph that follows, it sort of dives into the -- the pros and the cons of how that was determined by Veronica Sanchez. The last name, spelling of S-A-N-C-H-E-Z, the clinician in the -- in your Comprehensive Risk Assessment, it was approved and signed by the supervisor on October 20, 2024. I don't think I have any other remaining questions. I'm going to check in with Commissioner Newman to see if she has.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I do not. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right, so we're going to move into an area we've sort of discussed already, and that's questions, clarifying questions by interested parties. Um, I'll -- I'll state it on the record the proper protocol would be that the Deputy District Attorney has the right to ask clarifying questions, however those questions are directed towards the Panel, towards us. I will advise you Mr. Beausoleil to answer or I may change the question depending on the circumstance and I'm going to ask that you wait until I tell you to answer -- to answer. Um, and then the only thing I want to put on you is please preface your answers as if you're talking to us, the Panel, 'cause there's the tendency to want to answer to Deputy District Attorney, um, and you -- you didn't have Deputy District Attorney in your last hearing, so I'm just going to encourage you to take -- to take your responses and direct them towards us, the Panel that will help you with your responses. Deputy District Attorney, do you have clarifying questions?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Yes, I do. Thank you. Um, the first area, um, I would like to ask some questions in is this connection to, um, Manson and, um, the Manson family. Uh, the inmate indicated that he has talked to media. Uh, would the Panel ask him to answer whether or not he did a 1970 interview with John Gilmore for a book called, 'The Garbage People'?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: So, Mr. Beausoleil, did you do an interview in 1970? Um, what was the title of that again? I'm sorry.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: The Garbage People.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Relevant to, 'The Garbage People'.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, Mr. Muniz, uh, the, um, the answer to that question is I did not do an interview, but I met with Mr. Gilmore who said that he was writing a book. Uh, like he didn't really question me. Um, you know, we just sort of had a -- we had a conversation. I didn't want to be in a book and, um, uh, at -- at that time and I -- and I didn't know him or what he wanted to write about. Um, he did tell me that the, uh, title that he -- the projected title was 'The Garbage People', and it just didn't sound like something I wanted to be involved in. So, um, I was not specifically interviewed but I did meet with him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. And -- and how did you meet with him just so we're clear?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: He asked to be put on my visiting list. I sent, uh, sent the form in, uh, I believe that's how it happened. Um, it -- it could have come through the, uh, information officer at the institution, but I think he wrote to me and asked me if I -- if he could visit me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. Right. Sounds like a visiting kind of circumstance and the filling out of a CDCR 106 Form. Um, fair enough. Uh, next question?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Thank you. Uh, did the inmate tell Mr. Gilmore about his close association to Manson and the family and the motive for the Cielo Drive murders?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did you discuss with him, um, your connection with Manson?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, no, I did not. I mean, I -- I did speak to the fact that I had been an associate or a friend of his, I considered myself at the time a friend of his, uh, I was involved in helping him to make recordings of his music for a demo and, uh, that was really what my interest in him was. It was as a -- another musician and so I really didn't -- and I didn't -- I didn't really like the kind of -- or need the kind -- the communal sort of relationship, the communal, um, environment that he had around him, so I didn't get into that, but I did have that relationship with him. Uh, was there a second part to that question that --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Yeah, the second part was, um, did you give any insights to him about the, um, subsequent murders at Cielo?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I never knew what they were at that point. I mean, I didn't -- I didn't know, um, about that crime as far as, um, so no, I did not. I -- as I said, I was not interviewed for this book. I mean, whatever, a lot of people I have --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I want to -- I want to be real specific in particular. Did you speak to him at all about your understanding of the motives for those crimes?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Um, I would've -- I would've only been able to offer conjecture about that, if anything and I don't -- I don't recall that I've ever talked to him about that. I wasn't -- I wasn't willing to go on record with him as insofar as his book. And -- and I must say, if you don't mind, if I can volunteer this, uh, because it might help the understanding, uh, of interested parties, um, there have been a lot of people who have wanted to insinuate themselves into this story. It's, you know, it's one of those kinds of things and -- and people have been, uh, I've been wanting to de-insinuate myself from it for most of this experience and, um --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I -- I think -- I think you've answered -- I think you've answered the question. Uh, I do want to be able to allow the Deputy District Attorney, your next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Thank you. In the course of that, uh, visitation, do you recall or did you ever see how much, uh, printed information there was with respect to that, uh, I call it an interview, you call it a visit with, um, Mr. Gilmore back in 1970? So --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: In your interview -- yeah, in your interview, this is -- you cannot answer the DA directly, um, in that interview with Mr. Gilmore, did you see any of the printing of documents?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No, I never did. No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. Thank you.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I -- I don't recall any communication after that visit. That -- that -- that might help to short shorten the, uh, the line of questioning here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Yeah. Next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: During the course of your discussions with Mr., uh, Gilmore, did he ask you, do you love Charlie Manson?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did -- did Mr. Gilmore ask you if you loved Charlie Manson?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I don't recall that -- I don't recall that -- that he ever asked that question. Um --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did you love Charlie Manson?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Thank you for asking me that question. Um, yes, I did. I -- I -- I mean, I -- I -- I'm that kind of person, you know, I -- I do love people and there were aspects of him, um, before all these crimes happened. Uh, the person that I knew him as through his music and through engagement with him, through his music and interest in his, um, in -- in his songs and wanting to record them, I had some experiences with him in that context that, um, that I felt, uh, you know, a gregarious sort of re -- re -- response from him and to towards him from that, um, uh, in -- in that -- within that context in the relationship.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. Thank you. Let's move on to the next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Thank you. Was your response to, uh, Mr. Gilmore, "With all of my life, I love him as my Lord. At his asking, I have fallen on my knees in the mud, and then he has kissed my feet and called me Lord. He has shown me a number of times that he's willing to do anything for me. When the police put me in chains, put me in jail and threatened to kill me, eight or nine people were -- were killed in an attempt to free me. That is a strong love. That is the allegiance you have with each other."

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. So you heard all of what was said. Is that the kind of statement you recall making to Mr. Gilmore?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely not. You know, Mr. Muniz, I -- I am not going to answer any more questions in relation to this Gilmore interview. I said that I didn't do an interview, I met with him, uh, this is -- there are a lot of people who have made up stories because they want to insinuate themselves into this story and that is one of them. I would never in a million years have made that statement that she just, um --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: -- she just said.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: We -- we -- we understand what your answer is. Next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: All right, then. Moving on. Now, Mr., um, Beausoleil has also, well, in -- in the same vein, he says he's talked to, um, people in the media. Did he talk to, um, anybody regarding the November 2024 docuseries making Manson that aired on the NBC's Peacock streaming service the end of this past year?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: You can answer that.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Um --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Wait -- wait, hold on -- hold on. I -- I want to make sure it was a streaming on Peacock?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Yes, it was the docuseries called Making Manson that aired on NBC's Peacock streaming service. And the question is, did he have contact with the producers or anybody connected with that docuseries?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. Um, so Mr. Beausoleil, did you, um, have anything to do with the making of that docuseries?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: The answer to your question, Mr. Muniz is no. Uh, I was contacted, uh, if I may respond to the other part of the question. I was contacted, I did have a discussion to find out what the interest was and what the premise of the program was. I, uh, told them I would not go on record with them, and that was the end of the discussion.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. Next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Did the inmate engage in any emailing back and forth with these, um, people making the docuseries, Making Manson?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did you email engage in any emailing with those individuals who were doing the docuseries, Making Manson?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, there were a couple of communications regarding to making phone contact. Other than that, (inaudible), um, anything over email.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. So none of the emails included information, is that what you're saying?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Meaning information about Manson.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That is correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. Next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Thank you. And with respect to, um, a podcast with Hamilton Morris in January 2024, did he engage in, um, discussions with Hamilton Morris in, uh, a podcast called Bobby Beausoleil on taking LSD with Charles Manson?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did you participate in that podcast?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I -- I didn't participate in the podcast. I participated in a conversation with Hamilton Morris, uh, who, um, uh, you know, and we -- we had a conversation and I -- we did talk about the crime. Uh, he did ask me if I'd ever taken LSD with Manson and, um, and there was a discussion about that, but I had no idea it was being recorded. And, uh, when it, uh, a podcast was -- was put out, um, I contacted him and said that, wait a minute, you -- I didn't know I was even being recorded, much less, um, had I, uh, agreed to be in being on a podcast and, um, and he took the podcast out. So, um, I just, um, it was conversation and, uh, with the, you know, an intelligent person of a son of a friend of mine, of another friend of mine and, um, uh, like I said, I didn't know I was being recorded, so I did not consent to doing, um, a podcast and, um, and it -- like I said, it was -- it has since been taken down at my request.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you. Next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Is the inmate aware that it has not been taken down and it's still available, and, uh, I looked at the link just yesterday.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Are you aware that it might still be available?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I'm aware that it's really hard to take down remnants of things. People copy things, and I don't know what may have happened. Um, but I do know that, um, it was taken down from, uh, the social media of YouTube and di -- different places. I do know it was taken down from -- from general distribution. Um, but I don't know, um, I don't know if there are remnants out there that are, um, difficult or impossible to remove. Um, I don't -- I can't speak to that. I have no internet access.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Let -- let -- let me ask some very specific questions.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Yes or no. Um, was it your intent to participate so that it could be a podcast that would be uploaded for the public to view?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: And was it your intent once he knew to have it taken down to whatever degree that's possible?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. Next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: In the course of that, uh, conversation with Hamilton Morris, did you speak with him about your conversations with his father, Errol Morris, the, um, producer, director, famous, that's making a Netflix series about the Manson murders based on the book Chaos?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. I'm -- I'm -- I missed part of that 'cause I -- I -- I know that, uh, Mr. Morris is one of the support letters that are included. So, um, Deputy Attorney Walker, the question again, I'm sorry.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: I'm sorry. So let me break it down. Did Mr., um, Beausoleil have a conversation with Errol Morris, Hamilton Morris' father?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did you have a convers -- and -- and let me just clarify quickly. Was that relevant to the Manson murders?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Yes, because Errol Flore -- Errol Morris is apparently making a Netflix series about the Manson murders based on the book called Chaos.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. Did you, um, communicate with Errol, uh, Morris about whatever he's trying to do to produce this series or whatever production on, with regard to the -- the book, uh, what was it, Chaos?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Chaos.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: And what -- what kind of information did you provide there?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I provided information, uh, to every question that he -- he asked really, because you -- if you know anything about Errol Morris, he's, uh, an Academy Award filmmaker. He's a -- he does documentary films and, um, the various site, he is, uh, he -- he doesn't ask frivolous questions. And so, uh, I feel like I have an obligation to the victims, the vic -- the next of kin of -- of Gary, uh, and, um, any relation of Gary's and to Gary himself to be forthcoming about what I did and to be honest about it. And I am absolutely as hard as painful as it is to do it, to relive that and to own my, um, behavior at that time, to own my responsibility to Gary, and to own the fact that I committed a horrible reprehensible crime. Um, I feel an obligation to share with people I feel that I can trust. Uh, and in -- in Errol Morris' case, based on his history of -- of, uh, the sensitive way he has treated other subjects that he has covered in the past, I have been forthcoming with you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: In the course of that dis -- um, well, excuse me. In -- in -- you said that you did answer every question of his, did you talk to, um, Mr. Errol Morris about your connection with the Manson family?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did you speak to him about your connection with the Manson family?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, about my original connection with the Manson family, yes. Not anything occurred, because there is -- hasn't been that in very -- very long time, yeah, to be clear.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Next question -- next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: In the course of the interview with Hamilton Morris, when you talked about, did you talk with him about, uh, your murder of Gary Hinman?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did you speak about the life crime that you're in prison for now?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I did speak with Hamilton about, um, he asked me some questions about the crime, yes. And I answered him, I had no reason not to. Um, again, this was not an interview. This was a -- a -- a conversation between two men and, uh, in between me and the son of -- of a filmmaker that I respect. And, um, I'm not, you know, uh, I -- I did not participate in that -- in -- in an interview for a podcast I, uh, participated again in a conversation.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: In that conversation, after giving the description of the murder, right afterwards, did you laugh?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Uh, did you laugh after the interview?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Well, it was after the description of the murder.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Oh, I'm sorry. After the description of the murder in the interview, did you laugh?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I couldn't speak to that 'cause I -- there would have to have been a context in which, um, in in which there was some sort of humor or I don't know. I don't know what the context would've been. I would never -- I'm not frivolous about this. I think you probably get that from you. You have to, um, I am not frivolous about the crime, I am not cavalier about it. Uh, it is painful to me to the -- to this day, even though I've risen -- risen above it and -- and have learned to heal and I'm still healing. I -- I would be honest with you, um, it's -- but I -- I am not, um, I am not the kind of person who would laugh about the crime, you know, if -- if that's -- it seems to be (inaudible). And so I -- I'm trying --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I think you -- yeah. Ms., uh, sir, you have already answered the question. Next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Thank you. In the course of that conversation with Harris more, um, excuse me, Hamilton Morris, uh, did you refer to Sharon Tate as Debra Tate in talking about the victims and who were the targets of the crime?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did you refer to Sharon Tate as Debra Tate?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, God, I don't -- I don't -- I -- Mr. Muniz, I don't want answer this line of questioning anymore 'cause it's just getting -- getting downed into some sort of weeds that -- that are really -- I just don't understand where --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Mr. Muniz, I --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I don't --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: -- will object. I mean, first of all, I'm, you know, I'm supposed to be representing Mr. Beausoleil. The -- the District Attorney has had the opportunity to bring this up in advance and I -- I don't know what this is referring to. I am familiar with this podcast, uh, that it's referred to. But these detailed questions where they are involving Ms. Walker's interpretation of, uh, conversation that -- that, uh, the Commissioners have not heard, that I have cannot sit here and verify. I think it's inappropriate for her to be making, uh, interpretations about that. And then asking, because, uh, the Commissioners have not themselves been privy to this conversation.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um, fair enough. Um, for -- for what it's worth, uh, Deputy District Attorney, we've gone double the limit that we would normally have for clarifying questions. So if you have, uh, the ability to, uh, either speak to some of these matters in your closing statements, or, uh, a few more questions that might be most important, um, the hearing is, uh, quite long so far. So if there's any other, uh, clarifying questions that you want to ask at this point, sort of moving the needle on our time here, 'cause we generally allow ten minutes, and this is well over that time period. Uh, but in -- in light of the severity of what we're dealing with here, um, we've allowed it.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Thank you. Um, I just have, um, quickly, one other area to go into, and that's his business dealings. Has the inmate, uh, released any new music, uh, since the 2022 hearing?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Have you released any new music since the 2022 hearing?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No, and I have not released any new music since I was received, but back into California in 2015.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. Next question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Did he release the -- did he re -- release a vinyl album at the end of 2023, the beginning of 2024 called 'Ghost Highway'?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did you release a vinyl album in 2023?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I authorized an album that somebody else produced, uh -- uh, material that had been previously, um, uh, recorded and -- and, uh, approved for sale. But I -- I approved that because it's a benefit album. Uh, (inaudible) and, uh, they could, um, uh, retrieve it and -- and reproduce it for their album.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Right. Any other questions?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Uh, just briefly, did he do this through an Italian production company?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Did you do it through an Italian production company?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, I, um, I think that the link was actually, um, uh, registered in Italy, but the persons who were, uh, the -- the two people who wanted to put the album out were in the United States, living in the United States at the time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. Any final questions?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Last one. Is he current -- is he aware that it's currently on sale on Barnes and Noble for $35 and 99 cents?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Uh, were you -- if that's true, are you aware of that?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No, I -- I was not aware of that. And -- but it -- it may be there are a lot of records that it were put out that in the past that are available in different places, including Rust Blade. I was -- I'm not affiliated with Rust Blade. I'm not affiliated with Barnes and Noble. I receive no money. If the -- the issue is business dealings that -- or -- or if the issue is business dealings, I have not had any monetary engagement with anything related to my work. I am going to honor the request that's been made whether I agree with it or not, I am going to honor, uh, the -- I've never actually been told by the CDCR you can't do this. I've been told --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Sir, hold on. I -- I -- I kind of want to distill it back down to just -- were you aware that it's on sale for $35? Something you aware of?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No, not -- no, I'm not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right. What we're going to do now is we're going to turn this over to clarifying questions by your attorney. It doesn't have that third person, um, awkwardness. Um, I like to use the word wonky, I don't think that's super technical, but, um, it doesn't have the awkwardness of third party. So, um, clarifying questions, counsel, please.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I asked for a quick moment, but I was muted, so, okay. Uh, first of all, I -- I -- I'll go back through and, uh, ask about some of the things that were previously been discussed. And I know early in the hearing there was a discussion about insight. And at one point, Beausoleil, you said that you had been manipulated. Um, and that, uh, and when you said that, I just want to clarify, um, did you have free will at the time? Did you feel that you had free will at the time that you killed, uh, Gary Hinman?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes -- yes, I did feel that, uh, I - - I -- I -- I did feel that I had -- that I was a -- the sole person making that decision.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And when you said manipulated, uh, were you referring to manipulated, did you mean that you've been manipulated to kill Gary Hinman or you're manipulated in this, uh, situation that arose, um, that ultimately led to his -- his death, meaning that going to his house and -- and without going into a lot of depth, but you felt manipulated in that how that sit -- that situation arose?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. I -- I was manipulated in that way, in -- in how the situation developed, how it got to be where I was trying to get money back from Gary and how, um, you know, how that situation then got out of control. But yes, I was manipulated up to that point. Um, and -- but --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I -- I -- I'll -- I'll stop you. I -- I know that we -- we don't have a lot of time, so I -- I - - I'll probably cut you off 'cause as we all know, you -- you tend to speak until someone tells you to stop. So, um, did you, uh, but just as a -- the final point is just that you were uniquely responsible for Gary Hinman's death in the end. Is that correct?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's true, yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you don't blame anyone else, uh, for ultimately, uh, Gary Hinman, the -- the fact that you murdered Gary Hinman?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No, it was my decision.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you also said, uh, at one point, I think you said you had no prior criminal involvement and you did have some -- some fairly minor crimes prior to killing Gary Hinman. Uh, is that right?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, well, you know, that -- that vandalism thing where -- where we were, you know, when I was a kid with the -- with the, uh, Christmas ornaments, uh, and the violation of the leash law, those are all valid. Um, I was stopped once I had -- I smoked a pipe and it was immediately assumed having long hair and so on, the police assumed that I had paraphernalia. So that was where the charges dropped.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I just wanted to -- to -- to clarify. I mean, there were some minor things. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't, uh, hiding from anything that had happened. You had no violent crimes prior to that, is that correct?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No violent crime. And I had no -- no crimes. I was never -- you -- the only thing I was ever convicted of, uh, I --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I'm not -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm not talking necessarily about convictions. I mean, you -- you were using marijuana, which is illegal.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes -- yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: You were involved in some other criminal activity or hanging around with Straight Satans and other people who were involved in criminal activity. I just want to make sure that -- that to -- I -- I don't want there to be the -- the -- the mistaken under misunderstanding that you are -- were hiding from the -- the (inaudible) involved.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, I see. I -- I see. Yeah. I -- I was, uh, you know, I drank underage once in a while. Although I can't stand drinking. I was be at least pretending to drink alcohol with, uh, with the Straight Satans and smoking pot and, um, you know, I was engaging in those kind of activities. Um, uh --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, I want -- I want to ask you about the -- one of the -- the causative factors that we -- that's been discussed in prior hearings, but I don't think it was, um, fully described here. But, uh, were you in essence trying to impress, uh, the, you know, Manson and -- and the - - the older men around you, the Straight Satans and -- and Manson, Bruce Davis and others? Uh, did you feel like you were trying to, uh, you know, demonstrate your manhood to them in some ways?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Prior to, uh, prior to -- to the murder, yes. Um, that had to do with the events that led up to that. I just, you know, I was trying to -- I was a kid, I was trying to, you know, find a rite of passage. I wanted to be accepted, uh, in the fraternity of men and I, you know, yeah, that's how I was manipulated through that -- through that, um, that youthful sort of, uh, need. Um, I was seen as somebody who was manipulate bold on the basis of that.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you wanted validation from these guys because you thought they were, you know, cool countercultural figures. Is that right?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's right.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And (inaudible).

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I was always incarcerated in San Quentin when all that kind of stuff was going on. And, uh, I had no desire to -- I -- I did not consider myself in any way, um, uh -- uh, loyal to that group. I just was not interested in that.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And -- and that's -- that's why I was asking. So you -- you didn't take on any sort of overt displays of solidarity with, uh, the family at that time?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, um, when you were in prison, you're, you know, a young man, uh, in -- in -- in prison for a very notorious crime, perhaps the most notorious crime, uh, did you feel that you had to carry yourself with a certain degree of, uh, bravado in order to, as a means of selfpreservation?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Were you the target of -- of, uh, hostility upon your arrival in CDCR custody?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: A little bit, yes. I -- well implied, I was put to the test a lot, you know, because people didn't know me, they didn't know who I was, I was so young, I -- I couldn't grow a beard, um, and, uh, and I was too pretty for my own good. Um, and I -- I absolutely was determined that I was never going to be anybody's girlfriend. And, uh, so yes, I, um, I styled myself as -- as a badass. And, um, uh, I was actually prepared to be violent if I had to at that time. I thank God it never needed to -- I never needed to actually do anything against someone.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Now I want to -- there was, um, some discussion about, uh, this letter that you recently wrote to Ms. Pickford, um, and the -- the quality of remorse, uh, that's expressed in it. Um, I want to -- first of all, you've never -- Ms. Pickford is not someone you knew about prior to this, uh, recent habeas petition, is that right?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you've never seen Ms. Pickford at any prior hearing, she's never been at one?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That is true, yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: But you felt compelled to say something to her, uh, you know, because you anticipated her presence at this hearing?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Well, any opportunity really that I've ever had to communicate with the Hinman family, any member of the Hinman family, I have availed myself of that opportunity. It's -- I don't know what's been received. I have written, um, I do know that -- that Ann Taylor who claimed that the --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I was going to ask you, we'll try and keep it short. We are trying to -- to hurry up here.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So, um, in -- in the reference the letter to Ms. Pickford, you did reference, um, several earlier letters of remorse that you've written, right?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: (Inaudible).

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, um, and -- and, you know, I would ask, uh, the Commissioners to -- I, you know, I think that the 2016 letter and the prior ones, I mean, as a body of -- of work demonstrating his remorse, and I -- I would note that I don't think any other prior Panel in the last decade at least, has expressed any concerns about, uh, the quality of, uh, Mr. Beausoleil's remorse. But I did include all of the recent letters so that if you can see them as a -- as a - - in the accumulation of documents related to his remorse. Um, and I have a few other questions about that. Uh, what do you think prevented you from experiencing and expressing a -- a -- a deeper sense of remorse in your early years in incarcerated, uh, when you were incarcerated?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: To experience remorse, you have to be in touch in a really intimate way with your feelings and I was not in touch with my feelings, I was suppressing them. Uh, I didn't believe that I could, uh, allow myself to be vulnerable, uh, especially around other people. But even to myself, I had difficulty with that. Um, it was such pain to me. It was so, um, it was traumatizing. The experience was so traumatizing. From the moment -- from the moment that I stabbed Gary, I just -- I -- I was just utterly beyond myself, I was in a kind of shock and I don't think I got over that shock for at least four years. And I don't think I fully was able -- I know that I was not able to fully, um, be in touch with my feelings enough until after I'd been stabbed in 1982. Uh --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, was -- was -- again, was the fact that you were also suddenly the subject of all of this attention, you know, the -- in the crimes ended up being in the media and it, you know, the sort of hysteria around it. Did that also kind of impede your ability to feel the -- the emotions that you needed to feel at that time?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know that that's true. Um, it was definitely a distraction and an annoyance and, um, uh, never something that was comfortable to me to be, you know, to be implicated or, uh, talked about in the context of the so-called Manson family. I just -- I hated it and, um, and so it was a -- it -- it was a distraction to that process, perhaps.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And then the fact that Gary was your friend, uh, you stayed with him at some point and lived with him, the fact that he trusted you and Mary and Susan and even Charles Manson, um, and let you into his home voluntarily that day. Do you -- do you think that that makes your crime, uh, worse?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Oh my God, yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And having now experienced, uh, you -- you lost your -- your wife Barbara, uh, to whom you've been married for many years, um, you've lost your parents, other people have died, does that give you a more acute sense of the pain that you inflicted upon Gary's family when you took his life?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes -- yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And, um, I also wanted to get into your marijuana usage. I'll -- I'll keep this relatively quick, but do you see any relationship between your -- your drug usage, uh, and -- and considering that it was illegal, you know, quite illegal in the 1960s, and it was a -- a, you know, you could arguably say because it was illegal, it was an anti-social act to engage in, uh, the use of marijuana, whether you might have felt differently on a moral level, it was -- it was against the law. Um, but the -- your use of drugs and -- and, you know, your involvement in that lifestyle, how do you think that played a part in you ultimately taking the life of Gary Hinman?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I have a difficulty drawing that correlation. I, you know, certainly the lifestyle that I was engaged in with the counterculture and -- and then, you know, later, I -- I get -- really, I don't -- I don't know that I would consider the bike club, um, that I was kind of aspiring to be involved with, um, if I considered them counterculture or -- or, uh, youth culture, uh, the youth culture. But, um, you know, I -- I did ascribe to the -- the, um, the -- the philosophy of -- in relation to the use of marijuana. Um, I don't know that it played that much of a role, if any, other than having to do with my being involved with certain people and having that be an element that led to my going to Gary's that night, that, um, uh, but in -- in -- but directly, I don't see any, uh, correlation necessarily between my use of marijuana and what happened with Gary.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: But you -- you have, uh, recognized that your use of marijuana has been (inaudible).

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I've had several write-ups for, you know, dirty UR urinalysis. In one case it was possession of marijuana and, uh, (inaudible).

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (Inaudible) you know, really (inaudible) of your release.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I'll continue with -- with 12 steps. I'll have a sponsor, I will involve myself in a way, uh, in my community, uh, with people who, um, are not engaging in that sort of lifestyle. I don't want to be around people who are into drugs. I don't enjoy it.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (Inaudible) having a transition, uh, I think is to ask you a few questions about your -- in -- first of all, once you were in prison, (inaudible), there was a, uh, shift and moving to Oregon, and then particularly when California major changes in your life that you've undergone, what -- what tools, (inaudible) yourself (inaudible) Hinman family that were still in Oregon? What tools did you rely on then to help you adjust to your life and -- and your new life in California without resorting to marijuana or resorting to other antisocial behavior?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: One of the first things I did was, uh, to give back into the welfare care program, into Narcotics Anonymous. Uh, I -- uh, I've always believed that my creating, uh, work is something that, um, is beneficial and helpful in my rehabilitation, uh, and my preparedness for life on the outside. Uh, so I kind of (inaudible), uh, sell my work, uh, and produce new work and sell new work here at, um, uh, at CMF. He never got back to me. Um, so I, uh, I got involved in, um --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, okay. Um, we don't need to go into -- I'm just trying to get a general sense that you also, you're -- you consider yourself a spiritual person?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Very, yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And is that something that also spirituality, meditation, yoga, those things, do those assist you in grounding yourself, uh, along with your music and art when you are in a period of transition or crisis?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely. They are not, uh, separate from my work as an artist. I need meditation and I need, uh, yoga and I need to be fit, uh, to this extent that I can with this aging body. Um, uh, I need to be -- yeah, I -- I need to have that spiritual support, and that is the -- the grounding element in my life. More than self -- more than self-help and more than the 12 steps, more than anything else. But I do think that the others are important too.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And your -- your art and music, uh, would you say those have helped you foster and create, uh, positive relationships with people, uh, both inside and outside of prison?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Oh my God, yes. Yeah, I -- yeah.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And the one thing that -- that was mentioned in one of the Chronos you received was a recent, uh, there's a -- a band that you play with in prison called the Recreation Band. What's the -- what is the -- the purpose of that band?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Uh, that band was formed to, uh, to have a message -- to have a message of, as -- as the name implies, recreation, transformation, re-identification, uh, all of those processes that are involved in self-help that are fundamental to every self-help program offered in here is the reorientation of a person from one thing, criminal thinking, criminal activity, negative thinking, all of those types of things to a person who is oriented to focusing on being creative, productive, healthy, um, uh -- uh, and law abiding and pro-social. So that's our, uh, the message of the band. We did a -- a concert here, uh, in December. Uh, it was extremely well received. We are the education department's band, and, uh, we are -- we are an arm of the edges. Our sponsor is our direct immediate supervisor. And, uh, and the -- yeah.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, and one -- so, uh, in that -- the sense of recreation, do you focus on songs frequently that deal with, uh, alcohol drug abuse, recovery, or recovery from alcohol and drug addiction?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Very direct -- very directly and emotionally.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Let me, um, let me just jump in really quickly. Counsel, we're at the 20-minute mark that I doubled the time, uh, to be consistent of what it was (inaudible) question.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: The -- the last thing I'll ask about just because it was a sub -- uh, major subject, was this, uh, the -- the recent, um, investigation. Um, just to clarify, when you -- to the best of your recollection anyway, when you said no, it doesn't in response to Mr. DiMaria's comments, you are referring to the -- the -- the Twitter, uh, account, which you had believed was deactivated at that time.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's true, yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And in the course of -- of -- I've been representing you for a number of years, and in the course of all of our hearings that we've gone through together, uh, has it been discussed at pretty much every hearing that you have, uh -- uh, albeit indirectly, you have a social media presence?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, I -- I've been very upfront about it. I've been open book, always have been. Uh, I've had a website since the mid-nineties when my wife and son put one up on. There, I -- I mean, I don't run the website. I don't have any direct -- I've never even seen it in person, uh, never seen my website, um, uh, because I -- I can't get online. But, um --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And -- and also the --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And there's -- there was some discussion in -- in this report, uh, there was a Facebook comment where it said, uh, someone commented about whether this was a -- asking whether this was you or someone else. And you responded saying that, um, that you have help with posting to the page, but you are solely responsible for what is posted, you see my logo, it's me doing the talking, and you read every single comment. Um, and when you said that, did you mean that this takes place through the -- what you discussed before, where the -- the papers are printed out, mailed to you, you comment, mail them back?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes, that's precisely what I mean.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I know that there's --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I -- I have an -- if I may, I have an agreement with the person, the agent that -- that operates the -- the website and the Facebook and all the social media and all of that, that nothing gets posted to that -- that I haven't requested.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: The people can make comments, but -- but they can't post anything of their own. So, yeah -- yeah, go ahead.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I'll notice also that it said that the original comment was 52 weeks before it was printed out. The later one it was 46 weeks, implying a six-week delay. Would that be because of this process of mailing this back and forth?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Well, it doesn't usually take six months, necessarily, but sometimes I don't get around just say --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: But let’s say -- the -- this -- there's a six-week delay. That's because you're mailing this back and forth. You're not posting it directly on Facebook with a -- a phone or anything?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: No. Yeah, it's -- it's a lot more difficult doing it the way we do it. But yeah, it's through the mail. You know, part of that Jason, uh, is because if -- if --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I -- I -- I think we've covered it a lot. I -- I -- I think that's -- I -- I, you know, and then the -- the last thing that the -- the record that, uh, that, um, Ms. Walker referred to the Ghost Highway record, uh, you said those -- the -- that's being the -- the funds are being donated, um, from that, is that correct?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And that's all --

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's my understanding. I -- I'm not receiving any money regardless.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And that was a compilation of material that was recorded while you were in Oregon, right?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And you did have, uh, communication, you -- you -- through your agent or yourself, uh, directed, um, you -- you spoke with me about it, and then you directed your, uh, agent, or -- or yourself, you contacted Mr., um, Hamilton Morris, uh, and advised him to take that podcast off of the website, is that right?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's right -- that's right.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And not too long ago, I can't remember what year it was. Uh, did -- did you direct me to send a cease and desist letter to an art gallery in Los Angeles that was art, uh, installation?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yes. They had posted, they put up a painting of my -- and did that with my permission and yes, I did.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And I -- and I contacted them directly at your behest to ensure that that was taken down.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Mm-hmm.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And I told you, I actually had someone go to the -- to the gallery to verify that it was no longer present. Is that right?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Making sure there's nothing else. You -- actually, this is LA. In 2016, the Commissioners who were present at that hearing advised you to try and use your art and your music to find a way to give back to the world for the life that you took when you killed Gary Hinman. Um, since then, you've done volunteer work, you have the -- the band that you played in the prison, you've gotten, uh, things donated, I would, again, ask the Commissioners to look at this, uh, Chrono that was submitted by Jay Bowman, um, describing a lot of the positive things he does. Um, you also had -- as the -- the Commissioner suggested you donated money to, uh, a, the Metta Institute, the Buddhist organization. Is that correct?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah, it -- it's a Buddhist organization, (inaudible), um, because he was Buddhist at the time that I took his life. And, um, I just thought that it would be something that would honor him and that he would approve of a lot of things. I -- I question if Gary would approve of things that I do and -- and I -- as part of the -- it is part of the standard that I use when I, you know, put my energies into things.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Another thing that they advise you to do was to, uh --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Counsel if we could -- if we could please wrap this up. I -- I feel like a lot of this comments --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: This is my last -- this will be the last question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Certainly.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Uh, the other -- another thing that the -- that the act -- the Panel directly advised you to do was to create a new relapse prevention plan. And did you do that?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: I did.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: So you do follow what the Panel recommends generally, is that correct?

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: That's correct.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. No further questions. Thank you. I -- I -- thank you for allowing me additional time, Mr. Muniz.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay, you're welcome. Um, what we're going to do now is we're going to move into closing statements. Um, so I want to prepare those who are prepared to make statements after, uh, Mr. Beausoleil makes his comments, so that at least they're prepared. What we're going to do now is we'll begin with the Deputy District Attorney, and then we'll go onto your counsel, and then you, yourself, sir, can make a closing statement and address the Panel. In advance, I want to encourage you to preface all of your statements as if you're talking to us, the Panel and not directed to a -- any individuals who are here, including the Deputy District Attorney and the family members who are approved and representatives. Then after you're done, we'll turn this over to family. If they would like to take a break, we'll take a break. I will also ask the family members to preface their statements, uh, as if they're directed towards us, and refrain from any comments being directed directly to Mr., um, Beausoleil. And, um, and I'll -- and I'll define the other parameters of that when we get to the family members. Uh, let's go and begin. Deputy District Attorney, your closing statements, please. And counsel, by the way, your -- your mic is open right now. We might want to --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I'm going to mute as well. Deputy District Attorney, please.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Thank you. Uh, let me put up front what I'm asking this Panel to do, based on this hearing and almost 10,000 pages of a C-File, many -- many prior hearing transcripts and including the, uh, opinion of Judge Ryan with which this prosecutor does not agree and I'll explain why. So what I'm asking, the urging the Panel to do is to deny Mr. Beausoleil now. And I'm -- I believe that based on his lies, his behavior, his narcissism, lack of remorse, credibility, minimization, all the things I'll talk about a little bit more, it should be a minimum five-year denial. And I think that the Panel should order an investigation into the subject matters that we talked about here, because there are -- there is documentation out there, there is -- there is at the UCLA library, the notes, the, um, interview, um, of that 1970 interview with John Gilmore, including a treatise at 113-page treatise that was written apparently by Mr. Beausoleil himself and it's in that library to research the various things that we'll talk -- talk about here. So it will be put on the record. Um, and also I'm going to ask that the Panel, if it doesn't feel it has enough in -- information now to take a pause, continue the hearing, and get the investigation and make the decision later. That happens often. It's happened, you know, in some respects here before, I believe. Um, and lastly, I'm going to ask that the Panel tell Mr. Beausoleil directly to take it down, take it all down. Don't let there be this continued confusion that he claims. There is no confusion, not anymore. The last Panel told him you should consider taking it down, and he didn't do it. What did he do? 30 minutes later, he got on with his agent, since that's what we're calling her, his good friend and agent and they laughed about it. Oh, I know you -- I -- you do it for free. Ah, you know, they laughed about the fact, and he made the decision and told her, don't take it down. He admitted that there are royalties being earned and that there are somewhere. Uh, I don't know where, but I guess I'll get them all when I get back. That's the center of that conversation. He admitted that he knew all those platforms were up there and it was obvious he lied to the Panel. He lied when he interrupted Mr. DiMaria in the course of his victim impact statement. He is a liar and a horrible, uh, historian. You cannot trust what he says about what happened. And we know that because look at his testimony compared to that of the trial and how he was found guilty and the appellate court saying, and even I think Judge Ryan, even in his faulty opinion, says there was no question about his guilt and these set of facts and what the jury found in opposite to Mr. Beausoleil. But nonetheless, today, we're still hearing his minimization and his, uh, what's really interesting is his narcissistic view of himself as the victim. And this is some 57 years later of being in custody and all the self-help programming he's done that he thinks has made him a better person. So I ask that the Panel look very seriously and -- at all of the evidence in that investigation that is in the 10 -- 10-day file, because it not shows that he is, uh, lied to the Panel. It does show it, does imply he has continued to do business. He is getting royalties and he admits that. Um, now one of the things in the investigation would be, well, how he -- he says to this Panel, he said in the CRA, he claims he's never done any new, uh, release of anything. Well, what about this Ghost Highway? He claims it's all for charity. Well, again, the Panel can have an investigation. We can send you the link. Uh, the investigators can provide it to the Panel. There's nothing about it being a charity piece, not one thing. So these things are where you can't trust him. He lies about it and minimizes, and he manipulates and he manages -- has managed to manipulate, um, a judge who makes a ruling and makes sweeping statements that not ever has there been one iota, never been any evidence of this man's connection to Manson introduced at hearings. Are you kidding me? Commissioner Muniz has brought it up today, his connection to the family when he's seen Manson in prison and has blank forged documents when there's also on page, um, I believe it is 50, let me see if I can find it. I'm sorry, 87 in the Central File where he's asked -- Mr. Beausoleil asked if he would like any legal help, and he says, "Oh, no -- no, I'm keeping up with the Manson attorneys, the Manson family attorneys. I don't need my own." All right, that was in 1970. So all of this coincides with the time that he's speaking to John Gilmore and telling how close he is to Manson that they're brothers, that they would die for each other basically, and what the motive was to follow up, to make it seem like there was somebody else out there committing those murders so that Beausoleil wouldn't be blamed. And instead, Beausoleil started, what are the other murders, and that's why at a minimum, those other Manson family murders are relevant to this. And when --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I'm going to object -- I'm going to object. This is -- this is not appropriate argument. And I -- I mean, we're -- she's -- Ms. Walker has been arguing about stuff from 1970 this entire time. We're talking about current dangerousness.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: I'm going to -- I'm going to allow that to overrule your objection. Please continue Deputy District Attorney Walker.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Thank you. So the reason why that's relevant is because the man that Mr. Beausoleil is today, is not that different from the man back then. He just has better words, better manipulation skills. That's why it's relevant. And it's relevant because we have a bench officer and defense counsel in the last hearing saying, nobody's proved it, where's the evidence? Well, we're proving it. It can be proved with Mr. Beausoleil's own words. That's the point. The point is, he doesn't think anybody's going to find out because there's such a vast body of information out there, how can any of us be the experts? Well, the real experts in this room or zoom room, Teams room, are going to be the victim's family, the victim's representatives. They've been through much more of us than any of us. We have all the paperwork we can look at, we can try and see it all. And I'm impressed that we can go back to the 1970s in the C-File and find the things that demonstrate the link to the man he was then that makes him a current danger now. So please -- please look at that investigative report because I think it's very important. So not only has Mr. Beausoleil been rewriting history for years, and we've gone over that in the clarifying questions and that can be looked into, uh, by the Panel within a further investigation. Let's look at some of the various things that were talked about, um, in the course of this hearing. And that was the lack of programming. That was one of the things I was going to talk about that was specifically suggested. He didn't do it. He hasn't done real victim impact in California since he's been here. And that is something that given his inability to tell the truth, making himself a victim, the letters that -- that he sent in recently are not remorseful and are not anything that a victim's family would want to hear and he doesn't understand that. He does not understand that because he has not had recent programming to help them in this area. So what do we have here? We have a static factor of a very serious, horrific crime, which in this prosecutor's opinion, fits that rare exception in the Lauren and Chappuis cases that talk about, they're so brave, so just horrific that that in and of itself should be able to be, or can be a reason alone to deny parole. Now, it seems that this -- Judge Ryan in particular, and, uh, perhaps the entire Board of Parole Hearings believes that there has to be a tie to current dangerousness. So we're going to go there because there is, it's very easy. His minimization, he doesn't really accept responsibility, he just mouths the words and talks about himself. His lack of remorse, how can he be remorseful when he doesn't even admit the crime? He doesn't admit what he really did. He continues to parse with was the ear severed or not, was, you know, was there a trickle of blood coming out of his face or was he bleeding, soaking into the ground? He can't really accept not only what he did, but what is been has been proven officially to happen and what he says is improbable, given the evidence put on at the trial from the autopsy, from the witnesses. This man was beaten and tortured over a series of days and then Mr. Beausoleil stabbed him in the chest twice, yet Mr. Beausoleil is one of the victims. And then after 55 years in custody, he won't talk to the Panel about what he did, but he will talk to Manson producers, people doing things for the Manson family. What is he some unpaid, you know, uh, executive producer helping, he keeps tying himself to the Manson family. Why? He tells us, no, I'm not connected to them, but he'll talk to any Manson person, anybody doing a special on the Manson's and give him whatever they want to hear, answer any of their questions, but not here at the parole hearing. Interesting, I wonder why that is. Probably because he can't tell the truth.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Deputy District Attorney --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: The lack credibility - - I'm sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: We have exceeded -- we have exceeded the ten minutes. I would encourage you to wrap it up --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: -- and I'll extend to counsel the -- the same leniency here, please.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: So the lack of credibility, he lied under oath is so telling, and that alone should be a reason to deny him parole and shows a dangerousness, current dangerousness because of his criminal thinking that 57 years later still applies now. His lack of insight we've talked about, his lack of relevant programming, and in the end it seems clear that in this statement of view where he was described as a remorseless sociopath who ingratiates himself to others in order to manipulate people for his own benefit is as true today as it was back then. So given all of this, the people submit that the aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating circumstances, and the inmate should be denied for a minimum of five years and/or an investigation should be done to prove up the very things that defense counsel and Judge Ryan think are lacking in the record. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right, counsel, your closing statements, I'm just going to set the timer at about 13 minutes. Um, before any minutes will be made to interrupt anything you have to say, that way we have some equity here. Your closing statements please.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. I'll try and be efficient here. So just in response to this -- this call for a new investigation about, uh, Beausoleil's relationship with Manson, that was already done in the eighties. There's a report, it hasn't come up for over a decade in these hearings because it's been understood. There was the -- the filer report, which was already prepared, it should be in his CFile. If not, I can provide it to the Commissioners. He was determined to be an associate of the Manson family, not a member. All of the behavior that surrounded the -- the -- the Manson family, the shaving of the heads and stuff like that did not apply to Mr. Beausoleil. The, um, you know, it's -- it's -- he's never said that he had no connection with them. He's never said that he was not involved in what took place, uh, when the Gary Hinman was murdered, or at least not in recent years. Obviously, he had a different trial strategy back then. In fact, his trial strategy showed that he was blaming Charles Manson entirely for the murder. Um, just quickly in response to some of the things that, uh - - uh, Ms., uh, Walker -- I mean, Ms. Walker's arguments were primarily related to things that happened in 1970, uh, statements that were supposedly made. That was a time when many people were trying to cash in on the notoriety of the Manson family. John Gilmore is not a reputable author. You can look him up. He's -- he's, you know, he's a -- a true crime author, um, that that's not a source of -- of reliable information. Um, the royalties earned the comments that were being made regarding this snippet of transcript, which I'll note that despite having -- despite noting in this report, there were 1,195 completed telephone calls between Beausoleil and his agent. There's only one that's here. And in there, Beausoleil specifically says, we're not actively selling anything. Are there royalties accruing anywhere? Yes, that's true -- that's true. Whenever a radio station plays something on the radio, there are royalties that go into a pot that you have to actively claim. That's a law that they have, that the -- the anywhere where there's -- where things are -- are played, there have to be royalties accrued. I mean, this is something that -- that -- and -- and all of this, you know, Commissioner Newman talked about the -- the spirit of the -- the law and the -- versus the -- the actual, uh, rule of law, which I -- I think is a -- is a meaningless distinction here, because all that's required of someone as they follow the law. But you want to talk about the spirit of the law here. You know, part of the parole process is proving that someone can live outside of the prison and survive, make their own living, communicate with others, uh, develop pro-social relationships. Music and art is how Bobby does that, you know, so this whole idea like, oh, we're not going to let you earn $200 while you're in prison, but we want to make sure you can earn enough money when you get out. It's hypocrisy. And -- and this -- the fact that the -- that they've been reaching so hard to just find some little thing that they can put point to one sentence, uh, one sentence about, uh, the, um, what links were on his page. And he said, no, it's not referring to the Twitter, the -- the Twitter icon, the Twitter link or the Twitter account. I -- I mean, that -- that alone would generate a 16-page report, a report that includes an article from 2017 or something that has nothing to do with it, with any of this. It just shows the -- the -- the reach that they're trying to -- to, uh, use to find anything they can, to demonstrate or to try and convince the, uh, Commissioners not to grant parole. But I - - I hope that the Commissioners here will -- will not buy into that, because for years, I mean, you -- they -- they -- they talk about Mr. Beausoleil being a victim, you know, I don't think anyone who has committed something heinous, some heinous act, whether it's murder or something else, there is a process. I mean, that damages yourself as well. When you hurt someone else, it hurts yourself. And that process of Mr. Beausoleil looking at -- into himself, finding the sources of pain that he -- that -- that -- that they were there and -- and working through them, that's part of the rehabilitative process. That's part of the process of empathizing with his victim. Mr. Beausoleil is not saying that he's a worse -- that he's in a worse position than, uh, than Mr. Hinman. No one in their right mind would say that. Obviously Mr. Hinman is the true victim here, and no one doubts that. But I will say I firmly believe that Beausoleil has been the victim of a -- a -- a disinformation campaign by people in the CDCR and the District Attorney's Office since 2015. I wrote a very strong response to what I felt was like an illegal movement of him back to California, which was done on the basis of Debra Tate's statements to the media. And ever since then, this whole idea of un -- unfair business or, uh, unauthorized business dealings has dominated every single parole hearing. And it has nothing to do with current dangerousness. We have been trying to comply with the rules. I want to point out, and this is something very important, that -- and, um, I filed a, uh, petition for writ of a mandamus in the Solano County Superior Court is ultimately denied, but Attorney General in the response to, uh, the one of the briefs that I wrote, said that the respondent, meaning the CDCR, did not violate the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Indeed, Beausoleil remains free to sell his artwork at the prison and otherwise share his artwork with the public, just not for profit. The Attorney General acknowledged that he is justified in sharing his work with the public, and yet we're still here talking about this. It's -- it's -- it -- it doesn't make any sense that after, you know, more than ten years of this being the -- almost the sole topic at these hearings, we're still talking about it. Mr. Beausoleil has been forthright since, uh, 2008. You can -- he's -- he's, uh, talking with the Commissioners about his website and how at that time, his wife Barbara had been operating it. He's talked about Facebook, even in the last hearing and this -- this demonstrates the -- the fundamental fallacy of this -- of this, uh, report here. Because in the last hearing, uh, Beausoleil was talking with the Commissioners about Spotify and other, uh, platforms at the - - during the -- the -- the question and answer period, he wasn't hiding it. So this idea that he was somehow misleading or hiding anything from anyone is ludicrous. He has always invited the -- the -- the Board to review his website. He's always said, here is my website, it is up there right now. There's never been an attempt to hide any of this. The entire premise of this report is false, it's false. We've been trying to comply with everything the prison has said. He has a right to express himself. That's how he creates the positive relationships in his life. It's a cathartic experience for him. The idea of making music, you can read this positive Chrono that he received, where they talk about how his tremendous experience in the field of music is an asset to our program and to the other band members, which in turn benefits the entire population. He has been part of our beautification initiatives, adding his advanced art skills to our murals and mascots. He's been very helpful in contributing to our climate and culture. This is not a man who's -- who's using his art for any nefarious purpose. He is an artist. That's what he is. That's who he is. And yet, every single time we come back here, we're constantly talking about the same thing. Part of being an artist is communicating with the world. It requires an interface with the world, and that's what he's doing. And you can even look, you know, I -- I'd advise, um, the -- even the interview that for whatever reason they included that report, there's a lot of positive comments in there. Beausoleil has -- has -- you can read many things I've submitted over the years. They're in his C-File. He tries to express positive values in all of his interactions with people. This notion, he's some malevolent force masquerading, is -- is this nice guy, is ludicrous. That's why the -- I -- I always include all the letters from Randy Gere, because who else can have a better perception of Mr. Beausoleil than a man whose father was murdered, a man who worked his entire career in the corrections, uh, department, and yet got to know Beausoleil as a person -- as a person who still speaks to Beausoleil as a person. He didn't have to do that. He doesn't have to consider continue writing those letters. Randy Gere has no, uh -- no, uh, ulterior motive here. He's not going to be in a documentary. He's just a guy who worked at the Department of Corrections in Oregon his whole career as an administrator, as a CO, and recognizes the -- the true nature of who Bobby Beausoleil is. And I hope -- I hope sincerely, that in this hearing, especially with Mr. Beausoleil's waning health, uh, diagnosed with cancer, I've submit resubmitted Dr. Anastasia's, uh -- uh, letter in which he said there's, you know, a high chance for recurrence of the cancer. I hope that the Commissioners who are here today will -- will really finally do what should have been done a long time ago, and let Mr. Beausoleil out, let him be with his family for the last years of his life, as he totally deserves to be, as he should have -- should have been having, you know, decades ago. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right, so, Mr. Beausoleil, this is your opportunity to address the Panel with your closing statement. We're going to turn it over to you and allow you to speak. Please preface all your comments to address us the Panel and not the family and representatives that are gathered here today. Ignore the DA, please. You can start when you're ready.

ROBERT BEAUSOLEIL: Thank you -- thank you very much. Um, thank you for this opportunity, and thank you for listening to my answers. And even though I think some of them may not be the answers that -- that were sought, I don't know. I -- I tend to meander when I talk, I probably meander a bit in this, uh, in this state. I know that there is no possible way I am going to talk you into giving me a parole, and that's not what I'm going to try to do. I am just going to make, um, some remarks in -- in re -- in reference, for example, to -- to Mr. Campbell who just spoke, uh, passionately. And I can sense his frustration and I share his frustration. You know, I -- I believe with all my heart that I am a good person and that I do good work, I respect people, I give everyone that I meet a -- a conscious effort. I make a con -- conscious effort to give everyone I meet and a lot of them are not too positive, there are a lot of them are in a negative space. But I -- I make an effort to give everyone dignity and respect. I tend to get that back in my normal environment, in my normal, um, everyday life in here. I am respected and I am supported by the staff, by, uh, and I support them in return, whatever they ask of me and I've done that for years and years and years. And, uh, it took a while to create the relationships after I got back to California in 2015. Took a while to develop relationships and get into programs and there's waiting lists for everything, uh, that go on sometimes for years, you know. So, uh, I do believe that I'm a good person, and that my orientation has become, over the years, increasingly wholesome. My family responds to it, my friends respond to it, people in the professional world respond to it. Um, and I get that same thing back from them. And that can't be false. I mean, it's just, you know, I put myself out in the world through my websites, and I call them mine, I -- they're not mine, they're somebody else's websites and I'm just sort of the subject of them. Uh, and I have an agreement that, uh, things are not put on those websites or on social media that are not representative of my wishes. And so, to that -- to that extent, I guess I can call them mine, but, um, I think it's -- it's, um, I kind of -- I wish you would just go visit them, the websites, I know you probably can't, that's outside of your, you know, scope for -- for the hearings. But, um, it's one of the things that my responsibility to engage with the world, to even to the extent of answering questions I really don't want to answer, having to do with my crime, having to do with relationships that happened a long time ago. And, um, that I -- I wish with all my heart I could put behind me, but I -- the world won't allow that. Not even in my hearings, especially not in my hearings, evidently. Um, you know, put to -- put behind this -- this relationship with Manson, and I have to listen to characterizations, uh, of -- of me and or about me that give me the impression that people think I'm him, I'm Manson somehow and I feel like, uh, I -- I don't -- I I just feel like they're misdirected. You know, I -- I -- am I narcissistic? Probably, you know, I'm -- I'm an oddball. I, uh, do I -- I -- some -- maybe I overrate myself as an artist, I don't know. But people do love. They respond to my work. They love it. So, uh, I -- I think I'm doing on the right track with that. Um, but am I narcissistic? You know, do I think that I have a certain degree of entitlement after 57 years of prison? I try to keep that reigned in. I try to keep that sort of thing and keep a -- a humility about everything that I'm doing and my relationships with other people. Um, but maybe I don't succeed all the time. Maybe there is some of that, you know. Um, I think I'm all that or whatever. I don't think I'm all that inside of myself. Um, I just want to be a good person, and I don't want people to look at me as if I'm Manson or as if that defines me, that relationship. I don't want people to look at me as if prison defines me, because it doesn't, I have not allowed that. And some people object to the fact that I have not allowed that. I have not allowed myself to be defined by those things because they are not me. They're not truly me. They're not representative of who I am. I -- by virtue of my need to rehabilitate myself, not your need to rehabilitate me, uh, and I'm speaking to the CDCR as a whole, it -- it is -- it's -- it's my need to rehabilitate myself. Is it all about me? To a degree, I think that is true about everybody. Um, I think there might be some truth to some of those comments that, uh, that, you know, it's all about me, but I do not think I'm the victim of this crime that I committed. I -- I do believe and I've spent my experience working with, uh, in -- in, uh, victim's awareness groups, um, in Nonviolent Communications, which was a victims awareness group, uh, in, um, restorative justice program, which was a re -- which was a, um, victims awareness group. And, uh, the other programs breaking barriers, and all of them that had a victims awareness component in them, uh, and that I produced videos to help them communicate their concepts to the world and to other inmates. Um, that's, you know, I -- I put myself into those arenas, um, and support those arenas. And I am fully aware that, um, I am not the victim in this crime. But I do know that through these programs that 'hurt people hurt people', that is a fundamental principle in victims' rights organization and understanding the relationship between someone who has committed a crime and the victim of that crime, 'hurt people, hurt people'. And when a crime happens, the per -- person who does it, who commits that crime is wounded deeply. That's why you have so many former or active, even military people who have suffered, um, post-traumatic stress from their engagements with the enemy and having killed people. A lot of that is about having killed people. I can tell you that from personal experience, you don't come back from that very easy. That is a personal thing, that is a wounding that, um, is beyond the -- the ability to articulate in words, I defy anybody to really get to the core of that and understand it. So, I -- I'm sorry if I don't communicate as well as I should. In -- in the letter that I wrote to -- to Ms. Pickford, it was a sincere letter, regardless of whether I, you know, put too many words about -- about my own trauma in, with the trauma that Gary experienced and the trauma that Gary's family has experienced. I didn't intend that to be the case. I didn't intend to do that. But if that's what I did, then so be it. But, um, my intention was to communicate in a heartfelt way with empathy, truly in an open-hearted with empathy fashion, with the family of Gary Hinman is specifically his niece. Um, I have hunger for opportunities to be able to communicate those feelings to the people I've hurt. I believe in the 12-step program. I believe in that part where you make an assessment of, uh, who you've hurt in -- and I believe that in the -- in the principle of the 12- step programs of making amends where making amends is possible. So I'm going to ask you, Mr. Muniz, I'm going to ask Ms. Walker, um, to please transmit my letter to Ms. Pickford with the attachments of the previous letters I have written to the Hinman family. Somehow, I'm asking you to please, um, facilitate the process of getting her my communication to her and my communication to other members of the family so that she can share them with, um, uh, with -- with Ms. Martley -- with Ms. Martley and, uh, the sec -- the second cousin, and, um, uh, with -- uh, with anyone she wants to share them with, really, but with other members of the Hinman family, if there is a surviving sister, I would certainly want her to have an opportunity to read those letters for what they may be worth, I mean, to -- to them, it's not for me, but to them, I feel that if -- if I were in their place and someone had murdered, God forbid, uh, someone in my family, I would want to hear from the person who did it. I would want to hear, even if it's lame, I would -- I would want to hear what they had to say, um, that it -- I don't know if you'll respond to that request, but I'm -- I'm making it and I'll leave it there. Um, I -- I wish I could share the body of my art with you. You know, some of it is kind of lighthearted and frivolous maybe, some of it is deep, you know, some of it, I went to a deep place, it's a very meditative process for me. The reason I believe in it so much is because it is an introspective process. Any art, any music, any writing, I do a lot of writing, there's a lot of my writing on -- on my website. If, you know somebody wants to really look into who I am, I don't think you can find a better place to find out who I am. Then by reading the interviews that I've done, by reading the writings that I've done, and there are a lot of them on -- on my website, um, listening to the music, the art, the -- if you could connect with the fact that what I'm doing when I'm doing that work is going inside of myself. That's why I encourage prisoners to do that. I encourage other prisoners it's been a path, uh, it's been a path back from -- back from the brink. I was so close to losing myself in the abyss of criminal behavior and violence. Um, back in San Quentin I was on the brink, I was either going to wind up dead, um, from that, or I was going to wind up hurting people bad and, uh, really bad. And I never ever want to be that guy kind of guy. Um, so art brought me back. That introspection that happens when you do art brought me back. So, jail guitar doors, I -- I agreed to put out a -- that album that agreed to let those people that -- that -- that couple, um -- um, put out that album on the condition that they would -- they would give the proceeds, um, after meeting their costs, of course, but to any profits, to jail guitar doors, because it is an organization, um, that at the time was headed by, uh, Wayne Craver, who is now deceased, who was a dear friend of mine who did time, got out, started this, uh, nonprofit to bring guitars and guitar teachers into prison all across the country, and a lot of them in California. Uh, it's a widely respected nonprofit. So it was because of that that I agreed to that, to allow that compilation to be published by the -- by those people, um, because I believe in that process. It's through introspection that insight happens. We talk about insight. Everyone needs insight, not just people in prison, not just people coming before the Parole Board, everyone needs insight. And the way to achieve insight is through introspection. You can't get there unless you go inside, though I meditate, I do art, I do -- I do meditation and then from my meditation, I express what I experience in meditation, in art, I haven't been able to sell it, you know, I thought for a long time, because I receive a lot of commendations, including from members of the Parole Board in various hearings, including some that were fairly -- fairly recent, some that have been occurred here since, uh, since my return, the 2016 hearing. I was commended for the work that I was doing in the laws and asked to create a nexus between the work that I was doing and Gary Hinman, which I have strived to do. I took to heart what they said to me. I have been commended for making a living while I've been in prison on my work. I have never made that much money, you should know that. I've never made a ton of money, I'm not, you know, I don't trade on the Manson name, that has never been done, never will do that. People must accept my work on its own merits. That's simply the -- the way that it's produced, that it's the way that it is offered and, uh, that's what people have responded to. And so I was able to make a living. I was able to support myself while I was in prison, I was able to actually put a little bit of money aside, and now I have to live on the good graces of my friends. I have to, you know, I have to be a dependent on -- on my family now. Members of my family send me some -- some money every so often so that I can go to the canteen so I can buy food, so I can survive this thing, this loss of a lung, you know, it's, uh, it is changed. The -- my physiology and the change in my physiology has changed the way that my heart works, and it has to work a lot harder. And my lung has to work a lot harder. I weigh 150 pounds. I'm so skinny that it scares me sometimes, but I have to -- so in order to keep my health, I have to be able to buy food that is healthy and high in protein, which you don't get here in prison, trust me. You can't -- you can't survive in a healthy way on the food that is given by the Department of Corrections. You have to be able to go to the canteen and buy food if I have to, in order to be able to -- to, uh, support what my body needs in order to survive. So I do that. I, um, I have to, you know, ask my -- my family once in a while to send funds. Sometimes my friends send funds without asking 'cause they know I'm not able to sell my work, or I probably am able to sell my work, but I've chosen to not sell it because there's been controversy over it. And -- and I don't want to, you know, I don't want to act like I'm trying to be in defiance of anything. I've heard it characterized in this hearing that I'm acting in defiance of that by having a website. I disagree -- I disagree with that, because everyone at this facility knows I have one, and they like it, I hear here all the time. I received so many commendations when I was selling my work for selling it. You know, I thought I was making it possible to support, to have some way of supporting myself on the outside and, uh, and so I've had to put that in suspension, um, in order to -- to work with the department, to work with the parole, uh, process, to work with the Board of prison terms, um, and hope that, you know, with the intention, I'll be honest with you, when I am released from prison, assuming at some point that I am, you know, sometime before I die, hopefully, um, sometimes I laugh at things that are not funny, by the way, uh, as I did just then. But I -- I intend -- I just wanted to say that I intend to re-monetize my music as soon as I'm out, as soon as I'm on parole. Unless -- unless parole authorities tell me I can't, I mean, then I'll -- I'll comply. But, um, I intend to, you know, turn on the royalties, turn on -- collect whatever royalties that went in by the publishers' rights organizations that get collected automatically, that there is no mechanism for me to receive at present. Um, I'll, um, start selling my paintings again. Uh, I might offer some sign prints of my work. Um, I hope that I'll be able to get out of prison without any social security, without any sort of support, without any sort of, uh, I guess I'll probably qualify maybe for some really inexpensive medical insurance, you know, um, Cal Med or something. Uh, I should be able to get something like that. But by and large, and I'm lucky to have a surgeon, uh, Mr. -- Dr. Anastasio (phonetic), who, uh, has become a friend and has said that when I'm out of prison, he'll help me to get on some good medical insurance, so that, um, because of, uh, my change in physiology and because I'm -- there's a potential that the -- the cancer will recur, uh, very fairly high potential evidently, uh, that he's going to help me with getting onto some good medical insurance. So I've got some support, uh, in that regard. But I do intend, and I -- I don't mean to say this in like defiant way or anything like that, it's just that, um, in a practical sense, having no other means of income other than a couple of job offers, which I intend to, uh, to, um, accept at the time of my release and -- and do work that's in line with my skills as a -- as a multimedia specialist. Um, I do hope to be able to do that kind of work. I intend to create more music and, um, and -- and do work with nonprofits. I intend to get that, uh, architectural design out into the world and -- and into the hands of people who can maybe apply it to doing, um, to support, uh, um, people without homes that are in need of them. Because it doesn't seem like even with $200 billion thrown at it by the federal government that anyone knows how to do that. But I think my design is practical, and I think it's a good one, and I'm proud of it. And so I intend to pursue that as well. But I don't intend to make any money on it. I intend to make money doing my work, doing the work that I worked so hard to gain skills, uh, to -- to be able to do. And, um, and -- and I hope that, uh, it will not be seen as -- as some narcissistic, um, endeavor, uh, that does not honor Gary, because I want everything that I do to honor Gary. I want -- it's -- it's a guidepost for me to ask myself when I engaged in any significant, um, activity, if it's something that Gary as a human being would approve of. Because Gary was a really -- really good person, he was a kind person, he was -- he was a far better person than I was at that time. And, um, I wish, honestly, that he could have lived instead of me, instead of going through what I've gone through, I'd rather he lived and not me, but I can't take back what I did. I know you've heard that many -- many times from people who sit in this position. It's a reframe that I've heard many people who have committed crimes say in selfhelp groups. But I can do work, I can live in a way that is supportive of life, of dignity, of truth, of humility, of spiritual and mental and physical growth. I can do those things. I -- I know it's never going to be enough to repay for taking the man's life, but I can do those things and I'm -- I'm going to tell you, I'm not going to be ashamed of that. There are people in this hearing who tried to shame me for that, and I'm sorry, I -- I just don't get it, I don't see it. So thank you for listening to me. Um, again, I know that I can't, uh, it's not about talking the Parole Board into doing anything. Uh, I just want to identify who I am, who I've become, who I'm now, to you as best as I can and I hope I've succeeded. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: All right, thank you. And what we're going to do now are the family statements, uh, next of kin and the representatives. But before we do that, let's go ahead and take --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Let -- I'm sorry. Can we inquire whether they need a break?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Uh, I'm -- I was going to invoke a break.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Hmm. Okay. I'm sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Can release your breath, get a drink of water, use the restroom, um, so the time is now 2:08 p.m. Let's just come back at 2:15 p.m. That'll give you about seven minutes or so, and then we'll come back for those statements.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're off record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: The time is now 2:17 p.m. All parties previously identified have returned. Uh, we are at the point now where we're going to have comments by those that have been approved to be in attendance and are authorized to provide statements. And we're going to begin - - actually, I don't know where we're going to begin, we have a couple of options here. We could begin with Kay, we could begin with Anthony, or we could begin with Debra. So, um, have you guys made any decision, uh, in your communication about who would want to go first or who should go first?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Your Honor, it's going to be Kay first, then Anthony, and then Debra.

KAY MARTLEY: No -- no, go -- we -- we already decided Anthony, then me, then Debra.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Oh -- oh, I'm sorry.

KAY MARTLEY: That's okay. That's all right. We already discussed it between the three of us.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: Okay. Got you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. So we'll go Anthony, Kay, and then Debra. And, um, based on the judge's decision, I will remind you a couple of things. One -- the first one's not the judge's decision here, it's just the proper protocol. Comments should be directed towards us, the Panel. So please refrain from any temptation to address, uh -- uh, you know, uh, Mr. Beausoleil here directly, making your comments you could refer to his name, but please don't say like, "You did this, you did that." That would be highly appropriate. Secondly, um, we're going to ask that your comments be specific to this crime, to his suitability, and also to victim impact. Um, uh, in terms of what will probably be allowed on my part, honestly, is maybe a generalization about how maybe this is connected to other things, but not the gory details about how it is connected to other things in terms of the Manson murders. So I -- I think general comment about that may be okay, please don't dig into the gory details and try to connect these, uh, other crimes for which Mr. Beausoleil has not been convicted. Uh, I will interrupt, uh, as will Commissioner Newman, in the event there's something inappropriate that's being shared that's veering off the course. We're going to inter -- interject at points to steer you back. It is not intended to make you stop your statements. We certainly don't want to do that, but we want to make sure that they're keeping with what would be appropriate here. All right, so let's go ahead and begin with Anthony.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Commissioner Muniz, just, uh, just, uh, one thing, um, I -- I understanding the, uh, the admonition that I shouldn't interrupt, I will not interrupt 'cause I -- I believe that as you're -- as you just stated, you have this under control, but in the event, I do feel like there's something, uh, going on, what I propose that I could do the hand raise comment or something, and then that way I don't interrupt immediately or something or it might cause you to be more attentive or -- or something like that. I don't foresee that that would be an issue, but just in case.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um, uh, absolutely, if you raise your hand, it'll be my indication that you want to draw my attention to some things being said, and we'll allow that. Um, the intent here is to stay within the context of the law, which is these statements by definition, should be made without interruption.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Uh, additionally --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Everything you've done and everything you've said --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Yeah.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: -- so I -- I will -- I will take a back seat unless there's absolutely some reason I feel necessary.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: No, I appreciate that. And for everyone else, the -- that's the intent, but also we have other guidelines that we've been given by the judge, and we want to be, uh, honoring those parameters as well, because it is court decisions. So, um, that's a lot to throw in there, um, especially on emotional matters. But we'll turn it over to you. And -- and hopefully this goes well. If not, we will redirect. Let's go ahead and begin with, Anthony, if you would all please restate your names again and your relationship to victims or victim's next of kin, so that way we know, so that way the transcriber can keep all the names correct. Anthony, please.

ANTHONY DIMARIA: Thank you, Commissioner. Um, my name is Anthony DiMaria, and I'm speaking in today's hearing as a Hinman family representative. Um, first, uh, I would be remiss if I didn't address my genuine sorrow to learn of Mr. Beausoleil battle with cancer. Um, too many of us are impacted by this brutal disease. Um, I -- I wish Mr. Beausoleil all the best with his battle and its treatment in his, uh, healthcare. Um, first I'd like to address a statement that Mr. Beausoleil just made in his -- in his closing. "I would never want to shame anyone into being something other than who or what they actually are." Um, so I just want to be clear on that. Part of what continues to impact the Hinman family are these parole hearings and what is said in them, past and present. Additional hardships to the Hinman’s are caused by legal amenities afforded to the inmate, yet with no regard or consideration for the Hinman family, which I'll address later in this statement. Finally, Robert Beausoleil (inaudible) addressing this, I was interrupted three times and I commend Commissioner, uh, Patricia Cassady for maintaining order then and I appreciate the Commissioners doing the same today. I extend that to the attorney as well. As I begin, I bring to your attention yet another recent miscarriage of justice specific to ramifications of Mr. Beausoleil's crimes that continue to painfully impact the Hinman family. On August 29, 2024, Judge William Ryan issued a decision on this case. Shockingly, Shelly Pickford, Kay Hinman Martley and not one Hinman family member was informed of the legal proceedings. It is deplorable that the Hinman family was kept in the dark, actually, that they were prohibited from court proceedings regarding a horrific killing that continues to profoundly -- to profoundly devastate their family. Such disregard to the Hinman family causes additional pain and suffering and yet to the benefit of Gary's killer. This is a perverse travesty of justice. Robert Beausoleil and his attorney would have the Board of Parole Hearings, believe the inmates crimes occurred in a vacuum void of any connection to Charles Manson and the Manson family murder rampage. However, evidence including Mr. Beausoleil's own words, prove the exact opposite. While John Gilmore may or may not be a legit writer, Truman Capote is. As early as 1972, Mr. Beausoleil confirmed to Truman Capote in his interview that the Tate-LaBianca murders were a ploy “to get me out of jail. None of that came out at any of the trials”. Clearly, Mr. Beausoleil's crimes are a catalyst that influenced and ignited the entire Manson family -- I'm sorry, Manson family murder rampage. For Mr. Beausoleil and his counsel to portray -- portray otherwise exhibits, deception and lack of insight into these crimes, establishing a nexus of current dangerousness. At the last hearing, Jason Campbell complained about the length of my impact statement. Then in the aforementioned legal proceeding, Mr. Campbell took exception to, "Mr. Di -- DiMaria's statement is approximately 14 pages long." First, I'm pretty sure -- I'm pretty sure that everyone in this meeting would concur, including petitioner Beausoleil and his attorney, that enduring a 14-page statement is preferable to enduring three days of torture, having your face sliced, then more torture, having -- I'm sorry, um, having -- having your ear pierced with a needle and dental floss, and then slowly being stabbed and suffocated to death as you drown in your blood. Perhaps we -- perhaps we all might agree too, that impact statements as lengthy as they may be, are a hell of a lot better than lying 55 years in a cold black coffin. I hope that I would think that the gravity and ramifications -- sorry. Um, I'm so sorry. Secondly, I would -- I -- I'm sorry, I'm having some issues here with -- with a puppy. Can I just pause for a second?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Yes.

ANTHONY DIMARIA: I am so sorry. Second, we --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: For what -- for what -- for what it's worth, Mr. DiMaria, um, we can't hear that on our end, but I know it can be a distraction to you. So just thought I'd let you know.

ANTHONY DIMARIA: I appreciate your understanding. It is undeniable that Robert Beausoleil's crimes carry profound realities and ramifications with cultural and historical impact. For over five decades, the Hinman family has endured chronic pain and suffering as the slaughter of Gary has been exploited as entertainment fodder on the internet in books, television, movies, and podcasts. Just a little over a month ago, renowned films produced a television series making Manson airing on NBC Peacock. In it, Gary Hinman is slandered as being a drug dealer. For the record, I too listened to, uh, Hamilton Morris' podcast just a couple days ago. And since, uh, the book Chaos was mentioned, it is crucial to acknowledge there is some distortion contained in the book that is errant and harmful to the victim's good names for Mr. Beausoleil to engage and yet another project that may smear the victim's good character and name indicates yet another lack of insight. Mr. Beausoleil promotes himself on his website and through personal sites on Instagram, SoundCloud, Facebook, and YouTube. Seriously, Mr. Beausoleil's personal website was temporarily deactivated after the last parole hearing. However, Mr. Beausoleil advises his followers, "Please avail thyself of this link, bobbybeausoleil.love. This website will resume normal operations when music and art products are once again afforded for sale to the public." The inmate has engaged mainstream media, including interviews with Truman Capote Rolling Stone Magazine and several podcasts to name a few and yet, the inmate and his counsel had the rich audacity filing to limit Hinman impact statements. All the while Robert Beausoleil appears in magazines and podcasts. It is critical and Commissioner steer me however you -- you need. It is critical to acknowledge that not one Manson family killing occurred until after Robert Beausoleil tortured killed Gary Hinman and was arrested in his victim's car on August 6, 1969. Mr. Beausoleil -- had Mr. Beausoleil not snuffed out Gary Hinman, nine people would've lived their lives completely and we wouldn't be here now. One of the traits Mr. Beausoleil shares with his Manson cohorts is his insatiable appetite for self-promotion in the media, on the internet contained in We Magazine, Rolling Stone Magazine, Puritan Rules (phonetic), Oxygen Networks, et cetera -- et cetera -- et cetera. This persistent pattern lacks insight into his crimes. The endless book and magazine interviews are too many to reference, so I'll focus on just a few of the most recent. In 2018, the inmate appeared in, Manson: The Lost Tapes, and Helter Skelter: An American Myth, in 2020, just a little over a month ago. An Oxygen True Crime article by Jill Sederstrom, November 15, 2024 stated, "While authorities alleged that trio wanted to rob Hinman, Beausoleil told Rolling Stone, Hinman had sold him a bad -- a batch of bad drugs." These malicious lies, slandering Gary as a drug dealer, are perpetuated even as we speak. Today, Mr. Campbell takes issue claiming that he feels his character is being attacked and that the inmate's good name is being smeared by Ms. Tate's signed petitions. Let there be no confusion in this hearing. The only person whose good name has been smeared and whose character has been attacked is Gary Hinman by Robert Beausoleil. One of Mr. Beausoleil's current supporters via a support letter from a -- from a recent parole hearing, is television producer James Day, who is yet another of a cascade of individuals who have exploited and profited from these crimes. His projects include Manson, his last words, Manson: The Women, Manson: The Funeral. These projects were released in just the last couple of years. Mr. Day and his producers contacted me several years ago to do an interview for their projects. I politely declined and reminded the producer that such project -- projects are not only exploitative in nature, but damaging to the victim's memories and very painful to the friends and family of the victims. Robert Beausoleil's involvement with the writer producer in these extensive projects and interviews is an inexcusable pattern of the killer's lack of insight into his crimes and is callously disconnected from how he continues to cause additional suffering to his victims' families over and over since 1972, even today. From the same Rolling Stone article referenced earlier, Tru -- Truman Capote is quoted from his original interview with Mr. Beausoleil. "Capote, did you feel influenced by Manson right away? Mr. Beausoleil's answer, hell no, he had his -- he had his people I had mine. If anyone was influenced, it was him by me." These are perhaps the most definitive, accurate words ever uttered from Mr. Beausoleil in his extensive interviews with regard to Manson these crimes. We know from the inmate's own words and the trajectory of Manson family killings that Bobby Beausoleil influenced and impacted Charles Manson more than Charles Manson influenced and impacted Bobby Beausoleil. Mr. Beausoleil is not a victim of Charles Manson Association, it is he who unleashed the death and destruction perpetrated by the Manson family so profound the ramifications are cultural and historical. It is glaring that today Mr. Beausoleil describes that he was manipulated, that he got into a situation with A.B., that he himself suffered fatal blows when he killed Gary Hinman, even described himself that he was victimized and shockingly claims he was betrayed by Charles Manson. If ever a crime pertains to Lawrence, Robert Beausoleil's offenses meet the rare severe nature of the case. On a normal Sunday night, Gary Hinman was ambushed in the safety of his home by three armed terrorists whom he thought to be friends and he was forced to endure days of humiliation, extortion, torture, mutilation, stabbing suffocation. Commissioners, there are no words to describe, to express how horrifically Gary suffered throughout his grueling death. I am -- I am reminded that for Gary Hinman, there is no youthful offender act, no elderly offender accommodations. So I ask, what is it like to have the whole side of your face slashed open? What is it like to bleed profusely for days and be prevented from seeking medical help as your flesh festers and infects? To have needles with dental floss jabbed into your severed ear with no pain medication? Imagine the same fate to your child or pet, mutilated and tortured for days begging for life, then slowly stab and suffocated to death as you gasp for air with a pillow shoved over your face. Commissioners, imagine your mother left to wash and clean your blood at the ghoulish death site, to read political piggy smeared in your blood. Imagine your mother's suffer yearlong demise until she's overcome with her grief and anguish over your own murder. On suitability of parole Commissioners, you are tasked to ask Mr. Beausoleil, who were you -- who were you then? Who are you today? And what's the difference? These are genuinely relevant questions. Sadly, victims tend to become collateral damage in their endless and these endless hearings decade after decade. So I am -- so I'm compelled to ask the same to Gary Hinman, who is most impacted by Bobby Beausoleil and these heinous crimes. Gary, who were you July 27, 1969? Who are you now? What's the difference of spending a peaceful Sunday evening being assaulted? What's the difference of spending a peaceful Sunday evening or being assaulted by armed killers who will hold you against your will, preparing you for mutilation, butchering suffocation that you'll endure for days? What's the difference of knowing that all your dreams as a musician will be obliterated by the man who kills you all the while promoting himself on his websites as a successful musician? How does it feel to know your killer will spit on your memory and torment your family for the world to see on Reelz Network, We Magazine, Rolling Stone, the Oxygen Network, Manson his last words, bobbybeausoleil.com, bobbybeausoleil.love? What's the difference of living the rest of your days? Your mother will live the rest of her life filled with anguish until -- until her grief induced stroke. Tell us -- tell us, Gary, tell us Francis. Robert Beausoleil and his attorney assert that Mr. Beausoleil is a changed rehabilitated individual. But today, twice, Mr. Beausoleil said, "I am not going to answer any more to that line of questioning." Why not? While they tout change, Gary Hinman remains unchanged, unrehabilitated, unparoled, and he will remain so for eternity, just as Francis Hinman is unchanged, unparoled. They are just as dead today as when Robert Beausoleil sent them to their graves. Commissioners, how can anyone make amends for Robert Beausoleil when no one can make amends for his death? Acknowledging Mr. Beausoleil's crime meet the Lawrence Law on every level, specific to profound gravity, the cruel, sadistic nature of his actions, the unspeakable loss and suffering cause, his lack of insight, minimization and permanent historical poisonous wounds to society even today compounded by numerous examples of his nexus of current dangerousness as exhibited in his criminal mindset of persistent deception and defiance. It is in the very least just that you deny parole to inmate Robert -- Robert Beausoleil for the longest period of time permitted by law. Commissioners, I am grateful for your service and your prudence in this, and I would be remiss if I didn't also say that for those impacted most profoundly by these crimes, I feel grave sorrow and I extend that sorrow to Mr. Beausoleil.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you. And now Kay, I believe you're next, so we will, uh, please reintroduce yourself and relationship and then go ahead and make your statement.

KAY MARTLEY: Okay. Hello, my name is Kay Hinman Martley, M-A-R-T-L-E-Y. My statement is projected by the Marsy Law. I am the cousin of Gary Hinman, who was held captive and tortured in the Topanga Canyon home, then brutally murdered by a Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil over three days in July 1969. Gary was an advocate, a devout Buddhist, a musician, and a music teacher. At the time of his death, he was also studying for a PhD degree in sociology at UCLA. He lived in a small house in Topanga Canyon, kind and gentle in nature, Gary would give the clothes off his back to anyone in need. He would often let people stay at his home rent free. One of these people was Bobby Beausoleil, who had known Gary since 1967. When Charles Manson needed money to move the Manson family out to Death Valley, he ordered Bobby Beausoleil to get it from Gary, who the family falsely believed had received a large inheritance. Gary was not wealthy by any means. He lived modestly and frugally. Beausoleil, Susan Atkins and Mary Brunner were all driven to Gary's house by Bruce Davis and told to steal whatever money Gary had and make him sign over all his property and possessions to the family. Beausoleil was armed with a gun and a knife. Gary was a pacifist, but he also wasn't a pushover. He bravely fought Beausoleil for position -- for possession of the gun and was pistol whipped, received several head wounds. Beausoleil then ordered Susan Atkins to keep the gun trained on Gary while he searched the house. And during that time, Gary managed to get the gun away from Susan, which he resulted in another fight with Beausoleil and Gary was badly beaten again. Beausoleil then called the spa ranch for backup. And shortly after Charles Manson arrived with Bruce Davis in tow, Manson carried a sword, Davis held the gun on Gary while Manson first argued with him and then slashed at him with a sword slicing his left ear in half and leaving a gash on his face from his ear to his lip. Then Manson and Davis left ordering Beausoleil to keep Gary captive until he relented and gave them what they wanted. They held him for another day and a half badly wounded and in need of medical attention, Gary repeatedly begged for his life when Beausoleil called the spa ranch again to report that he had made no further progress. Manson ordered him to kill Gary. Ba -- Beausoleil stabbed Gary twice in the chest, piercing his heart and delivering the fatal blow and then two girls smothered him with a pillow to make sure he was dead. In these parole hearings, Beausoleil has often referred to Gary as his friend, but what kind of friend stab someone through the heart, then dips his hand and still warm blood to paint slogans on the wall with it as Beausoleil did when he tried to blame his actions on the Black Panthers, but by writing political pig in Gary's bud, these are the actions of a monster. Even worse, Gary's body was left to rot in the summer heat for days by these vicious killers. Beausoleil returned to clean up the crime scene. He let confess to another Manson associate that the house stank and he could hear the maggots feasting on Gary's corpse. In the late 1970s, Beausoleil started telling another story about his crime. In this version, it is Beausoleil not Gary, who is the true victim. A victim of circumstances caught in the middle of a drug deal gone wrong between Gary and the Straight Satan, Sa -- Satan motorcycle gang. Gary was not a drug dealer. There is no evidence of this or a drug dealer of any kind, presented at both Beausoleil's two trials or by the Manson family members who testified against it. Beausoleil continues to pedal that fiction to this day. He told the same story as recently as January 2024, during an interview he gave from a prison to a podcaster named Hamilton Morris, who is the son of Academy Award-winning filmmaker Errol Morris. In that interview Beausoleil also gave and into great detail about Gary's murder, but minimized everything to reduce his culpability. He claims Gary only got cut on his face, then produced a trickle of blood. When photos from the crime scene show the floor was soaked in Gary's blood. The autopsy report said the wound from Manson's sword was an inch deep and so severe it could have been fatal. We never hear Beausoleil talk about his crime in these hearings other than to express remorse. And this is the reason why he is an unreliable narrator of his own actions, who has spent decades lying about his actions and the reasons for them. Around the -- excuse me, around the time he first started trying to paint Gary as a drug dealer, Beausoleil also began to claim he was never actually a member of the Manson family and that his only connection to Manson was as a fellow musician who was trying to help Manson get his songs recorded. The fictional story of the drug deal as the motive for Gary's murder was created to distance Beausoleil from the other crimes of Manson and his family. He repeated all this to Hamilton Morris in January 2024 podcast interview. Beausoleil now claims that Gary Hinman is entirely unrelated to the date LaBianca murder. He has gone so far as to seek judicial rulings preventing us, the victim's families from even mentioning the other Manson murders in these hearings. In Beausoleil's 2020 parole hearing his attorney said the following, "There have been people who have speculated for years that the subsequent murders of Ms. Tate and the LaBiancas were in some way related to Mr. Beausoleil, an attempt to do copycat killing, no one has ever definitely proved that." Unfortunately for Brown, for Beausoleil's attorney, his own client first made the connection between Gary's murder and the Tate-LaBianca's killing. While on death row in 1970 when he was less inclined to lie, Beausoleil gave an interview to a writer named John Gilmore for a book called 'The Garbage People', which was one of the first books ever published about the Manson family. In the appendix, it says, written by BB for Don Gilmore. It's this interview that Beausoleil spoke openly and directly about his cult-like devotion to Manson. When he was asked, do you love Charles Manson? Beausoleil said this, "With all my life, I love him as my Lord and his asking I have fallen on my knees in the mud, and then he has kissed my feet and called me Lord. He shown me a number of times that he's willing to do anything for me. When the police put me in chains, put me in jail and threatened to kill me, eight or nine people were killed in attempt to free me. This is strong love. This is the allegiance we have for each other." These are Beausoleil's own words. The additional killings he's referred to are the Tate-LaBianca murders and the murder of Donald Shea. Later in the same interview, Beausoleil says this about Gary. "The reason he got killed was because he was going to snitch. He was trying to destroy our world. Out in the hills, we had a little family, my family, young men and women and children. What would you do if a man was going to destroy your family, Gary Hinman brought his death on himself and that first killing was the cause of all those other killings that came down just after that, these killings came down for me. So if you're looking for someone to blame, blame me." Beausoleil continues to deny he was ever a member of the Manson family in order to minimize his role in the murder rampage. I guess he thinks if he can convince the Board he only bears responsibility for one murder instead of nine, that will be his get out of jail free card. But the truth is, in his own words, unequivocally, Beausoleil murder of Gary, instigated all the killings that followed, as well as being a psychopath and a narcissist, Bobby Beausoleil is a pathological liar. I would like to know how the Board can justify granting parole to someone who is still unable to give an honest account of his crime or the extreme cruel -- cruelty he perpetuated on another human being after more than half a century in prison. If Beausoleil can't fully admit to his guilt for the heinous and brutal murder of my cousin Gary, he obviously can't express genuine remorse. And if he doesn't feel remorse, he's not rehabilitated and entirely capable of killing again, which makes him a serious danger to the public at large. For this and many other reasons, I urge the Board to again deny Bobby Beausoleil parole so he can serve a full life sentence behind bars. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you, Kay. And counsel, I did see that you raised your hand. I know there was some concerns there. Um, there was some comments that were referencing his comments. Um, I did allow that. Um, but I do know, uh, I -- I'm going to put onto the record, there was some components there that I think it's safe to say you were, uh, objectionable. So I'll state that for the record. Thank you for not, uh, interrupting. And I know it was borderline. Uh, the last,

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: And -- and I do appreciate, I could tell that Mr. DiMaria was attempting to, uh, he at one point, he even, you know, kind of, uh, telegraphed what he was about to say. But I would -- I would just ask in -- well, I -- I - - I'll save it for the end. Uh -- uh, obviously Ms. Tate needs to speak as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Fair enough. And thank you for that. And I know it's -- it's a -- a different approach, uh, than we would normally have. But I do note that for the record, and I will, um, uh, essentially identify that as your personal objection, uh, to some of those comments. Uh, Debra Tate, you're the last person to speak. We'll ask that you identify again. Um, and -- and as you can see, we, uh, had a lot of comments here. We're trying to stay away from going into the gory details of -- of how this connects to the Tate-LaBianca murders. And the rest of the Manson murders on -- please try lightly, this is a court order, the judge has decided this. So, um, trying to give a little bit of latitude, but also, uh, follow what the judge has ordered us. Um, so please your -- your turn to give your statement.

DEBRA TATE: Yes, thank you. My name is Debra Tate. I am a family representative for the Hinman family. I have, uh, lots of research and notes, but in -- I don't want to be repetitious and I want to get to, uh, what I think at this point in time is -- is need -- needed for the Board to be made aware of. Um, I'm going to speak in regards to Bobby's art, and I am going to go back a little ways. Uh, in 1984, under a production company called B&B Art (phonetic), Bobby and his wife Barbara produced a magazine called Sassy Bottoms. The content of this magazine was well drawn, but questionably pornographic in nature as it revealed bare bottoms being spanked by individuals. It was a bit raunchy. I referred to Bobby as the Norman Rockwell of kiddie porn at one point, but this resulted in, uh, Bobby's drawings, um, could be described as Norman Rockwell child pornography. Pornography may be a little bit too strong, but it's definitely questionable in its content, which my opinion seeks insidious nature of these drawings. The B&B Art had an investigation done into it by the CMC report and the investigators found evidence in Bobby's cell. Approximately mid-December 1999, Inmate Beausoleil received in the institution mail a large media envelope containing Xerox copies of the following. Number one letters of correspondence with people from various states, these letters portrayed --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I don't want to interrupt, but this is not related to the subject matter that --

DEBRA TATE: There is -- there is a correlation --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Um --

DEBRA TATE: -- if you could be so kind to let me finish.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Hold on. I, um, I accept that as an objection to this line of statement. Um, however, um, so far I don't believe that anything has been said so far as inappropriate. Uh, and there is latitude and -- and the Board has a broad perspective on the victim impact statements. And so I'm going to allow this to continue. Citing your objection is at this point, overruled. Please continue Debra.

DEBRA TATE: Uh, okay. These letters pertained, uh, the purchase of child porn -- pornography ages between four and 12 years old. The types of orders were pornographic movies, tapes, cassettes, and magazines. They were all specific as to what they preferred age, sex, nationality, two photocopies of order forms with names and addresses of purchasers with their money orders and checks made out to B&B Enterprises (phonetic). A few mon -- uh, money orders were made out to our R. Beausoleil and Cara B&B Enterprises. Three one letters printed to a person offering his services to B&B Enterprises by making movies, magazines for -- for -- excuse me, for Bobby Beausoleil. In this letter, the man stated that he and his accomplice kidnapped children between the ages of four and eight. They moved from one state to another every three months to stay ahead of the law. The reason this is newly relevant now is that the results of an investigation into Be – Beausoleil's date (inaudible) doing the paddling was dressed in -- in prison garb. He also directly negotiates with filmmakers by email for using his music in their shows, films, and other sources of income for him. He was in contact with producers of the November 2024 docuseries, Making Manson that aired on NBC Peacock Streaming Service. He has spoken to Academy Award-winning filmmaker Errol Morris for his high profile, upcoming Netflix docuseries about the Manson murders, not about the Bobby Beausoleil murders, about the Manson murders. So that shows that he is still linking himself to that notoriety. Um, Bobby claims he has never been a member of the Manson family, and that is his life crime, the murder of Gary Hinman has no connection to the late Tate-LaBianca and Donald Shea murders, which nobody has brought in. So why does he keep talking to these people and giving numerous interviews about Manson? In January 2024, Bobby gave 90 minutes of interviews for a podcast hosted by Hamilton Morrison, the um, son of Errol Morrison. The podcast is entitled Bobby Beausoleil on taking LSD with Charles Manson. In this interview, in describing his analogy of why and what may have happened at the Tate house, he inadvertently without missing a beat Transposes my name into his sentence. He says, Sharon Tate, he didn't say Sharon Tate, he should have said Sharon Tate, but he said, Debra Tate, in my opinion, that's a tell because if he had any insight or empathy, he would've said, oh, excuse me, stopped, corrected himself and continued on. But he didn't miss a lick, didn't miss a beat, had no concern over the fact that my name was inserted into the murder scene. To me, this is more than a -- a Freudian slip. This some could consider this a threat. And then day before yesterday, and again today, I have gotten two texts from unknown numbers that I re -- I put to junk, but screenshot first saying, "Sharon Tate rest in peace." I reported it to junk. And then this morning, again, 6:00 a.m., in the morning, same thing comes in from a different number. I have been looking over my shoulder because of threats coming in over the internet regarding Bobby and I've said nothing. As far as Bobby being brought back to the state of the California as a result of my request or going public, that is absolutely untrue. As a matter of fact CDC had looked into it, and as long as Barbara was alive and he had family there, I had wide move him. It didn't make sense once they said Barbara had passed and then his children had left the state, there was no reason and I said, do what you must. They explained to me that the state of California was paying to have house him in Oregon. So under those circumstances, why not bring him back? Kay didn't have a problem with that. Nobody else had a problem with that. But it was not at my orders, my wishes, and I didn't put anything out to the public regarding that until after the fact. So that I would like to clear the -- the air on, but I do consider his slip up as being a possible threat and in a line of many threats. And I request the Board to look into his art (inaudible) --

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: (Inaudible) I -- I won't respond in argument except to say that, um, that the -- the insinuation there was child pornography, there was already an investigation that was rejected. This is -- I mean, these are things that have already been dealt with, it's in the CFile. There was no child pornography involved. He -- he received an RVR for, uh, unauthorized business dealings. Um --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: And -- and -- and counsel, um, I'm -- I'm going to stop you there. The idea of Marsy's Law is there'd be no, um, cross-examination or questioning of the statements on this Panel will take into consideration and -- and give the appropriate amount of weight to the statements that have been made. We do have the file, uh, this was particularly long run, uh, for those of us who do this kind of work, and we -- we have combed over it, uh, for hours, literally hours, uh, in excess of what we would normally do. I -- I understand what you're trying to state there. I -- I don't think that that would be necessary. We're going to take a look at all this ourselves in the deliberation process. Really, we should just close the book on at the end of these statements. Again, thank you for all of your statements, all -- all of your efforts to maintain the proper decorum. Uh, and I know there's spillover and some leakage that, um, certainly makes counsel and us, uh, with this judge's order, uh, a little bit uncomfortable. But I appreciate that you were able to steer back and focus on the crime, uh, suitability and the impact of this crime. The time presently is 3:04 p.m. Yes.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: I'm sorry. I just wanted to say one thing, and that is I had an entire section that I missed regarding the art connected to the investigation and that it could possibly tie into that prior violation, number one and number two in particular, the picture of a convict spanking a bare bottom, and also being appropriately --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: District Attorney --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALKER: -- spiritual and, uh, remorseful and (inaudible) --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Deputy District Attorney Walker, I hate to kind of trample on what you're saying there. We've also reviewed that, that's again, um, a component of what this Panel is tasked with reviewing. Um, at the end of victim statements and next of kin statements, we really are obligated to conclude. So the time is now 3:05 p.m. This would be back at -- at the institution, and you may want to be in contact with your counsel --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Commissioner --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: -- Mr. Beausoleil --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- uh --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: -- I think you --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: -- you cut out for a second.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Uh, I didn't -- you cut out. I don't think anybody heard how -- when to be back.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Okay. Um, I -- I'm -- I'm going to say 3:35 p.m.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Okay. We're off record. It is 3:05 p.m.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: We're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: The time is now 4:10 p.m. All parties previously identified have returned for the issuance of the decision regarding Robert Kenneth Beausoleil, CDCR Number B, as in Bravo, 28302. In reviewing parole suitability, the Panel must determine whether the incarcerated person currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety and a denial of parole must be based on findings that the incarcerated person poses that current danger to the society based on the record. In your case today Mr. Beausoleil, we were obligated and did give great weight to youth offender factors when determining your parole suitability today, as well as our obligation to give special consideration to elderly parole factors when determining your parole suitability. In light of that, today, this is a grant for parole. Based on the legal standards and the record, we do find that you do not currently pose an unreasonable risk to public safety and are therefore suitable for parole. I do want to make a statement to the family members who are here and the representatives who gave carefully constructed and well thought out statements. We acknowledge there's a terrible deep loss with regard to Gary and all the family members who have suffered as a result. Uh, this parole suitability decision does not minimize, nor does it in any way forgive the criminal conduct that caused this great loss. It is based on a legal standard that we must apply in assessing current danger -- current risk of danger to society, and the work that Mr. Beausoleil has put in to transform himself. We did consider the statements, and I did want to list off a few things here. In -- in the letters that were submitted, I think we had virtually every state in the union represented. Uh, on top of that, um, I have a listing in my notes of countries around the world, Spain, Russia, Columbia, Turkey, France, Ukraine, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Uruguay, Mexico, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Venezuela, Poland, Bulgaria, New Zealand, –Chechnya, New Zealand, Belgium, Netherlands, Vietnam, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Israel, Venezuela, Peru, Argentina, Romania, Greece Island, Switzerland, Chile, Denmark, Serbia, South Africa, Malaysia, Peru, Malta, Trinidad and Tobago, Hungary, Kuwait, Indonesia, Nicaragua, India, Panama, Ban -- uh, Bangladesh, Burma, Croatia, Georgia, Norway, Paraguay, Honduras, Slovakia, Serbia, Luxembourg, Philippines, Belize, Egypt, Qatar, Singapore, Saudi Arabia -- Arabia, Iraq, Armenia, Columbia. I didn't repeat that already. Uh, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Uganda, Costa -- Costa Rica, Tunisia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Japan, New Caledonia, Nepal, Pakistan, Bolivia, Belarus, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, North Macedonia, Morocco, Ecuador, Curacao, Latvia, Bulgaria, Iceland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Jersey, Slovenia, Albania, Paraguay, Aruba, Oman, Romania, El Salvador, Guadalupe, Jordan, Iran, Sri Lanka, Guatemala, Lithuania, Caribbean, Netherlands, Honduras, Guyana, Isle of Mann, Bermuda, uh, Brunei, Barbados, Thailand, and Bahrain. Um, and I think that's not even all. We did take all of, um, that into consideration. We always do. I think it's fair to say that these, uh, insights are critically important and certainly there's a public interest here. The Panel does appreciate the statements that were made today. We recognize that it's really hard to make those statements. And, uh, the emotion that comes with it, um, was well maintained today. We certainly realize how hard that is, and when I say we realize how hard that is, it's an understanding that we don't personally, uh, conceptualize, but we have the general understanding of how hard this is from our experience of watching individuals make these statements. We do encourage you to reach out to CDCR's Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services, or the OVSRS if you have any questions about this process after today's hearing and there are services that are available. Now, the Panel did consider the following information in reaching this decision. That's going to include your Central File, Comprehensive Risk Assessment, documents in the 10-day file, written responses received from the public, your testimony Mr. Beausoleil, uh, statements that were made today from the victim's next of kin and family representatives, information today provided by the Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles County and your counsel. We also considered the letter that was dated December 6, 2024, of the Office of the Sheriff of County of Los Angeles, Hall of Justice, um, under Robert G. Luna Sheriff, which is an opposition to your parole. With regard to confidential information, we did review the confidential information in your file. We did not rely on confidential information in reaching this decision. Our decision today is based on the manner in which we evaluated the domains listed in the structured decision-making framework. And in summary, all the domains that were mitigating are neutral, far outweigh those that were aggravating and neutral. And we do have a cross section of all the above. We begin with criminal and parole history, and we do find that your criminal and parole history was a neutral or no impact factor. I did go over what your arrest history looked like, both as juvenile and as an adult. And, um, the -- the CRA does document that you had no history of being placed on supervised release. Although, uh, based on your admission today, we do know that you were at one point, it doesn't appear that you had any violations therein. Uh, but the context of these adult arrests certainly has, um, possession and or the implication of sale of narcotics, even though a lot of these did not have any sort of, um, disposition or either that they were dismissed. But the reality is, this appears to have been some of the places where you were involving yourself. We left this as neutral, which means it's not aggravating nor yet mitigating. Moving on to offender self-control, we find that your self-control at the time of the commitment offense was an aggravating factor. We do find that at the time of the commitment offense, you weren’t able to control your behavior as a result of the following. And so I'm going to list those as follows. Um, you associated with others who engaged in criminal or substance using behavior, you had a proclivity towards negative peer associations, such as the Straight Satan's motorcycle club, and apparently some of the individuals in the Manson family, you were easily manipulated and more likely to follow others rather than the fall of the law, and that you killed your friend, um, after others had assaulted him. You were callous towards others, as shown by your attack on Gary Hinman. And then you are staying in the home, essentially holding him in his own home as a hostage, allowing him to languish in pain and his injury, not allowing him to gain medical attention and you disregarded this human suffering that he went through for days, and you disregarded the value and the sanctity of his life and the trauma that has been imposed upon his family and his friends for the remainders of their lives. You had criminal attitude at the time of the crime. You followed orders to go to Gary Hinman's home to get money for apparently something that was going to be benefit the Manson family. You were aware that Gary was harmed, held against his will, and later you participated in killing him in -- in an apparent effort to ensure that you could potentially avoid detection and accountability. To some degree, you must have been involved, um, in his signing, uh, over a pink slips of those two vehicles prior to killing him. Ultimately, Gary had a pillow placed over his face, causing his, uh, final demise, uh, all of which is criminal. Now, the factors discussed so far are all static, meaning they will not change. The California Supreme Court has found that after a long period of time these unchangeable factors such as this commitment offense may no longer indicate a risk of current danger to society in light of a lengthy period of rehabilitative programming. However, something current can make these static factors remain relevant. The following factors are dynamic and that they represent the areas where you could have and -- and certain cases have demonstrated rehabilitative change. With regard to programming, we find that the programming that you completed throughout your incarceration is neutral or no impact. Um, our statement in -- in conclusion here is that after 55 or so years, um, there -- there should be really a whole host of rehabilitative programming. Now, what you did participate in is Alcoholics Anonymous, and that was from 1991 through 2021, off and on here and there, Narcotic -- Narcotics Anonymous in 2024, restorative justice and there were other programs that you participated in, like Parenting Inside Out 2014. Um, you participated in groups in Oregon, um, much of which we don't necessarily have the documentation for there, uh, you have participated in programs to manage your stress and, uh, engaged in breathing techniques, meditation, not engaging in negative self-talk, avoiding judging others, blaming or relying on your faith. Your education is something you upgraded throughout your incarceration as well as your vocational abilities were also upgraded. You participated in programs, um, and it's evident by your supervisors that you've done a good job of doing the types of things that make the staff in the institution feel more comfortable with you. Um, that's, uh, evidenced by some positions like being the library assistant as well as a clerk. Um, I worked inside of prison for 26 years, and I can tell you people who are more concerning to the health and safety of the staff generally aren't going to be left in those types of positions. Um, you also had nonviolent communication, you participated in television productions, you had vocational electronics as well as educational accomplishments. For the moment, I am going to mute my mic. I apologize, the cough that I have, uh, flares up the longer I speak. So I pause periodically. With regard to institutional behavior, we find your institutional behavior during your incarceration to be neutral or no impact is a factor, uh, that hinges mostly on the June 25, 2020, RVR, Rules Violation Report for unauthorized dealings. It was serious, you were found guilty, and we found that to be neutral or no impact based on its recency. When we move into personal change, we do find your development of personal change at this point as neutral or no impact. And part of that is the rules violation report that we mentioned, and some of the struggles that we've identified wherein, um, you have difficulty following some of the basic rules or interpreting that they're okay for you to violate. Uh, the reality is, though you hadn't -- hadn't had RVRs for some time until that one in 2020, you've not had any since. You do have meritorious reports from staff in the form of Laudatory Chronos. You have been able to maintain your sobriety since 1999, and you've been able to internalize some of the concepts of the programming that you participated in. You do have self-awareness and insight about what was going on at the time of commitment offense that allows you to participate in that ending Gary's life. You have an acceptance of your responsibility and you have an understanding of remorse. Now, I -- I sort of want to point out some of the problems that that took our deliberation a little bit longer today. There is evidence that you're different since the commission of this crime, but the change is not necessarily substantial, clear or consistent over time. And I'll explain how this Panel was able to reach a decision of suitability in line of that. Um, once again, your credibility was brought into question, and that was based on that investigation that was provided by IRSD. And the reality is, when we -- when we asked about any new production that was by the Deputy District Attorney, were there any new releases? The answer was no. But apparently there was this final release, and -- and I -- I think the answer to that is that it wasn't new, uh, information. One - - one of our concerns that we've had is your continued attempts to link yourself to Manson to, uh, type media efforts. Um, it was interesting today to note that when Anthony DiMaria spoke that somebody reached out to him, I was looking at him while he was speaking on -- on -- on my screen and immediately it was, he gave that look like, no, I'm not, it -- it was that kind of cringe look like, no. But for some reason, you continued to link yourself to the Manson group while legally trying to distance yourself from the impact of other crimes with the Manson group. Um, that's confusing. You have continually returned to yourself when talking about victim impact. That was actually our problem. Uh, a victim impact, uh, understanding would be, I'm sorry, I -- I know that this must affect you -- affect you in this way, and then explain what you can imagine that effect might be. Uh, there's a -- there's a tendency for you to start to talk about remorse and then revert back to how this has negatively impacted you. And we all know that it has negatively impacted you, but you have lived since 1969 while Gary has not. There was some, uh, minimization of your murder and that you insinuated that others were culpable, but then re -- remembering that it's important for you to take the blame. And so today, clearly you are not perfect. There are other factors that are going too far, uh, weigh into this consideration that I'll talk a little bit later. Um, and the unclear nature of business dealings does continue to be of concern. However, we know the judge said that those dealings in and of themselves do not present that nexus to dangerousness. And here we're going to be in agreement. Now, with regard to your release plans, we did find them to be mitigating, not perfect. What we do see is that you have transitional housing, you have a place to live, there's property in Oregon, you have this plan and your own design for home, you have support letters, um, from many -- many different people, you have job opportunities, um, far more so than the average individual who's incarcerated and essentially what we're looking for is do you have transitional housing place to go afterwards, something to deal with your, um, employment because everybody has to pay the bills. And then after that, we're looking at pro-social supports, you have those. And then the last thing that this is where we see -- see that you could improve is your relapse prevention plans. And I know they're somewhat dated in the - - I think the last iteration for your substance abuse relapse prevention plan was 2020. That could be improved. With regard to the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, the Panel did consider the Comprehensive Risk Assessment. You were this time and in previous reviews found to be a low risk of violence. The clinician took into account many different things, um, that you've struggled with and excelled at as well. And the reality is the clinician did say at the end, Mr. Beausoleil's violence risk in the community has been estimated to be low. And is the opinion of this evaluator that there is no evidence of recent current problems in Mr. Beausoleil's life that would warrant elevating future risk estimation at this time. This was completed by Veronica Sanchez, I think I gave the spelling earlier, dated in the acute October 20, 2024. I think the clinician went out of her way to articulate how they came to that conclusion. Next, we have case specific factors. And for you, that would be the youth offender, we'll start there. You were 21 years old at the time of commission of this crime and as a result, anyone under the age of 26, uh, will receive great weight. And so with regard to diminished culpability of youths as compared to adults at 21, your brain is not fully developed and matured as a result. Um, there is diminished culpability in these types of offenses. You demonstrated immaturity in your thinking. That would be primarily the product of being 21 years old. We did see that you were subjected to trauma in your life and that you were raped, and that's something you kept to yourself and, um, those types of traumas are like beach balls. You can push them down. You don't have control over where and when they might resurface. You were less susceptible to the deterrents than an adult might have had, and you've had a lack of maturity and understanding for your sense of responsibility, which resulted in impetuous and illconsidered actions in your decisions. Realistically, what you should have done was just put Gary in his other vehicle and take him to the hospital and made sure he had medical attention. Uh, big -- big misunderstanding what your responsibilities were. Now we move into Hallmark features of youth, which is again, a feature of the incomplete brain development of youths. And at 21, that that qualifies, yet an underdeveloped understanding of responsibility for your actions and decisions, what led -- which led to poor decisions and minimization for your responsibilities, not only to Gary but also to yourself and to your family. Your actions and decisions demonstrated impulsive and impetuous thinking, which resulted in these inexplicable reactions to the circumstance, like is just inconceivable that you decided to do what you did. And unfortunately, you were more vulnerable and susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, inc -- including family and peer pressures. You were exposed to some defiance in your peer associations and that looks like it led to defiant behaviors in you that far exceeded what you had previously, uh -- uh, in terms of conduct demonstrated in your behavior in the past. Your actions and decisions to demonstrate significant recklessness or heedless risk taking, you lacked ability to understand the danger you were putting yourself and others at -- at the time and that means that Gary lost his life. And I think how much time this has cost you and your family is not even something you considered. Again, that's -- that's youth offender. Now, since that time, you have demonstrated some increased maturity and growth, and we see that maturity in your judgment. You've had some impulse control. Your -- your issues might be simply when you decide that you want to do these business dealings. Um, but in other instances, there's Laudatory Chronos, there's commendations from staff, um, certainly Mr. Gere's connection with you is a good understanding that the people who supervise you in the prison environment have positive things to say to you and -- and that can honestly never happen when you're a detriment to the environment. You have, um, you've shown growth in positive programming, institutional behavior. You have vocationally, educationally and work experience really improved yourself, and you've demonstrate some additional rehabilitative evidence in that you are not involved in Security Threat Groups, and you are on a Non-designated Programming Facility, which demonstrates your willingness to program in safe ways for the institution. We move into -- and -- and we did find that to be a mitigating factor for our consideration. You also qualify as an elder, and that's age, length of incarceration and any diminished physical condition. And we do see this, I'm just going to read a little bit here, so I apologize. Hopefully my voice will continue. The clinician did put in the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, uh, with regard to your elderly parole consideration when assessing his violence risk, the evaluator took into consider age -- consideration, age related statistical decreases in crime, associated cognitive psychosocial and physiological changes, impacts of long-term incarceration and relevant risk management needs. According to Mr. Beausoleil's record, he was diagnosed with squamous cell cancer, squamous, I'm not exactly sure the -- the pronunciation there, uh, of the right lung. In 2021, he underwent surgery to remove that lung and dissect lymph nodes and subsequently received radiofrequency treatment and immunotherapy. Currently, Mr. Beausoleil's health is stable -- stable. He experienced shortness of breath and hypertension. However, he reported that he considers himself to be in good health, and it does not appear that his physical status is impairing his function in meaningful way. Cognitively, Mr. Beausoleil did not exhibit any signs of experiencing age related decline. Therefore, it is the opinion of this evaluator, there's no specific consideration identified (inaudible) relevant to risk of violence with regard to his mobility or age-related health decline as he reports and records reflect he remains relatively healthy and able body. Uh, that being said, the removal of a lung and the age of 77 and the mobility impairments we found to be a mitigating factor. Uh, and -- and in fact, taking a look at your age of 77 years of age, um, your slightness in terms of weight somewhere around 150 to 50 or 55 pounds, uh, and your ability to commit another crime with the physical pros that was necessary to assault Gary Hinman to be his hostage taker and -- and ultimately later to fight him again and stab him to death. Those are all physical attributes that are necessary, which you no longer have. Um, some individuals pull a trigger, it's not the same thing. Um, physical attributes are going to be necessary to commit a crime similar to what you did and we put, um, special consideration into that. Um, and in light of all of that, that is how this Panel came to the conclusion with -- with a significant amount of weight on youth offender and elderly parole, we did find that despite what our concerns were here in this case, we're tasked with making a decision about whether or not you pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. Judge ordered that a 2020 RVR doesn't create that type of nexus. Would -- would we have preferred that there be more perfection, the presentation and answers in a number of things? Yeah, we would. We're not looking for perfection, we're looking for whether someone poses an unreasonable risk of violence and that decision was made today that we don't find that you pose that unreasonable risk and that's how we came to this decision. Commissioner Newman, do you have any comments?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Thank you. Uh, it's quite interesting that you're willing to engage with community members about the facts of your crime and the facts of your relationship with the Manson family, but you know, you are reluctant to discuss it with the Parole Board and, um, answer questions about that. The Panel would've liked to clarify some lingering concerns. Um, you know, apparently there's a recently, um, produced podcast in which you talk about your crime and your relationship with, uh -- uh, Manson family. Um, and despite the prohibition of sales, there's apparently a recent release of a recording of a compilation of your -- your music. And, you know, your -- your testimony today was that you wouldn't have done it, but it all the proceeds go to charity where, um, you know, if that's the case, then that's good, but we don't really have any evidence of that that would've been helpful for you to have. Um, your limited programming in the area of victim impact was really apparent in the, uh, letter that you wrote to the victim's next of kin, these work concerns the Panel has still has, but you know, in weighing them, do they rise to the level where you present an unreasonable risk to public safety. So, you know, as the Commissioner has just gone through our decision making, um, they don't, however, they, um, they're there. Um, so as you move forward, um, maybe you can keep these things in mind. Um -- um, that's all -- that's all the comments I have. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MUNIZ: Thank you. I, um, to add on to what Commissioner Newman just said, we did have concerns about some of the in, uh, narcissistic traits, but those were identified by the clinician and the clinician in fact gave you a low risk rating. So while there's evidence of that, um, that diagnosis, uh, is an interesting diagnosis, and on some level doesn't -- doesn't necessarily mean or point to unreasonable risk of danger, um, reasonable minds may differ about that, but we did conclude this. So based on these findings, we do conclude that you do not pose an unreasonable risk of danger or threat to public safety. Accordingly, the Panel finds you suitable for parole. Now, this decision is not final. It will be reviewed by the Board for up to 120 days, which may be followed by a review by the Governor for up to 30 days. You'll be notified in writing if there are any changes to this decision. When you are released from prison, you will be subject to all the general conditions of parole required by law, as well as any special conditions of parole imposed by the Division of Adult Parole Operations. In addition, this Panel orders the following additional special conditions of parole and that is going to be transitional housing. We find that you'll benefit from. Therefore, we order that you participate in transitional housing for at least six months and we make a recommendation that -- that -- that be placement in a long-term offender reentering recovery program at the discretion of DAPO. And in keeping with any requirements to stay away from family's next of kin. Um, you were diagnosed with marijuana disorder, so we ordered that you do not use nor possess marijuana. And what that means for you is stay out of the marijuana dispensaries. We're going to recommend that you stay in your self-help programming as you have, uh, identified you would. We're going to order that you have no contact with crime partners, and in particular, any of the Manson related type parties. Uh, we're going to order that you have no contact with victim's next of kin or family members. And we're going to order that you provide periodic written description of the nature and extent of your commercial business interests to the Division of Adult Parole Operations for the purpose, uh, that you can ensure in this report that your endeavors are not somehow designed to profit from your crime or any connection with the Manson family and their related crimes. We're going to order that you stay 35 miles away from any identified victim's next of kin family members and that may complicate things, um, to some degree, but we'll leave that to the discretion of DAPO and, uh, in light of the fact that you do not have any, um, restitution that's owed, um, you can even begin at this point in time to attempt to gain a transfer of your parole to Oregon. You do not necessarily have to land in California, but if you do, you'll have to stay in transitional housing. I want to say thank you to everybody who participated in today's hearing. It has been a tough one, uh, for all of us and a lot of work, and it took us a long time to get to this point. Thank you to the family members. Um, some of these comments that were made today were not only in keeping with the proper protocols, um, but they were really well written, and we appreciate that input into these hearings and for the ability to maintain your decorum even when emotionally triggered, as these cases always are. Uh, the time is now presently 10:43 p.m. -- excuse me, 4:43 p.m. This hearing is officially adjourned. Thank you all.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Off the record.