Bruce Davis Parole…The $64,000 Question - Part One

MsBurb had planned on doing  this FANTASTIC post on the issue of whether or not Bruce Davis now deserves parole, his next hearing scheduled for 10:30 a.m., January 28, 2010, some 40 years after he first surrendered to the authorities at the Hall of Justice, December 2nd, 1970.
It was going to be an all-encompassing, dispassionate, true marvel of evidential literary genius.
Yep, and then I read the entire transcript of the 1993 Parole Hearing, thanks to catscradle77 at Truth On The Tate-LaBianca Forums!
And my mind imploded.
I sought solace and relief from a friend of mine, you might know him by name – Mr. Poirot – who guest authors on TLB2 about as often as Haley’s comet streaks by my night sky.

This dude is amazing…no, really!>>>

His B.S. meter is so finally tuned, he can spot a career liar 2000 miles away, well, whatever mileage it may be from his house to Bruce’s “house”.
I, on the other hand, spent the better part of a couple hours pouring over that hearing’s transcript, becoming emotionally exhausted and dizzy from all the waffling I was doing on the guy.
From…
“Yeah, of course Bruce is innocent of First Degree murder, let the guy out already!”
to…
“Are you kidding me?! Stop lyin’ Brucey, you KNOW you were Manson’s Right Hand Man!”
…and to all points in between.
It was enough to make this old broad throw out her iced tea she had been nursing and make herself a Gin & Tonic!  
Personally, I’m exhausted, just like old Bruce said he was after that Hearing. I’m totally wiped.
At first glance (or twelfth) the anything-other-than-rehearsed responses from this double First Degree murder convict were refreshing, held against the automaton utterances of known sociopaths Atkins, Krenwinkel and Watson (yeah, I think I’ve more or less settled on that moniker for all three now…).
Bruce seems to be answering without hesitation, without thought for word choice or any hint of preparation from a third party.
I’m not a speech analysis expert but his statements look anything but contrived or prevaricated.
The one marked difference is in the arrogance arena. In the documentary  “Manson”,






(Paul Watkins’ song, “Moments”
a haunting reminder of the true reality of this situation)
Bruce’s diatribe of defence for his then guru, Charles Manson, is markedly different from the seemingly contrite man who was testifying at this Hearing.
Instead of being what one would expect – remorseful  – his words seemed to convey an utter embarrassment, an utter disgrace with himself, words actually failing him as he tries to explain, what is for him, the unexplainable, how he ever allowed himself to be taken in by such a man, by such a Family.
This behaviour was completely consistent with all personal, face-to-face reports by others, that whenever the subject of the Family, Manson or the killings come up, he is known to just bow his head and shake it back in forth, in complete silence.
This may not be evidence of sincere remorse but he is the FIRST Manson family killer who, to my knowledge, has ever shown abject embarrassment over the entire situation.
Embarrassment.
I know what you’re thinking, you’re thinking, “But MsBurb, showing embarrassment is no where near as crucial as remorse!”
And you may be right.
And if you are, you are in league with Mr. Poirot.
MsBurb, again, alone in the Manson Family research wilderness (by the way, my log cabin is NOT yet finished…I’ll keep ya posted!).
But you have to see it from my perspective…
NO ONE, NONE of the other killers have EVER expressed THIS emotion.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Bruce does not come right out and use this word but the words he does choose express that emotion for him, in spades, to the point that he DOES eventually admit that he is so ashamed of his past association with Manson that he has chosen abject silence over trying to convince anyone of his remorse, or bother to publicly disavow himself from Manson.
In other words, his behaviour now is totally consistent with his behaviour then, in terms of his reaction to outside stresses.
That, for me, is a sign of sincerity.
Or, as Mr.Poirot likes to remind me, a further sign of my gullibility!
Sigh…
Are ya getting as dizzy with this post as I was reading that transcript?
My sympathies.
To give you an idea of how crucial this Hearing may be for Davis, there were a total of 321 years of imprisonment between eight convicted killers. And if you do the math, that comes out to only slightly over 40 years per killer.
2010 is Davis’ 40th year of imprisonment and the issue of whether or not parole may be in the cards for this tangential Manson killer has become the $64,000 Question.
To be continued…