On Wednesday, Dec. 14, a state hearing panel recommended parole for Thongxay Nilakout, the now 46-year-old man convicted of the murder of a German tourist near Idyllwild in 1994. The recommendation must still go to the full Board of Parole Hearings, who have up to 120 days for review. If it approves parole, Gov. Gavin Newsom then has 30 days to review, and either approve or deny.
The Orange County Register reported that the victim’s daughter, Birte Pfleger of Palos Verdes, will, with the help of the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, request that Newsom deny Nilakout parole. “The State of California and a judge said he needs to be put away for life … You can’t tell me he has really changed. Someone like that doesn’t change. Premeditated murder is beyond rehabilitation.”
In a 2017 essay for The Associated Press (AP), Birte argued, “Robbing my parents, stealing their car, and pushing them to the ground would have been a stupid mistake. Conspiring to commit robbery and taking a loaded gun to use as a tool during that robbery is not a mistake. It shows planning and intent to use deadly force. Killing a 64-year old, 4- foot-11, 110-pound cancer survivor and leaving her husband for dead are unforgivable crimes that had and continue to have irreparable and irrevocable consequences.”
The crime occurred Monday, May 16, 1994. Birte’s parents, Gisela and Klaus, were visiting her from Emmerlich, Germany. They decided to take a day trip to Idyllwild while their daughter worked, seeking clear skies away from the coastal gloom. They pulled off Highway 243 at Indian Vista Point, near Lake Fulmor. Klaus testified at the trial (through an interpreter) that at the vista point, several hundred feet from the parking area, one man approached him while two accosted his wife and tried to take her purse. The assailant shot Klaus twice in the face and once in his back. They also shot Gisela, lying on the ground, in the head.
Klaus was able to drive his car to the Lake Fulmor parking area where he wrote a note explaining that he spoke German and describing the assault. A passerby happened to have a cellphone (a rarity in those days) and alerted authorities. Gisela died before help arrived, and Klaus underwent extensive surgery, never completely recovering.
The three men who committed the crime were described by police as “Hmongs (Laotian nationals) with resident alien status, but not residents of the United States.” They also said the three had ties to an Asian gang, but stated that the shooting was unrelated to any gang activity. “We are not calling it a gang-related incident … they just happened to be associates of a gang.” Two of the men were arrested in Banning, but the shooter, 17-year-old Nilakout, fled to Utah where he has apprehended. In a July 1994 Town Crier article, Deputy District Attorney Richard Bentley said that at juvenile court hearing, Nilakout failed to meet the criteria necessary to be tried as an adult. Thus, he was tried as a juvenile.
In November 1994, the Crier reported Nilakout’s conviction of robbery, murder and attempted murder. The jury also affirmed “special circumstances” meaning the case would, if the defendant were tried as an adult, be eligible for the death penalty. At the time, this meant life without parole for Nilakout.
The trial included witnesses who testified that the three defendants had been among a larger group that had come to Lake Fulmor the previous week and broken into cars. Efforts to conceal the crime included changing the appearance of the car used, and destroying the gun and scattering its pieces around Banning. Defendant Xou Yang provided the weapon and drove the car, and arranged for the gun to be destroyed afterward. He pleaded guilty to first degree murder without a trial after the other two defendants were convicted in a single trial with two juries. (Having two juries allows some evidence to be excluded from consideration for one defendant.) As part of his plea agreement, lesser charges were dismissed. His term was 25 years to life. The plea also meant that Klaus did not have to return from Germany to testify at a second trial.
Birte’s essay for the AP described speaking at Yang’s parole hearing in 2010 and again in 2015. She wrote that she re-experienced the “… gut-wrenching feeling, almost numbness, profound sadness, desperation, and helplessness that I felt for years” after her mother’s death. For the second hearing, she drove 200 miles to Avenal State Penitentiary in King’s County. “Unfortunately, my presence and my statement were utterly pointless. A federal mandate to reduce the number of inmates in California prisons — as well as court rulings demanding that parole boards must consider the continued danger to society rather than the crime committed — made my victim impact statement meaningless. (Yang) was released from prison in (November) 2015. I have to hope that he is using this undeserved second chance well.”
Most readers cannot imagine what it is like to repeatedly face a loved-one’s murderer. The process is further complicated by a slow notification process, and the costs and inconvenience of travel “Notifications of hearing etc. has improved since everything is now done electronically due to Covid. Up until 2019, notifications did not arrive in the required time frame (at least 90 days prior) or not at all. Instead, I was notified by the DA’s office when she wanted to talk to me about the case. All of this takes a lot of time and there is no support for victims. The last time I had to take two days off and spend the night in a hotel. Reimbursement is capped at $200, and it took several weeks to get the money. I’m fortunate to have the financial resources to do this. I know a lot of victims cannot afford to do the same.”
Since Nilakout’s conviction in1994, the legal landscape has changed regarding juveniles. In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Miller v. Alabama, ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment, although it left judges the discretion to issue such terms in murder cases. In 2016, the court ruled in Montgomery v. Louisiana that the ruling was retroactive and that states could either resentence offenders or allow parole hearings. Parole boards may still find inmates incorrigible and refuse parole, but victims’ advocates, like Birte, will, if determined to speak out, have to attend parole hearings every few years.
About the most recent hearing, Birte wrote the Crier: “It lasted barely three hours and was held remotely through video conferencing. Commissioner Michele Minor and Deputy Commissioner Neil Chambers found him suitable for parole. Based on my understanding the decision does not have to be reviewed by the entire parole board. It will take 120 days to get to the Governor’s desk. He will have 30 days to overturn the decision or not to do anything. Nilakout is not a U.S. citizen and may be placed in federal immigration custody, subject to deportation. However, my understanding is that Laos does not accept US deportees. Another Supreme Court decision in recent years decrees that in these cases deportees have to be released within six months, and usually sooner. Nilakout included a letter of support from a distant relative (whom he has never met) in Laos, in case he does get deported to Laos.”
Birte also maintains that the commissioners do not verify parole plans submitted by inmates. “Nilakout said that he wanted to go to a halfway house in South Central LA; and that his brother is offering him a job as a truck driver for $25. No one bothered to do a quick Google search that shows that the brother lives in Banning (where Nilakout lived until the crime) and owns one truck and business that he runs from his home.”
Birte goes on to describe her ongoing efforts; “I am contacting friends around the state to urge the Governor to deny Thongxay Nilakout parole. I wonder if readers of your newspaper are interested in supporting my family in our effort to keep this dangerous murderer from being released.”
