Thursday, June 22, 2017



In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration Hearing of:
CDC Number: W-08314

JUNE 22, 2017
9:05 A.M.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Presiding Commissioner
NGA LAM, Deputy Commissioner

KEITH WATTLEY, Attorney for Inmate
DONNA LEBOWITZ, Deputy District Attorney
LATISSA TREJO, Victim's Advocate.
DEBRA TATE, Next-of-Kin
BARBARA WOLFF, Head Deputy District Attorney
ALI ZARRINNAM, Associate Chief, Board of Parole Hearings



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: So good morning. Today's date is June 22, 2017. The time is approximately 9:05 a.m. Um, this is a continued hearing, um, from a parole suitability hearing, um, o -- from -- for Ms. Krenwinkel, W number 08314. Um, this is a continued hearing from Ju -- uh, December 29, 2016. Um, Ms. Krenwinkel is present in the Board of Parole Hearing room here at the California Institution for Women in Corona, California. Ms. Krenwinkel was received by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on April 28, 1971, from Los Angeles County. Uh, the controlling offense in this case is penal code section 187, uh, murder in the first degree, uh, arising from a conviction in case number A, as in Adam, 253156, resulting in a sentence of seven years to life. Ms. Krenwinkel, uh, received an additional six counts of penal code section 187, murder in the first degree, um, in -- in this case as well. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has calculated the minimal eligible parole date in this case to be February 6, 1977. Ms. Krenwinkel also qualifies for youth parole consideration. She was 21 years old at the time of the life-term offense. Um, today's Panel shall be giving great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth and any subsequent growth and maturity of Ms. Krenwinkel in reviewing her case for suitability today. Ms. Krenwinkel has a youth eligible parole date of February 12, 1989. Uh, this Panel also notes that Ms. Krenwinkel, uh, qualifies for elderly parole consideration as well and will be considera -- will be considering those factors today as well. Uh, this hearing is being audio recorded. So for the purpose of voice identification, everyone present is asked to state your full name, spell your last name, Ms. Krenwinkel, and when we get to you, we're going to ask you for your CDCR number as well, okay?



INMATE KRENWINKEL: Oh, okay. Krenwinkel --



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: -- when -- when we get to you (inaudible)




PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Just a -- a yes or a no is fine.




UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: (inaudible) you didn't say yes. That's all.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay, great, thank you. So I'll begin, and we'll go around the room to my left. Kevin Chappell -- Kevin Chappell, um, Commissioner, Board of Parole Hearings. C-H-A-P-P-E-L- L.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: Nga Lam, L-A-M, Deputy Commissioner.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Donna Lebowitz, L-E-B-O-W-I-T-Z, Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Keith Wattley, W-A-T-T-L-E-Y, attorney for Ms. Krenwinkel.


INMATE KRENWINKEL: Um, Pat Krenwinkel, W-08314.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Spell your last name for us.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Great, thank you. And we'll start.

MS. TREJO: Latissa (phonetic) Trejo, T-R-E-J-O, victim's advocate.

MR. DIMARIA: Anthony DiMaria, D-I-capital M-A-R- I-A, uh, nephew of Jay Sebring (phonetic).

MS. DIMARIA: Mishele DiMaria, M-I-S-H-E-L-E, D- I-M-A-R-I-A, niece of Jay Sebring.

MR. LAMONTAGNE: Tony Lamontagne, L-A-M-O-N-T-A- G-N-E, grands -- grandson of Leno, Rosemary LaBianca (phonetic).

MS. TATE: Debra Tate, T-A-T-E, sister of Sharon Tate.

MR. SMALDINO: Uh, Louis Smaldino, uh, nephew of, uh, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: If you can spell your last name for us, please.

MR. SMALDINO: Uh, S-M-A-L-D, like David-I-N-O.


HEAD DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WOLFF: Barbara Wolff, W-O-L-F-F, Head Deputy District Attorney, LA DA's office.

ASSOCIATE CHIEF ZARRINNAM: Ali Zarrinnam, Z-A-R- R-I-N-N-A-M, Associate Chief, Board of Parole Hearings, observation purposes only.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Great, thank you, and we also have one correction officer in the room with us this mor -- with us this morning. She is here for security purposes only. So, Ms. Krenwinkel, before we get into the hearing, I'd like to ask you some medical questions, conduct an ADA review. Um, first off, let me ask you, ha -- has anything changed with your medical status since, um, last December?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: No? Okay, and I -- and I see you have your glasses --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: -- today. Are they working for you okay?




PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Um, how about, um, any problems sitting for long periods of time?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: No? Okay, and I s -- see you did walk in here without the assistance of any mobility aid. Any problems?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: None? Okay. And just want to note for the record, um, we did review your DECS database and, um, appears that there was a form that's called a Notice and Request for Assistance form that would list any, uh, type of medical accommodations needed for this hearing. Um, the only accommodation listed was -- was your glasses, and we talked about that. Does that sound accurate to you?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay, and I have a reading level of 10.9?



INMATE KRENWINKEL: That's on my (inaudible)

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay, and I do note for the record that you do have your high school diploma. You do have, um, a Bachelor's of Science degree as well in --






PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay, and, um, I don't believe you've ever been in a mental health service delivery system? Do you --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay, and you've never been on psychotropic medication?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Okay, so, uh, based on our discussion, medically, it looks like you're able to continue with this hearing. Do you agree?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Counsel, do you feel your -- your client's ADA rights have been met?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Yes, they have.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay, thank you. Uh, Ms. Krenwinkel, I also notice, um, on August 2, 2016, you signed your Notice of Hearing Rights. You haven't signed any notice since December, have you? Your -- that two- to three-page document, goes over all your rights?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: N -- no. I haven't signed that. I signed one paper or something --


INMATE KRENWINKEL: -- it said this hearing (inaudible)





PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Um, any questions about your rights?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Um, did you have an opportunity to speak with your attorney concerning your rights?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. To the best of your knowledge, do you feel your rights have been met to this point?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Counsel, do you feel your client's rights have been met to this point?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: They have been, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay, great. Thank you. Um, so as I indicated earlier, um, this is a -- a -- a continued hearing, um, from the hearing we had back in December, which I believe was December 29, 2016. So, um, the format of the hearing is going to be somewhat different than just -- just the full, um, suitability hearing. Um, as -- if you can remember, um, we left off, uh -- we had went through pretty much a full hearing. We left off during deliberations, and, um, there was, um, a -- a request made, um, during, uh, the closing statements for an, um, IPB investigation. Uh, we took that into consideration during deliberations, and we, um, made the decision to continue the hearing to allow for, um, the investigation, and -- and that's why we're here today. We're -- so the format -- how the hearing's going to go today, the format of the hearing is we'll -- we'll start off, and, um, we'll talk about the investigation. Uh, we'll -- we'll go over it, and then we're -- what we're going to do is I'm going to open the hearing up for clarifying questions, but I'm going to limit the clarifying questions to just the IPB investigation. Um, we've gone through clarifying questions on all the other areas. Um, and then we'll -- we'll move to closing statements, and then we'll go to -- to deliberation. Uh, we'll reach a decision, and then you'll have our decision today, okay? Um, before we continue, I'd like to swear you in. So please raise your right hand. 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?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: You do? Okay. Um, let me ask, Counsel, is there any preliminary objections?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Uh, well, actually, no objection, but I will say that, uh, given the very limited scope of today's hearing, uh, and the amount of information that Ms. Krenwinkel's already provided, uh, with respect to the information in the IPB report, uh, I don't anticipate her answering any questions about it (inaudible), uh, no -- no other specific objections right now.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay, understood. Okay. All right, so with that --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Commissioner, may I weigh in for just a moment? Uh, I just have a few, um, housekeeping matters, and that is that on the transcript from the 2016 hearing, there are three mistakes that I saw.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Right, because we were here December 2016.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Um, on the transcript on the face page, uh, Mr. Smaldino is noted as being a victim advocate, and he is not a victim advocate. He is victim's next-of-kin.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. So maybe they can -- they can pick that up on -- on this transcript.



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: -- and -- and secondly, on page two s -- 265, at line 17, there appears to be a typographical error, and the transcriber used the words which, W-H -- W-H-I-C-H; space, he, H-E; and the word was witchy, W-I-T-C-H-Y, and that's at line 17 on page 265. And then there's a factual error that I made, which is not a typo, which I'll discuss in my closing argument.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, like to go over the intimate partner battering investigation, okay? So, and did you receive a copy of -- of this report, Ms. Krenwinkel?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Yes? And you're -- were you able to review it with your attorney?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Um, I -- yes, I mean, I've read the report.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay, sounds good. I just want -- uh, and I want to check with, um, the DAs office. You were able to receive a copy of the report as well?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay, great. Okay, so the report stop -- starts off with a summary of the referral, talks about, um, the Panel had made the request as a result of -- of the hearing, December 29, 2016; um, goes into -- it talks -- Ms. Krenwinkel talks about your -- your current status, um, sources of information. They took information from, um, California Department of Justice; our Strategic Offender Management System, SOMS; the Electronic Records Management System, ERMS; um, and the Board's Information Technology System, um, records, and that's the BITS program. Um, they also interviewed a -- a number of individuals, uh, related to -- to your case. Uh, so it starts off the chronological, uh, investigation is, um, uh, an interview with you, and it appears that the interview occurred on January 10, 2017. Um, the interview was here at the California Institution for Women. Starts off, um, talks about your -- your social history, um, your upbringing, what life was like, um, during your childhood and adolescent development. Um, a lot of the information w -- was very similar to what we talked about on the record. Um, talks about some of the issues that -- that your parents had, um, which stem from -- from your sister's behavior. Um, talked about, uh, your relationships in high school. Um, then moves on, and it talks about, um, y -- your meeting and association with -- with Charles Manson. Um, you discuss with, uh, the investigator upon, uh, meeting Mr. Manson and being with him for a while, you recall that he had a fascination with knives. Uh, you recalled standing against the tree, uh, when Charles Manson threw knives at you as an exercise of trust. Um, you talked about another incident, um, of physical abuse that you had suffered at his hands. You remembered an incident where, um, you had laughed at him, and he became enraged, grabbed you by the hair, uh, threw you against the wall. Um, you remarked that you remember blaming yourself, uh, for laughing at him, and you also stated that he became more violent towards others as well. Um, you also described further mental, emotional abuse at -- at the hands of Charles Manson. You recalled he threatened to leave you in the woods, um, and you would not know how to get b -- out. He alternated between stating that he loved you to, I'm the only one that will ever love you. Um, t -- y -- you made a statement that he had stated that you were so damn ugly that no one else would ever want you. Uh, with regards to Manson's role in the group or, uh -- what you entitled the -- the Family, you indicated that he was the center point, you know, and everyone was required to listen to him. Um, you added that there were many females that joined the group, and -- and the females a -- over time had got younger and younger, um, and he had no problems, um, abusing them as well. Um, you explained that, um, he would also be m -- he would also mentally abuse you and other family members. Uh, he would humiliate you and you went into some of the acts of humiliation. You further described his control over -- over you and the group by saying that, um, there was a feeling that you were all just one, and all the women were just one woman. Uh, you weren't allowed to own things. You all used one toothbrush, shared underwear. Um, there was nothing allowed. Took driver's license and changed your name. Um, you always had to be with someone else. You were not allowed to be alone. Um, you stated, though, that you loved him so -- so much, and you wanted to be with him, and that you wanted to do and say any and everything that he wanted and defend him against others. Um, another section is the investigate -- investigator, um, speaks to the commitment offense, and, um, there's some questions asked of you, and the report states with regard to the commitment offense on the first night of the murders, um, Manson reportedly came to you and -- and directed you to go with Charles Watson (phonetic) and to follow his orders. Um, you stated that you and the group consisted of you, Linda, Susan, and Tex. You stated that you were -- thought you were going to rob someone because that is, uh, usually what he had you do. Um, you s -- made a statement, I was in the house. I was responsible for Abigail Folgers death. She ran outside, and I ran after her. I was responsible for all the murders because I was there, but I stabbed Abigail. Um, then you talk about the next night, where Manson reportedly directed, uh, you to go with him, Charles Watson, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, and, uh, Lisa Kasabian. Um, you said that Tex and -- and Charlie went to the house. They came out, and you, Leslie and, and Tex stayed. Uh, Charlie left in the car with the rest of them. You indicated that your participated -- participation in the crime consisted of stabbing Ms. LaBianca. Uh, the report goes on, and there is a review of your prior, uh, psychological e -- evaluations. Um, looks like the -- the time period was from, uh, the comprehensive risk assessment that was, uh, produced July 30, 2009, um, through, uh, it looks like, um, March 30, 2004. However, um, in the first paragraph of this section, the -- the investigator does speak to the psychological examination, or evaluation dated September 6, 1988, um, where it's stated that you had remarked -- or the doctor remarked that you had had a self- perception, in which you tended to see yourself as having been victimized by, uh, male romantic -- romantic figures, uh, most particularly Charles Manson. Um, talks about when you were 15 years old, you began a relationship with a boyfriend who was 18. Um, y -- you were soundly rejected by him and renounced as a, um, excuse the language, a whore on the occasion of their first sexual g -- uh, encounter. He abandoned you, um, that day. Uh, the report does go on to talk about your relationship with Charles Manson. Um, it says that two years later was your first emotionally and then sexually -- you were first emotionally and then sexually seduced by Charles Manson, and, uh, the remaining evaluation seemed to be somewhat consistent with -- with your report. On January 11, 2017, the investigative staff, um, reviewed, um, the investigative case files out of Los Angeles Police Department. Um, they conducted an interview with a Diane Lake -- I'm sorry. As part of the report that they reviewed, there was an interview conducted with a Diane Lake on December 22, 1969. Um, according to that report, it states that Charles sometimes lost his temper, broke guitars. On several occasions, he kicked Diane in the mouth, slugged her. Diane explained that -- uh, this by saying, uh, she was the youngest, and she was sometimes the closest to Charlie in proximity when he became angry. Uh, there was another review of a transcript, and it was an interview of 1970, um, with Sherry Ann Cooper, where she indicated that Charles Manson did not trust her because she would not participate in the usual mass sex activities, um, that Charlie required when a person was accepted into the group. Ms. Cooper also, uh, reported she also used the name Ruth Ann Heuvelhorst (phonetic). Um, she stated that she eventually left because she was afraid that Charlie was going to kill her. Uh, Manson used to strike, and it's called sn -- uh, someone n -- a name of Snake, um, Diane Blustein (phonetic), AKA, Diane Lake, quite often and on several occasions struck her. Um, there's another review of the transcripts, revealed an interview dated January 16, 1970, with Stephanie Schram. Uh, Ms. Schram reported that she met Charles Manson at Big Sur on August 3, 1969. She reported that she was taken by Manson, who forced her to take LSD, forced her to have sex with him. Um, she wanted to leave the ranch, she say (sic), but she couldn't because she felt, um, Charles would kill her if she left. He further threatened if she left, uh, he would find her, cut her breasts off. Schram had been at the desert for about a month. During that time, s -- she stated that Manson had beat her on two occasions with his fists; on one occasion, knocked her out. Then they, um, reviewed your interview and was dated February 20, 1970. Uh, during that interview, you described life in the Manson family. Um, the report indicated they were more like a band of gypsies, traveling from place to place with no particular destination. Uh, she allowed -- uh, excuse me. You stated that Charles Manson was the leader of the family and that you were just a follower. Uh, once in a while, Charlie, uh, would become angry, grab or pull your hair, uh, but you always felt, um, she had done some little thing to provoke his wrath. However, he never did abuse her physically other than pulling the hair. Um, there is an interview with -- um, on January 18, 19 -- uh, um, excuse me, twen -- 2017, Leslie Van Houten, W-number 13378, she was interviewed. Um, she was one of your co-defendants. She was interviewed, um, by the telephone, um, and she was in the counselor's office here at CIW. Ms. Van Houten, uh, reported that she was living with the Manson family for approximately a year. Uh, when she initially joined the family, Manson directed her to keep an eye on, uh, uh, s -- excuse me, directed you to keep an eye on Van Houten. Um, he directed Van Houten to stay close to you. It was your job to make sure that Van Houten did not try to leave the family. Uh, Van Houten recalled it was an environment where you were all trying to please him and -- and do what he wanted. She reported that, uh, you were one of his primary relationships. She stated that originally, the family began with Lynne Fromme, Mary Brunner, uh, you, and Manson. She reported all the females were romantic partners of Manson. She recalled that Manson and you had a closer relationship than Manson had with most of the other women. She stated that she was also rom -- a romantic partner of him -- of his, but it was not consistent. She reported that Charles Manson was physically abusive towards you, and in general he was abusive to -- to everyone. And then she goes on to speak about, um, some of the abuse. On January 19, 2017, uh, Bruce Davis, B, as in Bravo, number 41079 was interviewed by telephone in the counselor's office at, uh, California Men's Colony. Davis recalled Manson being physically violent towards - - um, he states, Catherine Share, Susan Atkins, Diane Lake. He said he remembered those right off. Um, it was hard physical stuff. Uh, he saw Manson s -- slapped them, pushed them, hit him. He didn't recall specifically seeing, um, Manson, um, perpetrate any abuse upon you. On January 19, 2017, Steve Grogan was interviewed, uh, by telephone at his home. Mr. Grogan reported that he could not specifically recall an incident where Manson was physically violent towards, uh, you, but added, um, he would certainly -- he certainly could get violent. January 23, 2017, um, inmate Charles Watson, B, as in Bravo, number 37999, was interviewed by telephone in the correctional counselor's office at Mule Creek State Prison. Watson reported that he did not recall seeing physical violence between Charles Manson and you. He recalled seeing Manson pull Lake's hair, but otherwise did not recall seeing much physical abuse. He stated that he saw Manson verbally abuse you, uh, but he added Manson hollered at all of -- everyone. Um, he was a loud and boisterous person. Uh, he described you as being, uh, a very quiet, passive, nonsexual person. On January 30, uh, 2017, Barbara Hoyt was interviewed by telephone. B -- Ms. Hoyt, um -- and she was a former member. Um, Ms. Hoist -- Ms. Hoyt, excuse me, indicated that she lived with the family for approximately six months. During that time, she stated she -- I never saw him hit her, uh, referring to Charles Manson physically abusing you. Um, on -- there was an attempt on February 1, 2017, to interview Charles Manson at California State Prison at Corcoran, uh, via the prison staff. However, Mr. Manson refused to leave his cell to be interviewed. On February 13, 2017, a letter was received from inmate Charles Watson, um, at the -- in the investigative office at Board of Parole Hearings. In the letter, he indicated that after he spoke with the investigative staff on the phone on January 23, 2017, he went back, reviewed the -- the book he wrote in the 80s to refresh his memory regarding abuse of family members by Manson. He stated he often uses his book, which he recorded facts for his attorney in nineteen six -- sixty-nine to get his facts straight due to the length of time that has passed. He reported that physical abuse was most obvious with Susan Atkins and stated that Manson often disciplined her by slapping her or jerking her by the hair. He reported that he observed Manson pull Diane Lake's hair when she was rebellious. He also saw Manson hit and whip Diane Lake. He added that while he never saw, um, Patricia slapped or hit, referring to you, he believed that she was fearful, um, that she would be hit if she got out of line. On February 13, 19 -- um, excuse me, 2017, Catherine Share, another former member of -- uh, fam -- another Manson fam -- former Manson family member, was interviewed by telephone. She stated that she joined the family about a year after Krenwinkel joined Manson. At that time, she stated that Krenwinkel already had all the symptoms of someone who was completely beaten down. She explained, he, as in Manson, was an abuser to the ninth degree. She was -- she was more beaten down than anyone else around here. Um, he had total control over Patricia, and that's a quote. So, uh, a summary of the investigation -- the investigation was -- uh, as I mentioned earlier, the investigation was conducted to assist, uh, this Panel in determining if the nature of the relationship between, um, you a -- and Charles Manson constituted intimate partner battering, and if so, did that victimization result in the commitment offense. Um, the investigator states that, um, the inmate, as in you, alleged that the relationship with Charles Manson was -- Manson was abusive in nature. While you indicated there was some physical abuse towards her -- you at -- at the hands of Manson, you asserted most of the abuse was emotional and physical in nature. The -- the summary of the investigation goes on to state that many individuals who were si -- for the purpose of the investigation could not be located. However, all of the, uh, evidence obtained supports the fact that the inmate, as well as most of the women in the family, suffered from domestic violence at the hands of Charles Manson. Many of the individuals who were interviewed could not specifically recall seeing physical violence between Manson and the inmate due to the length of time that has passed, but all of them recall the climate of violence and manipulation created by Charles Manson, specifically towards the women in the family. Charles Manson had many intimate partners while he was in a relationship with the inmate, and all individual s -- all individuals interviewed indicated that she, as in you, and -- and the other females were subjected to controlling, demeaning, and humiliating behavior by Manson. The evidence located in the original investigation files also revealed that Manson was abusive to many of the women in the family, including the inmate. In addition, it is noteworthy, the inmate has reported Manson's abused (sic) behaviors towards her and other family members in her psychological evaluations dating back to 1988 and to police officers during their original investigation in 1970. Um, the report is concluded by a statement that if it is believed by the Panel that the inmate suffered from IPB and the victimization resulted in the commitment offense, this should be considered as a mitigating factor by the BPH Panel when determining parole suitability in this matter. Um, Commissioner, do you have any comments or anything you have highlighted that you'd like to speak on?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: No, I think you've covered it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Okay. So at this time, I'd -- I'll move to -- to clarifying questions. We'll begin with -- with Deputy District Attorney.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Well, Mr. Wattley indicated that his client wasn't going to answer any questions. So based on that, I have no questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Okay. And no questions, just in general, for the record?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Mr. Wattley, any --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: -- clarifying questions. Okay. So we'll move to closing statements and, um, begin with the Deputy District Attorney.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Thank you. We're here today to complete the parole suitability hearing and to answer two questions: Number one, was the criminal behavior the result of intimate partner battering, and, in total, is this inmate suitable for parole. The first question: Was the criminal behavior the result of intimate partner battering, I would have to answer no for several reasons. First and foremost, the consideration of this issue, under these circumstances, is completely misplaced because it defies the legislative intent behind this code section, penal code section 4801. The in -- the intimate partner battering statutes were enacted to protect the women who killed their batters as a preemptive strike in self- defense, and that is the legislative intent for these statutes. It was not intend (sic) to cover a person who goes out and murders and slaughters two homes full of innocent strangers. That is not the purpose and the intent for this code section. Now, was the criminal behavior the result of the battering? Well, there was abuse. It's documented, but the District Attorney's office position is that the criminal behavior was a result of the devotion based upon the inmate's lack of steam -- lack of self-esteem, and need for acceptance, and not fear. As you remember, the inmate has -- had been described by all accounts as unattractive, and extremely hairy. She told you that she felt unloved, that she had nowhere to go and nowhere to turn to and that Manson was her way out. She was completely devoted to Manson even after the murders. She engraved an X on her forehead. She sang and skipped in the hallway during her trial. These actions are not the actions of a woman in fear. Fear has different levels for everyone. As noted in the investigators report, she explained to the police in 1970 that the only thing that Manson did was pulled her hair. I can't imagine anyone would justify killing two homes full of people because someone pulled her hair. It's the District Attorney's position that her current claim that she killed out of fear is either contrived or overstated. I've reviewed the entire C-file, and I've reviewed each Board report from 1974 through 1970 s -- strike that -- 1974 through 1997. Then there's a gap in the C-file, up until 2004, and 2004 to the present. The C-file also contains Board hearing transcripts. I'm not going to go through every one, but I would like to highlight just a few. In 1974, excuse me, in a document called Evaluation at Time of Women's Board of Terms and Parole Hearings because that's what they called it then, and this is located in the C-file at page 2234 to 2236. The last page of the document states, quote, the Board asked Patricia about Charles Manson. She stated that he was the most dynamic man she has ever met. She feels that the combination of drugs, Charles' compelling personality, and a deep need to belong led to her participation in the events of those two nights. There is no statement about any fear of death. In 1975, in the psychological evaluation by Dr. Black (phonetic), when discussing briefly what she felt about the instant offense, she repeated that she felt her involvement was partially related to her drug abuse and her involvement in the subculture. She did not attempt to rationalize or justify her involvement in the crime but in -- that's wrong, in the other hand, expressed no emotional charge when discussing the offense. Again, no statement about fear of death. Next, in -- in 1976, in Dr. Flanigan's (phonetic) psychological evaluation, he says that a low sense of -- strike that -- a low sense of self-esteem and extreme inadequacy, which had resulted in her abject surrender to the will of another is no longer evident. Again, no statement of fear of death. And just lastly, in the 1978 Board transcript, at page 2027 of the C-file, 22 -- page 22 of this report, um, on the transcript at line 15, inmate says, quote, all right, to bring up Charlie, he was someone who's opinion, or, I guess, would-be opinion, or his direction that I would accept as being totally correct. I would follow that. And then for a few more pages to page 26, she explains how she built up her trust in Mr. Manson. Again, no fear that he would kill her if she didn't do what she -- what he said. Now in my review, I found that the very first documentation of her description of the abuse was in 1988, which is 19 years after the crime. Also in my review, the very first documentation of her thought that she would be killed if she refused to follow Manson's orders was in the 2004 psych report, which is 35 years after the crime, and that can be found on page 2838 of the C-file. I al -- would also like to note that this is her first Board hearing or that it was mentioned in the first Board hearing after penal code section 4801 was amended in the year 2000, which made it mandatory for the Board to consider intimate partner abuse. That's 35 years after the crime. From 2011 to 2016, this inmate's position morphs from somewhat taking personal responsibility to the notion that I only did it because he would kill me, and that's a pretty dramatic shift. She shifts the victimization from the real victims of this crime, the horrific slaughter of seven-and-a-half people, and now the inmate becomes the victim. The theme in 2011 was that she participated in the murder for acceptance and love. The theme in our 2016 hearing was she participated in the murders for fear of being killed. In 2016, she told the Panel that the -- that the -- that she internalized Manson's philosophies because it was the only way to survive, but if you contrast that with the 2011 transcript, on page 78 to page 80, the inmate told the Panel that she could have left, and this is by questioning by her attorney, Mr. Wattley, the same attorney that's here now; that on page 78, Mr. Wattley askes, how do you rationalize for yourself why, I don't know, what decisions you had to make? Choices you had to make in order to commit the crimes, I guess?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think the fact that I allowed myself, that when I just committed myself to whatever this man said, that I would somehow be acceptable in his sight. I began to lose -- I know that he presented himself as a messiah, and as the relationship, I was willing to let go of my entire self, my spiritual being. I was willing to give up everything that I was. I allowed, I took whatever I thought would make this move forward. And then it goes on, and then, he asks her at some point -- this is at line 24 on page 79, questioned by Mr. Wattley, at some point, I guess a few times, you talked about how you feared that he would kill you if you tried to leave again or if you tried to stop these attacks. You said that, right? But you still could have left? Answer: Yes, I could have left. I absolutely could have left. People did leave. So l - - I -- like I said, I committed myself fully to him. I committed myself to the act of murder. I was -- I went with whatever he wanted at that time. That's where I allowed myself to be, and then the word is inaudible. So if she really feared that she would be killed, she wouldn't have told us that she knew she could have left and that she absolutely could have left. Those were her words. Based upon those issues that I've just discussed, the intimate partner battering is not applicable to this situation, and as a result, it's the District Attorney's office position that the Panel cannot use it to consider in the inmate's parole suitability and cannot give great weight to that issue. So then, again, we're brought to the second question: Is the inmate suitable for parole? As I stated before in 2016, this case comes under the purview of in re Lawrence, which states that in rare circumstances, the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis to deny parole, even when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness exists. I'm not going to, um, repeat the facts as I repeated in 2016, but I would like for the Panel to remember that the facts and the circumstances of this case were so heinous that the death penalty was originally imposed. The death penalty is reserved for those murders that are so heinous that death is the only appropriate punishment, and unlike the seven-and-a-half people that were murdered over these two days, the inmate's life was spared. Theirs's wasn't. A denial of suitability is not only appropriate, but it is entirely reasonable and lawful under the holding of in re Lawrence. Now if the Board doesn't agree with this position, then there are a few other factors that show nexus to current dangerousness. The inmate still does not have an understanding of what she claims to be the causative factors of these crimes, her inability to understand her willingness to surrender to Manson. And these questions were brought about by, unfortunately, the leading questions of, um, Deputy Commissioner Lam, not the acknowledgement of the concepts by the inmate. In the 2016 transcript on page 13, question by

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: But you don't know why you want to leave. Answer: Because I just wanted a way. Yeah, that's -- strike that -- yeah, it's the best I can do. I honestly, I just wanted a way, and I couldn't even tell you. I just wanted out and away. Now it's 2016, and she can't articulate why she wanted out and what it was that he did that made her want out and made it so unbearable, even after all of these years of programming? Again, at page 117 of the 2016 transcript, she said she didn't know what she was feeling, and she couldn't divine -- define her feelings because she wanted to be what he wanted her to be. Again, even looking back, she cannot give you an answer to these questions. If she can't give you an answer to these questions now, how do we know that she's not going to prevent the same behavior in the future? She says she won't do it, but it's clear she really does not have an understanding. The inmate lacks credibility in three areas of her testimony, and these are my final arguments: Number one, there was a long discussion about whether or not the inmate knew that people were going to be killed on Cielo Drive that night, and we talked about page 46 of the 2011 transcript, but there is, in the C-file at page 2049, a 1978 Board transcript, and that's only nine years after the crime when the crime was fresher in her mind, and this Board transcript pretty much clears up what she knew. And on page -- it's page 2049 of the C-file, it's page 44 of the 1978 Board transcript. Starting at line two, it says, I did not know that night until I was in the car. I was in taking care of the children at the time at -- when I was awakened in the night, and I was told to go with Tex, by Charlie. I got into the car with Tex, and it wasn't by way late down the road, somewhere, that I asked Tex where we were going -- strike that -- what we were going to do, and it was when we were -- and for a long time, he said nothing. And then eventually -- and so, we just gabbed and whatever, and we drove. Eventually, when we went up to Cielo D -- strike that -- eventually, when we went up Cielo Drive, Tex said that we were going to go in the house and kill everyone there. So that completely defies what she told the Panel, and it completely confirms what the information was in the 2011 transcript. I've already discussed the fact that she knew that she could leave, and there's another example again in the 1979 Board transcript, where the Commissioner asked if she had permission to go to Alabama from Manson, and she said no. And lastly, she also minimized her knowledge about the Hinman murder. Also in that 1978 Board transcript, and that appears at page 2048 in the C-file, line 22 of that page on the transcript, I had known there had been a murder of a Gary Hinman, but it was kept very quiet, and I had no idea that what Mr. Kay makes sounds like there were these big times, when people sat around and talked about killing. So she did know about the murder of Gary Hinman. Now, the credibility is important because, if we can't believe what she tells us here, and we can't believe that she is honest, then w -- and we know that because of these conflicting statements that show her lack of credibility, it is clear that she, despite her statement that she takes full responsibility for these crimes, she is definitely minimizing what she knew and her participation in these crimes, and based upon that, that shows a current nexus to dangerousness, and based upon that, the District Attorney's office opposes finding of suitability. Thank you.


ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Thank you. What Ms. Lebowitz just described proves the, uh, consistency of Ms. Krenwinkel's story that, uh, she didn't know what was intended until they got to the location. I mean, that's -- that's been her position the whole time, and, you know, there was a long discussion last time in December, uh, and in fact it was -- it was -- seemed to be the main point in Ms. Lebowitz's, uh, argument last time, was that this, uh, statement found in the 2011 transcript proves that she is telling a different story, she's flip-flopped. Uh, well, as I clarified in my March 31, 2017 letter, uh, that was just nonsense. Um, it was -- it was an argument based on typographical errors that, I think -- where I fully demonstrated in that letter. Um, particularly by citing the other identical errors, um, including on the same page. Um --


ATTORNEY WATTLEY: -- but nevertheless --


ATTORNEY WATTLEY: -- nevertheless the --


ATTORNEY WATTLEY: -- the, um -- the, um -- I know that the focus of this, um -- this part of the hearing is on the IPB investigation, but I want to be really clear, the report makes a statement, um, that I think actually overstates the, um -- the role of this -- this report, and -- and I see it, I think, uh, Commissioner Chappell may have made a similar comment, and I know, uh, that Ms. Lebowitz is really trying to emphasize that the -- the significance of the -- the report is its ability to help answer the question did intimate partner battering cause this crime? Um, was it the result of -- was the crime the result of this abuse? Uh, to be clear, Ms. Krenwinkel isn't saying that that's why she did this. Clearly, one of the factors -- significant factor, but it's not the only reason this happened. Her own personality and esteem issues certainly contributed, and all the other things we talked about, and I won't -- I won't go over everything we talked about last time because most of what was just discussed, we talked about back in December. Uh, but one related correction is that, um, I didn't actually request an IPB investigation. I asked the Board, going back to, uh, a couple of months before the December hearing, why they had never done one? I pointed out that the record was replete with a lot of evidence: Um, psych reports, previous hearing transcripts that seemed to indicate that -- that battering had some impact on her attitude and her actions in the crime, and I asked the Board why they had never done it. They responded, saying, um -- basically, they didn't -- they didn't think there had been a need for one because a Panel hadn't found it to be necessary for their decision. They indicated to me that if, uh, the Panel that would be hearing this case this time around in December -- that's this Panel -- if they felt that, um, they needed additional -- additional information to help them weigh this factor, then they could request an intimate partner battering investigation. And, in fact, that was my, um, comment in the hearing, pages 278, 279. I just observed this Panel has that discretion should they feel that the evidence indicates a need for an investigation. And the Panel did. Um, I'll come back to that, but I want to note there was an addition -- additional investigation that we haven't talked about that related to, um, an allegation -- actually a, you know, line of questioning from the District Attorney's office about whether, uh, Ms. Krenwinkel had been compensated for the -- her participation in this video that had been produced, um, and she consistently said no. She never got any money. But there was a -- I mean an investigation I've never seen before, frankly, in all my time doing this, that, um, the Board saw fit to, um, investigate years of trust account statements to just confirm that she had never been paid anything; that she didn't have any expenditures that seemed unusual or improper. Um, they did come back and confirm that there was nothing improper, and that there's no evidence she was every compensated, um, but it was very unusual, and I get that there's a need to -- to make sure there's no stone that's left unturned in this -- in this hearing. I -- I understand that, but it was quite, uh, noteworthy, not just that they did the investigation, but it came back and corroborated what Ms. Krenwinkel had told this Panel. Uh, in fact, you know, the last six months, through these multiple investigations, um, everything has come back corroborating what she's said at that hearing. Um, I think that the evidence deduced at that hearing demonstrated that she could safely be released and should be paroled, and the -- the case for suitability has only gotten stronger since then. Um, nothing that's come up today suggests otherwise. In fact, it all again supports, uh, what she said. Um, the clear errors in the 2011 transcript, um, I think destroyed much of what the -- the DA was trying to argue last time. So she's tried to abandon that. She keeps coming back to the argument, oh, the crime alone is enough, but she knows that's not the law, uh, as this Panel knows, and that you actually have to look to see what's the evidence of current dangerousness? And -- and none has come up today, none came up back in December. Um, the -- the Deputy DA either intentionally or unintentionally is trying to -- to say that Ms. Krenwinkel is focusing on this IPB report, um, to support a claim that she's saying I only did it because -- uh, because he would kill me. That's not what she's saying. That's not what she's saying. It's a much more complex explanation that she provided this Panel over the course of about nine hours back in December, um, which is why we don't need to go over all of it now. I think the -- the role of this is -- is significant, but it's not the sole contributing factor to this crime, and she's never said it was. Fact is, it's relevant, it's reliable. This Panel has to consider relevant and reliable information in making its determination, and I'm confident this report helps the Board, uh, do that. Um, the other -- the other thing I would just note is, um, you know I've -- I've handled a lot of parole hearings, and, um, seen a lot of clients actually succeed in this process, be found suitable for parole ad actually released; about 170 at my last count. Not one of them has served as much time as Ms. Krenwinkel or had as clean a disciplinary record or had as dramatic a turnaround in her psychological makeup, disposition, attitude, personality; um, has had as successful participation in therapeutic programming. Um, nothing on this record indicates that she's currently dangerous, and for that reason, the law requires that she be granted parole. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Thank you. Ms. Krenwinkel, now is an opportunity for you to express to this Panel, if you'd like, um, why you feel you're suitable for parole.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: If you want to say anything.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: If you'd like to say something.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Um, I -- all I really want to say, again, is how terribly sorry I am. Um, as I, um -- as you read the report, it just reminded me again of how many, um -- it reminded me of those that are dead and those that are alive, living with such, you know, horrible memories that have -- of all this. I am just so terribly sorry how this has just affected so many in so many ways, and it's all bad. There's just so much sadness and, um, grief, and, um, I -- all I can say is how sorry I am to all and everyone that has been affected by this horrible crime of which I am a part and have committed. It's just, uh, the ripple effect is just always overpowering to think about because it just goes so far and into so many to society, to the people that have been a part of it from the beginning to even - - even being here to have a Panel have to hear it and go over it. I am sorry to all of you, that this is where we are at today. That's all.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Thank you. Um, at this time, I'd like to move to the (inaudible) the victims' next of kin, if they'd like to provide a statement. And -- and just for the record, if you can just re-introduce yourself.

MR. SMALDINO: Uh, yes, uh, this is Lou Smaldino, and, uh, I'm the oldest grandson, uh, and -- uh, of the LaBianca family, and, uh, Leno and Rosemary were, uh, my aunt and uncle, and my mother was, uh, Leno's sister. So that's why -- my mother has passed, so that's why I'm here. Um, I want to thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts today, you know? It's really meaningful to me that I'm able to be here to be able to speak, uh, at my advanced age. Um, I'm here to represent the LaBianca family. At a previous hearing, uh, I read my comments letter to you, and now I'll ask you again to review its painful contents and sentiments rather than, uh, uh, doing it all over again today. Um, I'm before you today and will continue to be here as long as, uh, the process requires it -- uh, far too frequently, unfortunately -- uh, to express our family's concern that Ms. Krenwinkel is ever paroled. Uh, her callous disregard for human life, her brutal participation in several murders, not just one, like, the incident was recalled here. Uh, she committed a murder, uh, one night, and the next night, she's out doing it again. Uh, so she definitely knew the second night, she was going to kill Leno and Rosemary. Um, total res -- disregard for the sanctity of life, um, should forever seal her fate as a lifetime prisoner. These murders of my aunt and uncle were carried out for no other reason than the thrill for killing. There was no passion or mitigating circumstances. She and her brother then snuffed out two loving people in the prime of their lives, you know, mid 40s. These were innocent people who bore no malice towards anyone and should be a model for all of his on how to live and treat others. Leno and Rosemary were, uh, to say the very least, a very handsome and loving couple devoted to their family of five children. Uh, with this in mind, I would like to again remind the Panel that Ms. Krenwinkel is a vicious and uncaring killer who was sentenced to die for her evil deeds and was saved by an errant court to life in prison. To this day, there has been no real remorse shown, only manipulation of the system to get a free pass. Yes, she has educated herself and worked within the prison system, but these actions are self-serving and in no un -- way -- in no way addressed the destruction and devastation caused to our family. I ask you what has Ms. Krenwinkel done to address the anguish caused our family? We've never heard from her. What single act has she done to assuage our pain or grief? For her, we do not exist and are merely obstacles of her goal of being released from prison for murders that many consider the worst of our time. It is inconceivable for me to believe that Ms. Krenwinkel can ever be rehabilitated. Like, uh, her, I grew up in the 50s and 60s, about the same time. While I was literally living happy days at the malt shop, she and her clan were plotting murder, doing drugs, and trying to initiate race wars. There is an evil here that no one seems to be addressing. What spiritual awakening or enlightenment has taken place within her? There is none that I'm aware of. Her goal here is to say and do anything to get out, but believe this Panel should look at the facts. No remorse, no coming clean on her active participation in the murders, no spiritual renewal. And now, claims of being a, um, battered woman. Really? She was one of the leaders of this clan. She could have, uh, left any time, uh, as others did. She l -- um, she loved this murder cult. Ms. Krenwinkel should have already be (sic) dead for her part in these vicious and unprovoked slayings. I believe society has been most merciful by allowing her to live with all her needs cared for. Leno and Rosemary have been deprived of, uh -- of this, and their family has lost the joy and support of their presence in our lives. I again ask in the name of our family, uh, and that of the decent and honorable society that you deny parole to Ms. Krenwinkel now and for considerable time in the future because murder -- really, there is no restitution. No making it up. Um, saying your sorry in a parole hearing is not the same as real remorse, you know? That's (sic) just doesn't cut it for me. Um, finally, uh, a lot of folks would think this is revenge on our family's part. That's not really what we're here to ask. We're ask -- we're asking you for justice. Um, you take several lives, and really, she's a serial killer. She's not just a murderer. She -- she killed several people. Uh, she should pay that crime to society, and, uh, I'm -- I'm glad that she's still alive, uh, but in a safe environment where she can't visit this, uh, devastation to another family. So that's what I ask you, uh, simply, uh, you know, that you do justice. Your job is to protect society, and as a government, you know, that's your primary role, and I ask you to protect us from someone like this on the streets again. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Thank you. Do we need to take --

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: (inaudible) possible --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: -- do we need to take a break? Let -- let's -- let's take a brief break. The time is approximately 10:12 a.m.



DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: We're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: All right. The time is approximately 10:25 a.m. All the same parties that were present prior to the break are present again. We were just going through, um, impact statements, and is there another -- is (sic) there other statements from the victims' --



MS. TATE: Thank you. Uh, hello, everybody. My name is Debra Tate. I'm Sharon Tate's sister and would have been the aunt to her eight-month-term, fully- developed baby. Everyone in that house were personal, very close friends, long-time friends of mine. I have in my hand a letter from Barbara Hoyt, just in case you folks only got a summary of the interview that she gave to the department of parole boards investigator, and, uh, then after that, there's some other things I would like to address. For me, personally, prior to me reading this letter, I would like to state that in doing tons of research and plus having a lot of personal friends, one being Dr. Drew Pinsky, who was very active in getting this law passed in the first place, it's clearly a division the way it has been interpreted today for this case between the medical definition and the way that it has been basically, excuse my French, bastardized for the purpose of this hearing. Drew was willing to come with me, but, um, we'll address that another day. Okay, here goes the letter: To whom it may concern, my name is Barbara Hoyt. I lived with the Manson family for f -- six months during spring through fall of 1969. I didn't interact with Katie, who's -- that was Ms. Krenwinkel -- very much, but during the time I was there, I never saw Charlie hit or beat her. I did see him hit Diane Lake often and Bo Rosenberg once. Diane Lake seemed to be his out -- outlet person. Charlie and his followers were certainly abusive to their victims. I have never seen Sadie, Katie or Leslie hit even once. Charlie never hit, and Charlie never hit her. We were all free to come and go at will. Charlie would try to talk the girls out of it by making love to them, and she provides an example, as in with Gypsy, or try to talk them out of leaving. He was very charming. The girls could be sexually partnered with each other or with any of the men. I heard that Katie would not have sex with anybody but Charlie because she thought she was ugly, which you are not ugly. If you think these killers are rehabilitated, think again. Katie went out to the LaBianca home, and without any hesitation, went to the kitchen drawer, took out the biggest knife and took Ms. LaBianca into the bedroom to kill her. She then repeatedly stabbed Mr. LaBianca s -- uh, several times in the stomach with a carving fork and then wrote messages in blood on the walls and refrigerator for the victims' family to find later. Katie cried, saying to the prosecutor and victims' next of kin, I know you want me dead. Not one of us have ever wished death on any of these killers. However, the killers did wish death on our family members, and I'm sure, in my case, since I get repeated death threats, they most certainly want to see me gone. Um, at the latest parole h -- hearing, she is entitled to ha -- oh, this is -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I skipped that. I know th -- I know you want to hurt me, and you would rather have me dead. I cannot take my own life, but she was willing to take others. Bruce Davis, at his last hearing, said that he's entitled to have his wife's pension and social security. Leslie once sued the state of California, claiming to be a political prisoner. No way are these people rehabilitated. I would like to add, through attorneys and through cellphones, these people are still in contact with their crime partners. If I was rehabilitated, that would be the last thing in the world I would want to be. I know that Ms. Krenwinkel was in the founding group out of this prison, along with 50 other inmates that started this movement in the first place, and once again, it was designed, and as the first person to ever testify for other people under Marsy's Law, I would be the first one to say for a woman that has been repeatedly battered or a man or whatever combination thereof, which the most common thing is for them to kill their abusers; that I would give a very weighty consideration to, but no way in the designers or the language of this statute was it ever intended to be used for this purpose, and I think that I'm sorry to say, that this is going to further victimize society. It's endangering society. I was under the impression until recently that that was in the mission statement of the Parole Board. I was just informed that that is no longer part of it, but I would like to compel you that that, I believe, is why the Parole Board exists, and if you can't use the common decency and judgement to protect the greater good, we might as well throw all this to the wind. This woman can still influence others. She is still healthy enough. I currently have cancer. I'm battling cancer. They're in better shape than I am, but I have a very diligent duty to protect the possibility -- she had a preconceived conception or a pre-ception (sic) of some kind of danger, allegedly, even though she didn't mention it for 17 years after the crime, uh, and who brought this up? Deputy Commissioner Lam, which I had a problem with back on December 29th. Um, I just -- I'm so d -- very deeply disappointed in a system at this point in time that, uh, a person that has been convicted of seven counts of first-degree murder can claim and potentially gain her freedom based on the fact that she's a victim even though she was never struck. I've been a victim of domestic -- domestic violence, both by my father and by men in my life. You know what I did? I got them the hell out of my life. That's what most people do. I -- I compel you, please see the law for what it is for what it was designed to do. This lady does not qualify under the intention of the law, of the statute. Thank you.


MR. LAMONTAGNE: So am I spelling my last name again?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: You can just give us your last name, and -- and relationship.

MR. LAMONTAGNE: Okay. Uh, my name's Tony Lamontagne. Um, I'm the oldest grandson -- sorry. This always gets me. Um, I'm the oldest grandson of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Um, I'm here today on behalf of my mother and my family, um, to make our wishes heard again. Um, I did actually have a several- page, um, thing I was going to read through, but, uh, because Lou spoke so well on behalf of our family, uh, Debra and Donna did such a great job, um, and hit the nail right on the head, I don't have a lot to say, um, that hasn't already been said. All I really want to say today is that we have been victimized enough by this crime and the continued parole hearings that we -- every year we do this over and over and over, and people don't seem to realize the amount of pain that we continue to go through. It's like a Band-Aid that you tear off every year over and over and over, to use the analogy that you've probably heard a lot of times. So that's really all I want to say today, is that I'm not going to allow myself to be victimized anymore. So please do the right thing. Deny this parole request and give the maximum time until we have to be victimized again, which I'm not going to allow to happen. Thank you.


MS. DIMARIA: Hello. My name is Mishele DiMaria, and I speak here today out of love for my uncle, Jay Sebring. There are no words to describe the distress and emotional impact these parole hearings have on my and all the victims' families. Unfortunately, these parole hearings are not the only times our lives are thrown in upheaval. A time in particular for me was when I was out at a concert, having an amazing time, enjoying life. The first opening band had just finished playing, and I was looking forward to seeing the next band, as they were a well-known band that I had supported for a while now. The only way I can describe how felt when the led -- lead singer came out, wearing a Charlie's Angels shirt was -- with Ms. Krenwinkel and the others involved in my uncle's murder faces on it, is that I got kicked in the gut. My happiness ripped right out of me and filled with pain. Then came the nausea to know that I had supported someone who supports the killers of my uncle Jay made me physically ill. My personal pain aside, I was then filled with anger as I excused myself, knowing that this was an auditorium filled with thousands, many being kids who look up to this band greatly and are now going to think that Manson and his angels is something cool, something to look up to or, God forbid, something to recreate. These heinous crimes are a part of American history, part of history that people are either horrified and frightened of, or much worse, inspired and excited by. Ms. Krenwinkel and her fellow killers are celebrated as serial killer rock stars. It was disturbing when I learned of the investigation Ms. Krenwinkel requested, as I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the crime she committed. Sadly, as we are all aware of, there are many sick, demented abusers out in the world, but that doesn't mean that the abused should be able to do whatever horrific act they want to carry out. Thankfully and importantly, most domestic -- domestic abuse victims don't go on a killing spree, taking eight lives, eight innocent lives that have nothing to do whatsoever with their abuser. It would be a different story if she took one life, the life of her abuser in wanting the abuse to end, but unfortunately, in Ms. Krenwinkel's case, she chose to slaughter and mutilate eight innocent people. I feel that by granting parole, it would be a detriment to our society by sending the message that if one is abused or feels controlled by another, that it is okay to commit horrific crimes. Also a detriment in the fact that you're going to say that you can kill eight lives in cold blood, and if you're a model prisoner and do some time, you get out, especially when the original sentence was the death penalty. There is no way to make a right out of the horrific crimes Ms. Krenwinkel committed, but I want to believe and have always had faith that the judicial system does what they can for the betterment of our society and that would be to deny parole. Thank you for hearing me today and taking what I've said into consideration, for denying parole as long as possible. Uh, I'm now going to read a letter from my mom, uh, Jay's sister, as she was unable to be here today. Dear Board of Parole Hearings, I thank you for your work and service in these matters. I am saddened I am unable to be there today, as I must tend to pressing responsibilities at home from out of state. It's unfortunate I am a -- unable to look you in the eyes and rep -- represent my brother, Jay, Sharon, her son, Abigail, Voytek, Steven (phonetic), Rosemary, and Leno. It's crucial for authorities to comprehend the loss and pain these horrific murders have caused our families, friends, and even society as a whole. I am grateful my parents did not have to endure -- endure these grueling paroles. They d -- they died feeling that justice would be served, and that Ms. Krenwinkel and her coh -- cohorts would remain in prison for the rest of their days, so no one would have to suffer at the hands of these people again. When I go back to the night of the murders, I remember tragically, Sharon's baby boy was killed with her at the house. I was also expecting at the time. When I was told my brother had been killed, it was as if everything stopped. The whole world stopped. I never felt so helpless. I never had that baby. Patricia Krenwinkel and her so-called family conspired and butchered as a pack. I liken this to not human behavior, but animal behavior, like packs of vultures, rats, or wild dogs. The comparison is not accurate, though, because animals don't have the God- given gift of reasoning, knowing right from wrong. This is a behavior Inmate Krenwinkel commin -- committed repeatedly in free society. Our society demands justice for crimes of this profound nature, excessively inhumane, and callous. From where I stand, Patricia Krenwinkel was (sic) remorseful at all. She might know the just choice to serve the rest of her living days behind bars. I am left feeling love and sorrow for our victims and our families. Thank you. Sincerely, Margaret DiMaria, sister of Jay Sebring.


MR. DIMARIA: Commissioner. Uh, please, uh, bear with me if this gets laborious, but, uh -- Commissioner Chappell, Commissioner Lam, um, I thank you for the opportunity -- oh, uh, Anthony, uh, DiMaria. Uh, I am the nephew of Jay Sebring. Um, Commissioners, I thank you for the opportunity to be heard as you conclude today's parole hearing and announce your findings regarding Patricia Krenwinkel's intimate partner victim request initiated 48 years after the inmate killed eight people. As I stated when last we met on December 29th, our families continue to be disrupted, impacted by these endless paroles and what occurs in these hearings, but we return year after year to speak for those who are silent in their graves. Regarding Mr. Wattley's curious remark about, uh, the DAs looking into profits from the Krenwinkel film, I want to set the record straight: The DAs office and their endeavors in this protects our families' concerns that no one who has killed our loved ones profit from their crimes. After review of the transcript from last -- from last hearing, I must address these issues: Agenda, narrative, the intimate partner battery investigation, and what has become the twisted metamorphosis of a killer into victim. I'll begin with agenda. At last meeting, Defense Attorney Keith Wattley said he found District Attorney Lebowitz's language offensive, and yet there was silence from Mr. Wattley when his client revealed that she took care of children at the Spahn Ranch, and Manson designed these duties. Ms. Krenwinkel went on to -- to admit she knew Charles Manson had raped children that were young as 12, 13, 14, 15 years old at the ranch. Patricia Krenwinkel knew about rapes of numerous children and still hid these sex crimes from authorities? Never mentioned these crimes for nearly 50 years? And an investigation wasn't opened on this? I ask, does it get any more offensive than concealing and perpetuating the rapes of teenagers and children? Actually, it does, when we see the inmate's behavior in these killings and how she gleefully performed during her trial. I add the unknown, forgotten, raped children to the long list of Patricia's victims. On March 17, 2017, Ms. Krenwinkel, in a prime-time ABC tabloid, said, "I learned choice at the most horrific cost." She learned at the most horrific cost? Not her victims? This statement is frighteningly insightful in its ironic narcissism, as only can be said by a sociopath, a sociopathic killer who feels entitled to usurp the realities and rights of her victims by positioning herself in the role of victim. It's in her nature. She doesn't even know she's doing it. You see five people before you who live with the cost of the petitioner's choices. These choices, as she describes them, destroyed our families as they existed, total and complete. For us, there are no programs, certificates, or promotional films to restore the decades of loss and suffering. There is no learning for Debra, Tony, Lou, or Mishele. For our families, there is persistent pain, loss, and coping. On the inmate's revisionist minimization -- sorry about that -- I quote

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: "I have read every transcript, every psych report, and Counsel's report, and Ms. Krenwinkel's statement has always been consistent. Her description of what happened has always been consistent." I called your attention to several inconsistencies that illuminate the contrary and point to revisionist tactic and minimization. On motive, the following will address Mr. Wattley's typographical error statement. Before the remark on page 46, Ms. Krenwinkel stated she had wished she had run away, down the hill, run away from the car. This pr -- this provides context of motive. On December 29th of last year, Commissioner Chappell read a statement from Ms. Krenwinkel at that h -- at the 2011 hearing from page 46: Quote, because there was no doubt that I knew that what was going to happen was not going to be good, I did know that that was the plan, to murder two people, two women in the house -- two women in the house; to which the petitioner replied, I never said that. That doesn't even make sense. I never said that. Clearly, Ms. Krenwinkel contradicts herself. So which was the intent? Robbery or a plot to kill two women? Then, at the Cielo guest house door, at last hearing, Ms. Krenwinkel describes this account: "He, Watson, told me to go to the back house and kill everyone that was there. I went to the back house, and I just stood there. I didn't enter. Commissioner Chappell: You just told us that if you didn't do what was told to you, what was instructed to you, you would be killed or you would be sacrificed. Krenwinkel: Right. Commissioner Chappell: So what stopped you? Krenwinkel: I just couldn't continue on. So I just went in the back, and I waited until everything quieted down. And I went out when it was all quiet, and I left with Tex and Susan." Yet, at her -- yet at her hearing in 1993, Ms. Krenwinkel tells a different account: Quote, When I went to the back house, I stood there, and I opened the door, and I was supposed to look in. Commissioner Jaquinto (phonetic): Was anyone there? Krenwinkel: I never saw anyone. So did she encounter an empty room, as described in 1993, or experience a sudden moral epiphany, as described in 2016? Sadly, it doesn't matter because a few nights later, she killed two more people. Narrative versus fact: Since these killings, our families have been pummeled by exploitative reports by the media and occasional presumption in these hearings. For crimes of this profundity, it is imperative that we distinguish fact from agenda, truth from narrative. So I'm compelled to address the leading questions that occurred at our last meeting. With respect, I was confused with how Commissioner Lam would direct Inmate Krenwinkel regarding indoctrinating when no one, in particular, the petitioner herself, ever uttered the word in the hearing until Commissioner Lam injected the word. Commissioner Lam: I'm glad you brought that up because I wanted to know when did he start indoctrinating you with his own philos -- philosophies? When did that start, because when you met him, he seemed like a normal guy, right? Krenwinkel: Right. Was this presumption from decades of narrative, or worse, agenda? And out of respect for the Board, I would never presume, but when we review the transcript, it must be one or the other. If there's any question regarding direct of questioning in the past hearing, I leave you with the following interaction between Commissioner Lam and Inmate Krenwinkel: So did you kill because of love for Manson, or did you kill because of fear of Manson? Inmate Krenwinkel: Both. On fact versus fiction, no, on fact versus agenda, for several months leading up to the murders on August 8, 1969, the Manson clan was united in racist, terrorist ideologies. They committed extensive crimes involving drug trafficking, credit card fraud, grand auto theft, prostitution, pimping, extortion, child molestation, torture, and the murder of Gary Hinman on July 27, 1969; then the drug deal burn of Bernard Crowe; then his attempted murder when he was shot; August 8th, the murders of six people on Cielo Drive; August 10th, the murders of two people on Waverly Drive; August 28th, the murder of Donald Shea; September 9, 1970, the attempted murder of Barbara Hoyt; August 21, 1971, the robbery of firearms from a supply store and subsequent shootout with 30 police officers in Hawthorne; September 5, 1975, the attempted assassination of a U -- United States President, Gerald Ford. In six years, from 1969 to 1975, grand auto theft, credit card fraud, drug dealing, prostitution, pimping, extortion, torture, rapes of children, two attempted murders, and attempted assassination of a U.S. President, numerous attempts to frame African Americans with murder, nine people, and a full-term unborn baby killed and mutilated. This is no hippie cult. These are not duped, brainwashed teens. This is an extremely dangerous, sophisticated crime organization, whose notorious pa -- whose notorious path and destruction continues to impact with cultural and historical consequences today. We must acknowledge these actualities because anything less is narrative and minimization. So at what point does Patricia Krenwinkel metamorphize from convicted killer of eight into a follower? At what point does a cold-blooded sociopath, after plunging a hunting knife and carving fork into human flesh dozens of times, painting messages in blood, taunting American society as she spat on the memories of her victims by singing, giggling, and performing for cameras for months after her murder rampage -- at what point does she become a victim? Forty-eight years later. It's as if the world has been turned upside down. Regarding Patricia Krenwinkel as an intimate partner victim, nothing is more telling than the following interaction at our last meeting.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: But you knew he was sleeping with 12, 13 -- 13 year old's then, right?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. I never thought about it. Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: Did that -- did it bother you then?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: A couple of times, things that he did, I mean, his violence against some of these people, but I didn't think about it because we were all -- it was all this communal living. I'm trying to wrap my head around this one. The inmate didn't think too much about the rapes of children because it was communal living. Yet, in this communal living, Ms. Krenwinkel considers herself an intimate partner of Manson, who was sleeping with anything he could, including 12 and 13 year old's. This selective hypocrisy is perverse. It's disturbing. This is the thinking of a sociopath, and she's very good at it. She was manipulative enough to swap nouns when answering the question, if Man -- if knowledge of Manson's rapes of children bothered her, her reply: "A couple of times, things he did, I mean, his violence against these people." People. She was asked about children. Commissioners, today you will determine if such deplorable manipulations will be permitted and defined by California law. This is in your hands now. I ask that you, Commissioner Chappell, Commissioner Lam, put an end to this perversion of justice, especially when everyone in this room acknowledges that, sadly, there are millions of intimate partner battery victims in this country, but fortunately, it's safe to say that almost none of them suddenly become a maniacal predator that stalks, pounces, butchers, and mutilates her victims. Let there be no fog from the attempts of agenda and minimization. Let there be no confusion as to who the actual victims are. I state this not out of anger but out of love for the memory of the dead and outrage for the crimes that they suffered in their last moments; for justice. Given the horrific dimension of Patricia Krenwinkel's crimes, how profoundly her many victims suffered, the inexplicable disconnect exhibited in her statements, and the behavioral evidence defining an entrenched sociopath despite decades of rehabilitation, it is only just and civil to deny Patricia Krenwinkel parole for the longest period of time. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: Thank you. Uh, so the time's approximately 10:58. Um, we will recess for deliberation.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEBOWITZ: Commissioner -- Commissioner Chappell, I think there was one issue during the last hearing where the Panel had not received the petitions, and I just wanted to just bring that up that they have been received, that they were part of the 10-day packet.









DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: We're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: All right. Uh, the time is approximately 12:08 p.m. Date is June 22, 2017. We're now ready to reconvene this hearing for pronouncement of the Panel's decision. All the same parties that were present, uh, prior to the recess are present again. Ms. Krenwinkel was received by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on April 28, 1971, from the county -- from the county of Los Angeles. The controlling offense in this case is penal code section 187, murder in the first degree arising from a conviction in case number A, as in Adam, 253156, resulting in a sentence of 7 years to life. Ms. Krenwinkel, uh, was also convicted of an additional six counts of penal code section 187, murder in the first degree in this case. Ms. Krenwinkel qualifies as a youthful offender under penal code section 3051, as enacted by Senate Bill 260, amended by Senate Bill 261. She was 21 years old at the time of the life-term offense. She has a youth parole eligibility date of February 12, 1989. She also qualifies for elderly parole consideration. She has a (sic) elderly parole eligibility date of December 3, 2007. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has calculated the minimal eligible parole date to be February 6, 1977. Um, there were multiple victims in this case. According to the California Supreme Court, in making a parole eligibility decision, this Panel must not act arbitrarily or capriciously and must consider all relevant, reliable information available. In this case, the Panel has read and considered the written record before us, including the central file, the comprehensive risk assessment, um, additional documents submitted during this hearing, all written responses received from the public. Um, the confidential portion of the central file was reviewed, but the Panel did not rely on any of the information contained in that section in reaching our decision today. Uh, the Panel also considered, um, the findings in the intimate partner battering, uh, investigation, and we also considered the testimony presented at this hearing by Ms. Krenwinkel and the input from the victims' next of kin. The fundamental consideration in making a parole eligibility decision is whether the inmate continues to pose a current unreasonable threat to public safety upon an inmate's release. Accordingly, a denial of parole must be based upon evidence in the record of an inmate's current dangerousness. Having these legal standards in mind, and after giving great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and maturity of Ms. Krenwinkel, we find that she does pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety and is therefore not suitable for parole at this time. Um, the record does reflect some circumstances tending to show suitability. Um, namely, um, we took into consideration, um, the factors of youth, um, and we are in agreement, um, with the doctor's report, Dr. Athens (phonetic). Um, the -- the doctor -- in the doctor's review, the doctor found that, uh, Ms. Krenwinkel's behavior, um, during the time of the life crime reflected characteristics of the transient hallmarks of youth. Um, the doctor noted the different factors, including impulsivity, inability to adequately foresee the long-term consequences of her behavior, family substance abuse, susceptibility to negative influences of -- of her older sister, and the lack of -- of belonging. Um, also, excessive risk taking. Um, we -- like I said, we are in agreement. We -- we match up the circumstances of -- of, um, Ms. Krenwinkel's behavior during the time of the life crime, and we see that, and the other side of the coin is, um, we looked for -- when we were reviewing, uh, the youth factors, we look for growth and maturity, um, and -- and we find, um, that there's been substantial, um, growth and maturity. Um, we see that in Ms. Krenwinkel's institutional adjustment, um, and I'll -- I'll talk about the adjustment, um, shortly. We -- we also note, um, that Ms. Krenwinkel does not possess a significant history of violent crime, um, prior to the commitment offense, um, while as a juvenile, and/or an adult at the time. Um, in review of the, um, IPB investigation, um, we found that, um, her commitment offense, um, was related to or, um, her actions, um, um, appear to be as a result of -- of the intimate partner battering. Um, also find that she is as -- at an age that reduces the probability of recidivism. She's currently 69 years of age, and she's spent over 47 years of incarceration for these crimes. Um, we, uh, note that she has realistic release plans. We have acceptance letters for transitional housing, um, the Harbor House and -- and Crossroads. We have, uh, support letters from family and friends. We also note that she's engaged in institutional activities that indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. Um, we note that she's participated extensively in self-help programming. Um, we have a substantial amount of laudatory chronos from staff of different, um, ranks and classifications, and we note, um, vo -- vocational training in -- in various areas. Um, we also note, and she is to be commended for this feat: We also note that she lacks any serious or violent rules violation reports, um, throughout her entire car -- incarceration. However, these are outweighed by other circumstances tending to show unsuitability and suggest that if released, um, Ms. Krenwinkel would pose a potential threat to public safety. Um, specifically l -- we -- we look at the crime, and we find that, um, these crimes were -- were committed in a heinous, horrific, and -- and deplorable manner. Um, we -- we talked about the circumstances of -- of the crimes in great detail. So I'm not going to go, um, over each and every, um, area of -- of the crime, but we note that, um, Ms. Krenwinkel's actions, um, displayed just a total, uh, disregard for -- for human suffering and -- and life. Um, we also note, um, that prior to the commitment offense, um, Ms. Krenwinkel had an unstable social history. Um, we talked about the -- she came from somewhat of an unstable household, although, um, this un -- unstable household could -- could have been no, um, at no fault of hers, but we -- we talked about, um, the -- the concerns or the issues that your sister had that led to some of the turmoil in your -- in your household. Um, we -- we talked about your -- your parents' divorce that affected you. Um, we also note that you engaged in drug and -- and alcohol abuse at an early age, somewhere around the age of -- of 15. Um, had a prior arrest history, um, possession of dangerous drugs, uh, with prior possession of marijuana and -- and grand theft auto. However, uh, California Supreme Court has ruled that after a long period of time, immutable factors such as the commitment offense, prior criminality, unstable social history may no longer indicate a current risk of danger to society in light of a lengthy period of positive rehabilitation. Um, accordingly, in this case, we must consider whether other circumstances, coupled with the above immutable circumstances would lead to the conclusion that Ms. Krenwinkel poses a continued threat to public safety, and we find she does. You know, Ms. Krenwinkel, um, throughout our -- our discussion with you during the hearing, one of -- one of the central themes was, you know, this -- this philosophy or this mindset, um, that y -- you followed, um, um, during -- during the time of the crimes, and although there -- there's plenty of documentation, um, what we have on record, um, about a -- w -- I call this -- this philosophy, um, during the hearing, what we were looking for is what -- we -- we wanted to hear from you, um, what your -- your understanding was, um, and what role that you played in -- in this criminal behavior, and -- and it was important, um, for us because it was this thought process; it was this -- this philosophy that we find that was pretty much the driving force, um, for you and -- and the group. Um, and it was the driving force and was behind these -- these horrific murders, and it was important for the Panel to know, um, that you -- you had a good understanding of y -- your -- what your character defects, um, that -- that led you to get involved with -- with Charles Manson and this group. And -- and that's one, and two, um, we wanted to see if you recognized, you know, not just you getting involved with -- with them but why you were able to continue to associate with the group over an extended period of time, knowing all of the -- the antisocial behavior that -- that went on. Um, and that eventually led to -- to the death of -- of the victims. Um, during the hearing, we asked you specific questions, uh, concerning this area, and for whatever reason, we found that you either would not discuss with us or we found that th -- found you to be very evasive, um, when we were asking you about your understanding of this philosophy or -- or your role. Um, several times, um, you spoke to it. You spoke to the philosophy, and -- and I'll give you some examp -- examples, but you never really spoke about it, and I'll clarify. You know, there were times when you would tell us, according to the philosophy, and this isn't word for word. Uh, this is just kind of my -- my summary. You know, according to the philosophy, you couldn't speak to people in your path. According to the philosophy, you know, you didn't have your own thoughts. According to the philosophy, you know, you had to be loyal to Charles Manson. Um, according to the philosophy, it was a -- a kill-or-kill -- or-be-killed situation. All surface area, uh -- sur -- surface answers, you know? Never did we hear from you or never did you real -- were you able to really go in depth and really talk to us about it, and we asked you questions, um, um, in an effort to really get it out of you, but never did you really talk about the core definition of what this mindset was, uh, and th -- like I said, and this mindset appeared to be the driving force behind this heinous crimes. Um, early -- early in our discussion, um, we specifically asked you, you know, what -- what is your definition? What was your mindset at the time, you know? And we asked -- we -- we brought up philosophy. What was the philosophy that you were living under? Although, like I said, we know we -- what we had on record, and you -- you -- you really, or you wouldn't specifically answer the question for us, and -- and you really need to -- when it becomes available, you really need to go back and go over these -- the transcripts because instead of answering that specific question for us, um, and giving us a -- a truthful, full disclosure, you wanted to talk about Charlie Manson's music career that he was -- that he wanted to get started. Um, at that time, we found that you were attempting to deflect this line of questioning and/or minimizing or denying your -- your true knowledge of -- of what your full understanding was of your participation in -- in these crimes, and that was a huge concern for us. You know, you talked about your role, um, with this group that you called the Family, and you said your role was you were designated to take care of the children, you know, c -- and -- and cooking, you know? And then on one day, um, a -- and this was the day of the first set of murders you tell us that Charlie Manson comes to you and tells you to go with Tex, you know? So you go into the house. Uh, one of the members, I believe it was Lynne, gives you these dark clothing, puts a knife in your hand. Um, then you go with, uh, two other, um, women, I believe it was Susan and Linda and Tex to -- to, um, the victims -- the first set of victims home, the Polanski residence t -- and you tell us Tex goes up -- you drive up, Tex goes up this electrical pole, cuts the power to the house. He tells you and others to follow him. He encounters the first victim, Mr. Parent in the driveway, um, and he shoots and kills him. You continue to follow him into the house. You gather up all the victims in the front room. Um, there are words said. The victims are pleading for their lives. They're asking you to leave. Tex ends up shooting Mr. Sebring and then -- and instructing Susan to tie him up. Um, Ms. Folger then breaks loose, runs out of the house, and according to you, Tex instructs you to go after her and kill her, and you tell us that you -- you followed his order, right. Um, you chase her down, stab her multiple times, you know? You go back to Tex and -- and you -- you inform Tex that you're not sure is he -- if she's dead. Um, and you -- and -- and we know you didn't deny that, but then, Tex tells you to go back to the backhouse and kill everyone in the area, and then you tell us you hesitated, and you -- and you refused to go back into the house. Um, and we asked you, you know, well what -- what was it? What was it about you internally? We were trying to figure out, okay, and maybe she is rec -- she's recognizing internally, you know, what was -- was driving her. What was going on? Maybe we're going to hear about those character defects that, um, we were looking for, and we asked you, you know, well, why did you stop, and -- and you couldn't -- you couldn't explain. You said I don't know. I just -- I just did. I stopped. Um, I just stood there, and I just waited until everything was done, and -- and we left. Um, we found, because you -- you really couldn't explain that, we found that, um, you had very limited, if any, insight in -- into why, especially when you had told us that you were of this mindset that you had to follow orders. Uh, it was kill or be killed, you know? Um, we also, in continuing the discussion about that crime, we -- we also asked you, you know, why? You know, why did you commit the -- the stabbing murder of Ms. Folger? Why would you go, with your background, um, where you had disclosed to us no violence in your background, why would you go to such a high level of violence, and your response was, you stated you were just following the orders. Um, and, I'm -- I'm maybe repeating myself, but you -- and then you told us you knew if you didn't follow his orders, it would be severe. You know, severe possible repercussions for your inactions. Um, you know, there was much more that we find that was going on with you. Um, we -- we feel that, um, in our discussion with you, um, that you somewhat painted the picture of, you know, I was this naïve person that just kind of went along. They gave me the -- the -- the clothes and a knife, and, you know, I -- I really didn't ask any questions. I just went along and then after the first person was shot, you turn into the -- this violent person. You know, there is a lot of unanswered questions, and -- and that, the big question was why? You know, internally, uh, why -- how you were able to go to such -- this high level of violence. Um, you know, further discussion about that crime, um, we had made a comment to you, well, it appears that with nothing, no violence in your background, and you end up committing this brutal murder, it appears that things had changed in your life at that point, and -- and you agree. Um, you -- you tell us that it was at that time -- is when you knew that you were following this, and I'm going to quote, this philosophy. Uh, you tell us that -- you tell us, you know -- and then you tell us that, you know, after the murders on -- on the first night, um, you go back to the compound, and -- and you go back -- you go to bed with no discussion with anyone about your role in the crimes that you had just committed. Um, you did say that there was a discussion between Tex and -- and Charlie Manson, but there was no discussion with you about your role, and, um -- and it was either the very next night or two n -- two nights later, you get involved in that second set of murders. Um, and again, you tell us, uh, that you were instructed by Charlie Manson to come along with the others. Uh, you drive to the LaBianca house, and Charlie Manson and Tex instruct you to do something witchy, and I put that in quotes. You end up stabbing Ms. LaBianca multiple times, and then you stab, uh, Mr. LaBianca with -- with a fork. Uh, you grab a rag, and you utilize his blood to -- to write, um, those words, you know, on the wall, um, helter skelter, death to pigs, you know? And all this came from a person as you describe to us, you know, a person that within maybe a 24-hour or maybe a little more period of time who was naïve to the intent of why she was going, um, to, um, the crime scene or to the murder scene in the first -- in the first set of murders. Why -- what she was doing there. She -- you were naïve to it, and then in a day -- a day later, uh, you become this -- this -- this evil, very evil, brutal murderer who, like I said, and -- and I just described, um, what happened in the second, um, set of murders, you know? It w -- put into question in looking at all this is that we feel that you were being somewhat -- y -- your credibility w -- was somewhat, uh, at stake here, um, because we feel that before -- even before that first set of murders happened, um, we -- we felt that you, as I indicated before, you were much more involved than -- than what you were disclosing to us. Um, y -- you went from -- looking at the crimes, you went from -- from zero -- your level, you know, of violence went from zero to 100 within a short period of time. Um, when you went from this domestic role, uh, to this -- like I said, to this fully -- to be en -- fully entrenched in this -- this wicked, violent behavior, um, with no discussion, um, with -- with anybody within your group about -- about your role change. Uh, it just didn't ad up for us, and -- and because of this, we found that, um, like I said, you're not to be credible in this area, and in not accepting a full responsibility for your roles in the crime, and, um, that's a concern because with all your years, um, of incarceration and programming, um, you still do not appear to understand or at least fully disclose your understanding of the specific factors of your involvement in the life crimes, and -- and you're not choosing to be honest with this Panel has a direct nexus back to your life crime, making it relevant today. Um, I do want to s -- s -- briefly speak to the, um, IPB report, and as I indicated w -- we did use that as a mitigating factor. Um, um, but I found that it may be an explanation of -- of why you got involved, but it doesn't explain what we saw as an issue today or during your hearing. It doesn't explain you're a -- inability to accept full responsibility for your actions, and your inability to be totally honest with -- with this Panel. Um, Commissioner, you have any (inaudible)?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: Just a couple of comments, thank you, Commissioner.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: Um, a couple of things stood out for me in your case. Uh, the first is insight. Uh, we were very concerned that after this many years of self-help and therapy that you struggled, um, with your understanding of how all this unraveled. That's the sense I got from the first hearing; that you don't quite understand how all the pieces fit together, and that is very troubling because we are talking about seven murder one, not to mention an unborn child. So in our opin -- in our pos -- uh, opinion, you better know exactly how this happened because who's to say you don't fall victim again to something like this? Uh, it is very scary to see someone without a b -- history of violence be in this position. So it is very concerning. Uh, for example, right? Drugs is (sic) always been an issue. It -- it's replete in your case; that it was a factor, and when I'm talking to you about -- because I was trying to understand the progression of how he used LSD to manipulate, and you didn't even see it. You -- you -- you said -- you made a comment, well that's interesting. I never thought of it. Those were the kind of comments I don't want to hear from someone who's murdered seven people. Uh, when you murder seven people, we need you to know exactly what happened. Um, so insight is a huge issue for me. It -- it's very scary for me that at this point you don't know how it all unraveled. And the second thing that gnawed at me since the first hearing, is there was a point in the hearing, when it came to the first murders, you -- it almost slipped out. You said, well, I'm responsible for Abigail's murder, and then you caught yourself, and you said, well, I'm responsible -- responsible for them all. And so immediately, my thought is that sounds very much like m -- minimization, but then I said, you know what? Maybe she didn't mean to say it, and then I get the IPB report. I go to the conclusion, and I said, okay, so they said there's evidence that, uh, pretty much everyone suffered from (inaudible) at the hands of -- and Charles Manson, and -- and -- and -- and you know, when it comes to IPB, it's not simply just physical violence, right? It's physical, social, psychological, economic, sexual, all of that. Um, so I can see why the report concludes that IPB was at play, but then I go to page five, and there it is in black and white on the second paragraph. You put -- you wrote, and the -- and the investigator quoted, I was responsible for all the murders because I was there, and I stabbed Abigail. Because I was there. That bothered the heck out of me because there it is again, because I heard that the first hearing, but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you didn't mean that, didn't mean to minimize, and then I see it again. These words mean a lot. That tells me you don't even understand your role in the first set of murders. You weren't just there. Do you really think that Tex Watson was able to overpower five people and murder at least five without you and the other gals there? You guys surprised them by numbers. You overtook them by numbers. So you weren't just there. You rounded them up and then ran after Abigail. So the fact that you still think you were there is a huge, huge, huge, huge, huge problem for me; uh, huge minimization. Um, I mean, I must tell you, when I have an elderly case like yours, I look -- age is -- is key. I mean, age is very important. It's important enough to be in the statute because we know that people age out of criminality. People simply do, but it's a double-edged sword, right? Because if you, by the time you're in your 50s and you're still committing crimes, you're never going to stop. So we have to consider it, and I consider -- I g -- I -- I give you great weight for the fact that you have been violation-free for almost five decades. That is tremendous evidence of suitability; tremendous. Um, but when I look at a case where it involves seven murders, insight cannot be overlooked. Minimization cannot be overlooked, and I agree with the Commissioner. I think there is a l -- uh, so -- so for me, credibility is also an issue. I don't think you've (sic) completely honest with what you know and how much of it is you because there was a part -- I -- I -- I try to get it out of you, and I don't think I was successful because I was trying to see if you understand how much of it is just you wanting to do all this, right? Um, and -- and I don't think you know, or -- or I don't think -- or -- or actually, let me qualify: I don't think you're being honest because I know you know more because if this was a gangster case -- a gang drive-by case, you're basically an OG. You're part -- an original gangster. You're part of the first four of this family. So, uh, uh, we -- we -- we do find it hard to believe when you don't know this. You -- you -- you -- you know, um, I think you should, for the next hearing, take a real, honest look. Look at every line of this transcript and prior transcript, figure out which part are you still minimizing? Which part are you, uh, just not taking responsibility for, and do it. And it's not simply just a general comment. You got to dig down and look at every fact. This is horrendous. Uh, the entire history of this cr -- I mean the crimes was just complete butchering. There's nothing -- I -- I can't explain it. I mean, there's nothing more to describe this -- this massacre and butchery. So we cannot have an inmate who doesn't quite understand how it went down. You need to understand, okay? So I -- I -- I think this is an insight denial. It's a -- it's a minimization denial, and it's a credibility issue denial. I wish you good luck.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: O -- okay, Miss -- Ms. Krenwinkel, um, we also considered, um, the factors of elderly parole, and -- and I know the Commissioner somewhat talked about it, but we did look at, um, your advanced age, y -- your possible diminished, uh, capacity, and your long-term confinement, um, and I know the doctor makes note that as far as your healthy, you -- you're fairly healthy with no, um, major medical problems. Um, so there is some mitigation in your advanced age. However, uh, we find that, uh, with your current, um, fairly healthy medical status, that you would have the ability to re- offend if -- if you chose to do so. Um, we also note the -- the comprehensive risk assessment. Um, your interview was on October 18, 2016, and the doctor found that you presented a statistically low risk of re- offense in the free community. Um, however, the California Supreme Court has ruled that a psychological evaluation of an inmate's current risk of violence is information that also bears on the prisoner's suitability for release, but such an assessment does not necessarily dictate, uh, the Board's decision. It's the Board's job to assess current dangerousness. Um, in spite of, uh, the doctor's, uh, risk assessment, this Panel did not find significant evidence of positive rehabilitation, um, in -- in the area of, uh, your insight and -- and credibility, um, and also accepting the responsibility for your, uh, actions; um, didn't find evidence of -- of substantial, positive, uh, rehabilitation, and based on that, we -- we find that you still would pose a potential threat to public safety. So, um -- so based on these findings, we conclude that you do pose an unreasonable risk, um, if released from prison at this time. Um, this decision will only be final after 120-day period and only after review by the Board of Parole Hearings Decision Review Unit. You'll be notified in writing if there's any changes to this decision. Uh, as far as length of denial, um, this is a five-year denial. And we didn't go to the higher level, the seven, 10, or 15 years based on, um, the positive factors that we talked about. One was, um, your youthful factors, and we talked about your growth and maturity. Um, your growth, it's evidenced by your ability to, um, number one, re -- remain disciplinary free throughout your whole incarceration. Um, also, your ability -- ability to establish, uh, stable relationships while incarcerated. We see that in, one, your disciplinary history; two, um, the laudatory chronos that your received from the different staff members, and also your -- your positive, um, evaluations from -- from your supervisors. Um, we also based it, um -- the l -- the five-year on your increasing age, um, that we talked about earlier. So, also, please be aware that you can request an earlier hearing than the denial period we issued today, and that's called the Petition to Advance Process, and that's provided there's been a change of circumstance or new information that establishes a reasonable likelihood that you don't require an additional incarceration. Um, you can file a form 1045A. That form can be provided to you by your counselor. Uh, we do have recommendations, but, um, prior to recommendations, we did have to complete a -- a term calculation in your case.



DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: (inaudible) okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CHAPPELL: -- my -- give me a second here. I have it. Okay. So your -- your crime falls within Title XV, California Code of Regulations, section 2282B. Uh, there's no prior relationships with, uh, the victims and, um, the victims -- the harm to the victims, they suffered severe trauma that -- that led to their deaths. Um, so we took base term of 16 years, uh, we aggravated it by 24 months. There was an opportunity to see -- to cease your actions. Um, we note the additional, um, convictions, which gave us 504 months. We have a base -- adjusted base term calculation of 720 months. Um, recommendations are, um, to remain disciplinary free, um, continue to earn your positive chronos, and continue in your self-help. Um, so I'd like to say -- with that, I'd like to say good luck to you. Uh, time is approximately 12:42 p.m. Um, hearing's adjourned.