Author Archives: cielodrive.com
Wednesday, May 7th, 2014
May 7 – On the afternoon of Sunday, September 21, 1975 Lynette Fromme was interviewed on tape at the Sacramento County Jail by Dr. James Richmond, at the request of U.S. District Judge Thomas J. MacBride, to evaluate if Fromme was mentally competent to give up counsel and represent herself at trial. The tape was hand delivered to MacBride the following day and placed under seal, along with Dr. Richmond’s determination which read:
Lynette Alice Fromme was seen in psychiatric evaluation on the 21st of September, 1975, pursuant to your order and in accordance with provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4244. Present throughout the examination was Robert M. Holley, Assistant Federal Defender. Mr. David R. Kraft, Federal Public Defender Investigator, was present periodically to supervise the tape recording of the examination, The evaluation lasted approximately one hour and forty minutes and was conducted with the stipulation from Mr. Holley that absolutely no questions be asked with reference to the events of the alleged offense.
The defendant is a 26 year old, single, caucasian woman who stated that she was charged with the attempted assassination of the President of the United States. She stated the alleged offense occurred on the 5th of September, 1975, and that she had been arrested at approximately 11 A.M. of that same day, being held in the Sacramento County Jail since that time. She estimated she had been in court approximately 3 times. She said that she was represented by the Federal Defender’s Office, having discussed her case to some degree with both E. Richard Walker and with Robert Holley of that office. She stated that presently she was represented primarily by Mr. Holley whom she felt to be a competent attorney. She stated that she had experienced no difficulty in communicating with each of these attorneys. She expressed her awareness that the offense was a very serious one and that she faced “years to life” in prison if she were found guilty. She stated that she had entered a plea of “Not Guilty,” this plea having been decided upon primarily by herself with concurrence from appointed counsel. While unwilling to discuss in any detail her planned defense, she stated that she thought there was a 70% chance of being found Not Guilty, though she had concluded that she would probably do some prison time, perhaps for a charge other than attempted assassination.
With regard to the issue of self representation in court, Miss Fromme stated that she had considered this issue at length and that she had a definite conviction “in heart and mind” to carry this through. She expressed her firm conviction that noone could adequately speak for her, that people generally should speak for themselves. She expressed concern about the distortions that had appeared in various publications, indicating in a general fashion that she hoped her image might be changed by her deportment during the trial. She expressed awareness that there would be attempts to make her out to be a bad person, stating that she could remain calm under such a situation. While saying that only she could adequately speak for herself, she said that she was aware the trial situation was not a forum to express her ideas generally and that she was prepared to accept the authority of the court. She anticipated no difficulty in conducting herself in a “businesslike” manner. She acknowledged her lack of familiarity with the technical aspects of courtroom procedures, saying however, that she thought she could pick these up as the trial proceeded as she was “quick” when she wishes to be. She stated that she did “plan” on having Mr. Holley as her co-counsel, though this matter had not previously been discussed, and that such an arrangement would be “fair.”
Miss Fromme stated that it was not a severe emotional stress to appear in court, that she felt comfortable with you as the trial judge, and that she had a general conviction that you would handle her case fairly. This she said was not based on any personal knowledge of your record or the types of decisions which you have made, but rather was based on a general feeling of comfort in her communication with you. She stated further that she had full recall of the circumstances of the offense, and that she could discuss these in detail without undue emotional strain. She said She has the ability to “make the best of any situation” she is in.
Miss Fromme said that she was feeling well, mentally and physically. She denied any present anxiety, depression, paranoia, hallucinations, insomnia, anorexia, depersonalization, or use of medication. She said that she was sleeping well, arising refreshed. She estimated she had lost some weight, the product of passing up jail food which is markedly different from her prior health food and vegetarian diet. She denied any prior history of significant mental illness, psychiatric therapy or hospitalization.
Miss Fromme acknowledged having experimented with LSD and marijuana in prior years. She said that newspaper accounts of how heavily she had used drugs were patently false. She estimated that she had used LSD approximately 30 or less times, and she stated that she had never experienced any severe psychiatric disturbance from such use. She said that she had used marijuana lightly, perhaps one joint per week, in no steady pattern. She said that the effects from it were even lighter than from the LSD. She denied any residual memory or intellectual deficit from the use of either.
Miss Fromme did not wish to discuss her family or prior life in any detail as she felt this was not pertinent to the issues at hand in the present evaluation. She claimed that she had gotten along well with parents and siblings and that she was not a rebellious child. She stated that when she was 18 she and her father disagreed about certain things, and he asked her to leave home. She has not been contacted by her parents since incarcerated.
Miss Fromme has been educated through high school. She did very well academically to start, but lost interest in her later study and her grades fell to average. She had started college, planning to major in psychology, but dropped out when she was asked to leave home.
With regard to her life from 18 to the present, Miss Fromme said that newspaper and magazine accounts were grossly distorted in many ways. She described this period of her life as one marked by increasing social awareness with a discovery of a joy in giving. She denied that she had participated in “sex or drug orgies, or cult meetings, or hanging Christ in effigy, or thinking Charlie was Christ.” She said that she believes in God as “life force” resident in all living things, and that all persons are potential deities. She said that this world is a beautiful place. She expressed no firm belief, pro or con, regarding some final “judgement”, but she stated that people pretty much “judge themselves.”
Miss Fromme is a young caucasian woman with long reddish-brown hair who appeared several years younger than her stated age. She was dressed in typical jail garb. Both her clothing and her hair were somewhat disheveled, though her grooming generally was adequate. She had a careful, somewhat tired expression about her. As the examination continued she loosened up emotionally, showing a range of emotional expression in keeping with the present situation. She smiled appropriately periodically. She displayed no overt anxiety or depression, and there were no signs of a psychotic thought disorder. She was attentive, comprehended my questions without difficulty except for occasional words with which she was not familiar, and her responses were quick, pertinent, and appeared candid. Her statements were consistently rational. She appeared to be a most sensitive and intuitive person, acutely tuned in to social issues. At one point she suggested a way in which I might join in with a constructive social activist project prominent in her thoughts. There was an air of composed restraint with regard to what she believed to be gross and repeated distortions and misinterpretations of her prior life and activities. She was alert, well oriented, and displayed intact intellectual functions including that of memory. Her abstractive abilities were quick and certain, indicating a definite ability to think symbolically. While not having extensive formal education, she appeared to be of at least bright normal intelligence. While she obviously had strong underlying emotions, she was consistently soft spoken and definitely in control.
As I explored in detail with Miss Fromme her thoughts and intentions with regard to representing herself in court, she became concerned that perhaps I was trying to talk her out of such a course of action. She accepted my reassurance that I had not been appointed nor had I come for such a purpose. It appeared that she had given considerable thought to this issue, that she was accepting of the fact that she was not technically experienced, but that she was firmly determined to do this if at all possible. Her desire for co-counsel was most appropriate, though I could not be certain that this thought had preceded my questioning. In this regard, she was most attentive to the presence of Mr. Holley, and she indicated that she wished to speak with him as soon as the examination was concluded.
It is my opinion that Lynette Alice Fromme is mentally competent to understand the proceedings against her and to assist in her own defense. It is my further opinion that she has the capacity to meaningfully waive the right to counsel, should this be her desire.
In July of 2013, the Eastern District Historical Society and the Sacramento Bee began filing a series of motions in U.S District court, requesting the court unseal items possessed by the clerk from the Fromme trial. On the list was the 93-minute audio recording of the Fromme/Richmond interview.
The following month, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller tentatively ordered the release of a number of sealed materials from the trial. However, the Fromme/Richmond recording wasn’t included on the list and remained under seal. Attorneys representing the Eastern District Historical Society and the Sacramento Bee partially objected to ruling, arguing that the Fromme/Richmond tape should not be excluded. Their argument cited United States v. Kaczynski, in which the Ninth Circuit court had granted the motion to unseal a redacted version of Theodore Kaczynski’s psychiatric competency report.
A week later, U.S. Attorney Christiaan Highsmith responded to the Sacramento Bee’s partial objection, writing:
The Government objects to this request because the defendant, Ms. Fromme, has not been notified of the Bee’s motion. In United States v. Kaczynski, 154 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1998), which the Bee cites in its motion, the Court of Appeals ordered the release of redacted versions of the defendant’s psychiatric competency report. In the Kaczynski case, the defendant was provided with notice of the motion to unseal his psychiatric report, and he opposed that motion before the Court of Appeals made it ultimate decision to unseal portions of the psychiatric report. Here, however, Ms. Fromme has not yet been provided with notice of the Bee’s motion to unseal. The Government believes it is proper that Ms. Fromme be notified of the motion to release her psychiatric report before the Court issues its order concerning whether the report must be unsealed.
On November 12, 2013, notice was sent to Lynette Fromme’s last known address that a hearing on the motion to unseal the psychiatric report would be held in Sacramento on January 17, 2014. It is unknown whether Fromme would’ve objected to the release, or if she even received the notice, because she never responded.
After both the U.S. Attorney and the court determined Fromme was provided adequate notice, the motion to unseal was granted in part in order for the tape to be digitized so that the Judge could review it to determine if redaction was necessary.
On April 16, 2014, Judge Mueller made her final ruling, unsealing the entire recording, writing:
In this case, given the contents of the audio recording and the applicable law, the court finds no need to redact portions of the recording. Unlike the redactions in Kaczynski, there is no discussion of ‘private information’ or information that has ‘the potential to embarrass a person not before the court.’ Instead, the recording exclusively explores, through Dr. Richmond’s questioning, defendant’s background, demeanor, and mental state and explores defendant’s motivation, desire, and ability to represent herself. Dr. Richmond reviews these issues for the purpose of determining whether defendant was competent to stand trial and represent herself, if she wished. Thus, the court finds unsealing the entire report ‘serve[s] the ends of justice by informing the public about the court’s competency determination.’
Friday, April 18th, 2014
Olivia Klaus and Patricia Krenwinkel at the California Institue for Women while filming Life After Manson
Photo Credit: Quiet Little Place / Misty Dameron Photography
- TRIBECA WORLD PREMIERE
@ AMC LOEWS VILLAGE
April 18, 4:00 pm 66 3rd Avenue, New York, NY 10003
- TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL SCREENING
@ AMC LOEWS VILLAGE
April 21, 2:30 pm 66 3rd Avenue, New York, NY 10003
- TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL SCREENING
@ BOW TIE CINEMAS CHELSEA
April 25, 7:00 pm 260 W 23rd Street, New York, NY 10011
- TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL SCREENING
@ TRIBECA CINEMAS THEATER
April 27, 12:00 pm 54 Varick Street, New York, NY 10013
April 18 – A new documentary, Life After Manson, featuring Patricia Krenwinkel’s first on-camera interview in over two decades, is set to premiere today at New York’s Tribeca Film Festival. The film, which profiles Krenwinkel life, is directed by Olivia Klaus, whose previous documentary, Sin by Silence, told the stories of a group of battered women all convicted of killing their abusive lovers.
It was during the filming of Sin by Silence that Klaus came to find out one of the members of the group she volunteered in was Patricia Krenwinkel. According to Klaus, Krenwinkel approached her with the idea of doing the interview and because they were already filming the support group, they were able to get around a law that traditionally gives the department of corrections the right to prevent on-camera interviews with high profile inmates.
Friday, April 4th, 2014
Statement made by Gary Hinman’s cousin, Kay Martley, at Bruce Davis’ 2014 first parole hearing.
Good morning. I appreciate my opportunity to speak on behalf of a member of my family who cannot speak for himself. My cousin, Gary Hinman, was a musician who left his home state of Colorado to live and work as a musician in the Los Angeles area. Gary was kind and outgoing. He was a good-hearted person who often gave others in need of a place to stay for a few days or a few dollars to get by. Gary’s charity is what led him to be befriended by the wrong kind of people, the kind of people who tortured him for several days before killing him. And Bruce Davis was among that group of people and that group of people is now better known as the Manson family. Everyone knows the Manson family is responsible for the murders of Sharon Tate, her friends, the LaBiancas, Shorty Shea and others who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I’m here to speak on the behalf of our family and remind this Panel of the devastating impact Gary’s death had and continues to have on our family.
Even Gary’s death hasn’t gotten the same kind of publicity. Gary’s mother died only a year after Gary’s murder at the age of 61. We watched the stress and grief eat away at her until it killed her. Gary’s sister, Carol, can barely bring herself to talk about what happened to her brother. She remains afraid even now to speak out for fear of retribution from other Manson followers. Over the years, Bruce Davis’ story about the level of his involvement, his actions, his culpability has changed constantly. He has never shown remorse, taken accountability or tried to apologize to any member of my family. At Mr. Davis’ last parole hearing, he represented a letter from someone named Renee Riley, which apparently they didn’t check on the veracity of it, who she doesn’t belong to our family nor has anything to do with us. Neither Carol, Gary’s sister, nor anyone else in our family know who this person is or gave her permission to speak on the behalf of the Hinman family. However, I have traveled 1500 miles to come here today. I am a member of the Hinman family. I grew up with Gary and I’m here to tell you that Gary’s murder has a lasting impact on our family. Every time Mr. Davis comes up for parole, the surviving members of Gary’s family must relive the horror of his death. These people held Gary captive in his home, stabbed him, cut off his ear, tortured him over a period of three days. When they found him, the carpet was soaked with Gary’s blood. The walls were covered with Gary’s blood. There was — this wasn’t a crime of passion or impulse. This was slow and calculated and cold-blooded. This is what Bruce Davis did. The problem is you can’t undo a murder. You can’t undo the death of a mother over her son. You can’t undo the paralyzing fear that a sister lives with on a daily basis. You can’t undo the empty space in a family where a living, breathing person once was. Above all, you can’t change history. But that’s exactly what Bruce Davis wants you to do. He wants you to forget that he’s a mass murderer. He wants you to forget that he’s alive today and Gary Hinman isn’t. He wants you to look past the fact that he learned to manipulate the system and misrepresent Renee Riley’s letter as being from someone in the Hinman family, when in fact the murder victim’s family have never heard of her. He wants you to think he’s rehabilitated when he’s never taken any kind of responsibility for his actions to the family that has lived with the results of his action. I ask you today for justice for my cousin, Gary, and all the other victims from the Manson family. I do not believe in revenge, but I do believe in justice. Because of the nature of the crimes committed by Mr. Davis, and the severity of them, because he’s never shown remorse or taken responsibility, Mr. Davis should remain in prison for the rest of his life — for the rest of his life — which was a lot more than my cousin, Gary, got. When a punishment is handed down by a court or jury, it should be fulfilled. Thank you.
Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014
Statement made by Deputy District Attorney Stephen Kay at Patricia Krenwinkel’s first parole hearing.
I have spent the past two years prosecuting one of Miss Krenwinkel’s co-defendants, Leslie Van Houten for the LaBianca murder. And as such, I have had numerous occasions recently to review Miss Krenwinkel’s role in both the LaBianca and so-called Tate murders. In my opinion, Miss Krenwinkel was well aware of the gravity of her acts of murder on August 9th and August 10th, 1969. She knew that participating in murder was wrong, but she decided that her loyalty to the Manson family was more important. Miss Krenwinkel had made her decision to participate in the murder even before she and the other members of the family left Spahn Ranch in the late evening hours of August 8th, 1969. Miss Krenwinkel was a very willing participant in the killings at the home of Sharon Tate, and by her own admission at the penalty phase of her trial, stabbed Abigail Folger to death.
Miss Krenwinkel had such a deep remorse for participating in the five murders at Sharon Tate’s home that, when she returned to the getaway car, the only thing she had to say was her hand hurt because, when she stabbed the victim, she kept hitting her bones.
The next day after the Tate murders, Patricia Krenwinkel spent part of the day watching TV news accounts of the murders so she could see what a good job she had done. That night, even knowing of the brutality and destruction of human life that she participated in the night before, she went out on the second night of the murders and participated in the LaBianca murders, actually stabbing both Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Before she left the LaBianca residence, she carved the word “War” w-a-r on the abdomen of Leno LaBianca and also stuck a carving for in his abdomen. She then, in Mr. LaBianca’s blood, wrote the words, “Death to pigs,” “Arise,” and “Helter Skelter,” inside the LaBianca home.
Leslie Van Houten testified at her trial in 1977 that Charles Manson told her that Patricia Krenwinkel was a complete reflection of him, that she was more like him than anyone else in the family.
In my opinion, the main purpose of our prison system is to benefit and protect society. I think we owe it to society not to turn loose a member of the Manson family such as Patricia Krenwinkel who has participated in seven of the most vicious, brutal murders in the history of American crime. The public is very concerned about Patricia Krenwinkel and her co-defendants getting out on parole. I think it would be a great deterrent value to show the public that not everybody who commits murder can automatically get out on parole. The public will certainly feel that if Patricia Krenwinkel gets out on parole, that anybody who commits murder will certainly be paroled. For it is almost impossible to conceive of more vicious murders than those knowingly participated in by Patricia Krenwinkel.
Her seven victims cannot expect parole and neither should she.
Thursday, March 27th, 2014
Mar. 27 – On August 9 every year a Los Angeles florist arrives at the Holy Cross Cemetery in Culver City and piles a simple white grave under a cedar tree with bunch after bunch after bunch of red roses.
The flowers are always the same and so is the card that goes with them: “I love you. R” It is 45 years this year since 26-year-old Sharon Tate, the pregnant wife of maverick movie-maker Roman Polanski was murdered by Charles Manson and three women, but Polanski, now a frail 80, has never allowed himself to forget.
Now married to French actress Emmanuelle Seigner with whom he has two children, Polanski makes no secret of the fact that Sharon Tate was the love of his life.
Barred from the US after a series of sex scandals, he has to entrust others to put flowers on the grave in which Sharon Tate lies, their unborn son Paul, who also died in the attack, in her womb.
The fact that he was away from their house in the Bel Air hills on the night Sharon was murdered remains the greatest regret of his life, Polanski said recently. “The times spent with Sharon were the best years of my life.”