Jun. 19 – The California Board of Parole Hearings has concluded that Patricia Krenwinkel was a victim of intimate partner battering at the hands of Charles Manson. Krenwinkel appeared before the parole board on December 29, 2016. Following a daylong hearing, the board reconvened after a two hour deliberation and issued a continuance to investigate abuse claims made by Krenwinkel’s attorney, Keith Wattley.
On October 10, 2016, Wattley wrote the Board of Parole Hearings to inquiry why an intimate partner battering investigation had never been conducted in Krenwinkel’s case, since it had all the hallmarks. According to Wattley, the board responded on October 21st stating in effect that they had enough information to conclude that she was a victim of intimate partner battering and if they needed more information, they’d conduct an investigation. During the December hearing, Wattley again questioned why a formal investigation had never been conducted.
“Why is there an aspect, a significant aspect of this case that has never been explored, investigated in the way that any other case would be?” questioned Wattley. “Well, obviously, this case gets a lot of different kinds of attention. I get that. But the fact is, the substantiation of that aspect of it is yet another factor the Board would have to weigh and it would weigh in favor of suitability.”
The penal code directs the board to put great weight to any information and evidence that, at the time of commission of the crime, the inmate had experienced intimate partner battering. Additionally, the code states that if an inmate presents evidence of intimate partner battering it cannot be used to support a finding that the inmate lacks insight into their crimes and its causes.
Following Krenwinkel’s December 2016 hearing, the Board of Parole Hearings launched a formal investigation, interviewing former Manson family members in and outside of prison. According to multiple sources familiar with the investigation, the report relied on information taken from interviews of Charles “Tex” Watson, Leslie Van Houten, Bruce Davis, Diane Lake, Steve Grogan, Catherine Share, Barbara Hoyt, Stephanie Schram and Sherry Cooper. Others were sought but not located. Charles Manson refused to be interviewed.
The investigation was completed on February 17, 2017 and the report concluded that Charles Manson used violence and manipulation towards the women in the family. Accordingly, the investigation ruled that Krenwinkel was a victim of intimate partner battering at the hands of Manson.
Krenwinkel’s hearing is scheduled to resume on Thursday. The board will go over the findings of the investigation, take comments from both sides and then a decision on parole suitability will be made.
Krenwinkel was last denied parole for seven years in 2011
This is baloney! If anyone got brutalized by CM, it was Diane Lake, and you didn’t see her out there stabbing people with a knife. You think any of this makes the victims’ family members feel any better? Pat Krenwinkel worshipped CM. She didn’t look too battered when she was photographed smiling and singing through the hall of justice during their trial, right?
Just when you think the myriad of excuses/rationale/psycho-babble that these defendants have offered throughout the years to explain their heinous crimes couldn’t get any more pathetic, out comes this big bag of nonsense. And, obviously, what makes it even more insulting is the fact that Board has bought into it. I wonder what AF would have to say about this? Perhaps she would take pity on PK, even as she ran her down and proceeded to knife her to death as she begged PK to stop, saying “I’m already dead”. Yes. Let’s give PK a “pass”; after all, it wasn’t her fault. For now she too, is a “victim”. My heart once again goes out to the victims families. What a travesty!
More B.S. from the liberal state of Cali. I am ashamed to say I was born here.
I’m not sure why you guys are getting so upset you know she’s not ever getting out of prison. Even if the board grants her parole the governor will veto it just as he did with Leslie Van Houten and has continuously done with Bruce Davis.
I think it’s obvious that Pat was a victim of intimate partner battering. However, what is important is whether or not Pat saw it that way at the time.
She did not. In fact she did not view it that way for many years. So it is at least arguable as to whether or not it played a part in her crimes.
I think the people that just want to hate on Pat need to show a little more understanding and maturity and appreciation of the nuances of what is being said. Her lawyer Keith Wattley has to clutch at any straw possible in order to give her a shot at parole.
That’s what a lawyer does.
Human behaviour and motivation is a lot more complex and nuanced than many people like to admit. With Pat, the question is always going to be to whether or not in that specific situation, it can be said to be responsible for her actions.
In the final analysis I think not.
I don’t doubt for a moment that had she not met and been with Charles Manson, she would not have killed. But the reality is that she did kill.
I’m curious if any commentators actually believe in parole as a principle for someone that has committed murder ?
An interesting debate point.
In Patty’s case, no I don’t believe that she should ever be released. Many people kill out of anger or for revenge, but she murdered just for kicks.
I heard Manson beat Sandra Good all the time and she still follows him, and never murdered anyone.
To me, there’s no difference between the treatment these women experienced, and that experienced by many thousands of women every day in this country. Sadly, the girls here seemed to willingly endure what was happening. And, in a way, because they all were aware of the pecking order – and of each other – they may have been able to dilute their own personal experiences into a kind of group experience, thereby lessening the personal effects. They’d thrown away their earlier lives willingly – and this allowed them to do this more easily. Think of the way pimps control their girls: violence, need, drugs, etc.
Additionally, they took on different personas and nicknames, so as to allow them a more guilt-free life of excitement, experimentation and behavior with few consequences. As such, they couldn’t see – or even feel – the same way they’d previously been able. Throughout history, the letting go of ego and a “past” has provided otherwise ‘normal’ individuals with a path toward sociopathic behavior.