Debra Tate Pens Los Angeles Times Op-Ed

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

Debra and Patti Tate, at the funeral of their sister, Sharon Tate, Wednesday, August 13, 1969.

Jan. 4 – Debra Tate has penned an Op-Ed for the Los Angeles Times in which she discusses the most recent parole hearing of Patricia Krenwinkel.

Last Thursday, the California Board of Parole Hearings issued a continuance on the parole suitability hearing for Patricia Krenwinkel, because it was suggested that Krenwinkel was a victim of “intimate partner abuse.” According to Vicky Waters, Press Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole hearings will conduct an investigation into the allegations, and then resume the hearing at a later date.

“I couldn’t believe it when Lam asked if Krenwinkel qualified as a battered woman,” wrote Tate. “Nor could the other family members in the hearing room.”

“Patricia Krenwinkel has been diagnosed as a sociopath more than once. In the controlled environment of prison, she has done well. But she is still a dangerous woman. Krenwinkel — and all the members of the Manson family — should never be granted parole.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Debra Tate Pens Los Angeles Times Op-Ed

  1. Donna Nelson says:

    She has not been diagnosed as a sociopath.

  2. Eileen says:

    You have got to be freakin’ insensitive to this article, picture, and especially anything GOT dang resembling a HUMAN Donna Nelson. Ya got to be looking for attention because NO ONE in their right mind would cherry pick what you just did from this article.

    All I can say is this: better be skippy arse happy this didn’t happen to YOUR loved ones.

  3. Donna Nelson says:

    Not that I don’t have compassion. But Debra isn’t always honest either. Didn’t mean to seem insensitive. Just read another article and that was on my mind.

  4. Steph says:

    Donna, can you share the other article you are referring to? Thanks

  5. Donna Nelson says:

    As well there have been articles about Debra in similarity. I do have compassion for the victims and their families. I think Sharon was the most beautiful woman of her Era and very sweet. With Debra, she doesn’t seem as genuine as her mother and her sister in their fight for jusTice. While I have no doubt that she loved Sharon… it seems,also she uses her sister for artenting as well.

  6. Donna Nelson says:

    Attention, that is.

  7. Stephen Craig says:

    I think the pertinent issue is whether or not PK I suitable for parole: whether or not she has been diagnosed as a sociopath, or whether or not DT is always truthful is besides the point. As we who have followed this case know, the defendants were initially sentenced to death on multiple counts: the only reason why they were never executed is that in 1972 the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional, and “kicked” the application of it back to the states. Within a year, it was back on the ballot and overwhelming approved of by the people of California; only it wasn’t retroactive. The Manson killers “slipped” through the “cracks’, and were now eligible for parole after 7 years. Obviously, for most of us, that decision and the fact that the legislature didn’t think things through and now offered these particularly brutal killers a chance for freedom was appalling. I can’t imagine the reaction of a family member who lost their loved one so senselessly. I guess I’m revisiting history is because I feel we as a society have already been merciful; their lives were spared; but allowing them to reenter society, and I don’t care how old they are/how long incarcerated, is unacceptable. PK, for whatever reasons, participated in human slaughter, and at the very least, we owe it to the victims to make sure she is never granted parole.

  8. Donna Nelson says:

    I believe LVH and even PK have paid for their crimes and have turned their lives around. I do not feel they would be any further risk to society.

    You stated they were originally given death penalty…which was reduced to life in prison with possibility of parole. That is the law.

    Just my humble opinion.

  9. Kathy says:

    Your humble opinion? Well here’s mine: They are both psychopaths who deserve to die in prison. And they will.

    Like you said: POSSIBILITY of parole. That is the law. A very, very, very remote possibility.

  10. Jenmar81 says:

    I agree. When the victims get paroled from their graves and the families get paroled from their pain then the Manson monsters can get paroled.

  11. Kip says:

    Yeah, hold a half-century long grudge for something she did as a kid. Real sensible and civilized. At some point you need to grow up and move on.
    The real question is why the hell my tax dollars are going into supporting this grudge of the Tate family and keeping someone locked up that is no threat to anyone.
    Leslie in particular has a master’s degree. Instead of my hard-earned dollars paying for her keep, she could very easily make way more money than me and the taxes she pays on that income would go to building schools, bridges and improving our standard of living. But my standard of living is sacrificed to maintain the grudge of some upper-class idiots?
    Why don’t THEY pay for Pat’s and Leslie’s incarceration out of their own pocket if they’re that serious about it?

  12. Bob Goblin Gigglie Giggleo says:

    Well said Kip

  13. Stephen Craig says:

    I’ll preface my comment by saying the obvious, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I couldn’t disagree with you more on this issue. Holding a “grudge”? Grow up and “move one? To use those idioms to convey the reaction/behavior of the victims’ families could be more inaccurate, dismissive, if not cruel (in my opinion). It’s not as if PK stole someone’s car, robbed a bank, etc…, but well, hell we all know what she did. I can tell you, I would find it hard not to hold a “grudge” against the person(s) who slaughtered my family member whether it was fifty years ago or fifty days ago. In terms of growing up/moving on, it appears to me that all of the victims’ families have done that. That doesn’t mean, however, that by “growing up and moving on” you cease to feel what you feel, and experience all of the ramifications of being the family member of a violent crime victim, and wish to see that those responsible for your loved one’s loss pays, and perhaps in the mind of some, “pays” dearly (much like the victims in this case “paid” with their very lives). I can tell you this: as a family member of someone who has survived a violent crime, we as a family have “moved
    on”, but in doing so, we continue to be vigilant in terms of our support of loved one/victim and in making sure that the offender stays in jail for as long as possible. Look at the crime scene photos of both the Tate/LaBianca residences; look at what PK and the others did to their victims. For me, anyone who is capable of such horror, such profound loss, should never be granted parole. I don’t care how many years she’s been locked up or how much it costs. That is what my tax dollars are for. Earning a MA in jail (LVH), big deal. She only accomplished that success because she was locked up, in a controlled environment. I mean, look what she did when she was out on her own, amongst the rest of us. I would wager that the LaBianca’s would have something to say about paroling her. If they were alive. Which they are not. And we should never forget that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *