Patricia Krenwinkel Denied Parole Five Years

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

Jun. 22 – Patricia Krenwinkel has been found unsuitable for parole by the Board of Parole Hearings, at a hearing held today at the California Institute for Women, in Chino. The hearing was a continuance of a December 29, 2016 hearing that was suspended after Krenwinkel’s attorney claimed his client had been a victim of intimate partner battering.

The decision to suspend the hearing enraged victims’ relatives who regularly attend Krenwinkel’s hearings to oppose her release.

Leno Labianca’s nephew, Lou Smaldino, called the decision “absurd.”

Jay Sebring’s nephew, Anthony DiMaria, filed a complaint with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, about what he considered to be troubling behavior exhibited by the board and its unusual reasoning in suspending the hearing to investigate Krenwinkel’s intimate partner battering claim.

In January, Sharon Tate’s sister, Debra, wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times.

“Patricia Krenwinkel has been diagnosed as a sociopath more than once,” wrote Tate. “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.”

Following the December hearing, the Board of Parole Hearings launched a formal investigation to determine whether Krenwinkel was a victim of intimate partner battering. According to the California penal code, parole boards are directed to put great weight to any evidence that, at the time of commission of the crime, an inmate had experienced intimate partner battering.

The investigation included interviews of former Manson family members in and outside of prison. According to multiple sources familiar with the investigation, the board interviewed 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.

Today, the board discussed the findings of the investigation and again listened to arguments from both sides.

“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,” DiMaria told the board. “It is only just and civil to deny Patricia Krenwinkel parole for the longest period of time.”

Despite the conclusions made in the investigation, the board found Krenwinkel was still unsuitable for release. Krenwinkel, now 69, is serving a life sentence for her role in the seven Tate-LaBianca murders. She was sentenced to death on March 29, 1971, but saw that sentence commuted to life when the death penalty was briefly outlawed in 1972. Today was the 14th time she has been denied parole since she became eligible in 1977. She will not be eligible for another hearing until 2022.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Patricia Krenwinkel Denied Parole Five Years

  1. Leslie Sarten says:

    Keep up the good fight! Keep these maniacs behind bars. Should be dead but at the very least, never set free

  2. Donna says:

    Debra Tate can rest in peace. These people are never going to be released.

  3. Fayez Abedaziz says:

    This runaround by this weird system in several states, California being one of them, of a political office-a Governor’s, that is- being involved in and having veto power, is somehow rather strange.
    Apparently, it is the Governor’s staff that is really making the decisions. So, we have a group of workers in an office really saying, (in my opinion and quotes) “parole boards, what parole board decisions; prison staff, administrators, counselors, the meaning and point of rehabilitation …? We don’t care.
    Because, we don’t like this inmate…personally.”

    That’s what it is, it’s not about all that we’re told about rehabilitation or being entitled to parole for individuals.

    It’s about prejudices against the 3 ‘Manson girls.’
    Several of the guv’s staff people, I’m convinced, decide that Susan, Leslie, Patricia, and then the males, for good measure and for cover, will not be freed.
    And then they purposely hold the decision for 3 months out of hate and revenge.
    That says more about their heads than about the justice/prison/ rehab/ crimes, and so on.
    That’s the ‘hangups’ they have!
    Well, how about that-after all, there were no murders before, or after August, 1969, in California, or in the U.S. were there…?
    And, the 1500 or so inmates released, since 2008, lifers that is, many convicted of murders, kidnapping, rape and more, why, those are, ah, well…

    Come on, it is personal for these ‘deciders’ and for some
    former or current DA types that
    have, obviously, nothing else to do but to go running to parole hearings that are the ones for…the 3 girls!
    Why is that?
    How about doing your job in L.A. D. A. guy or gal, you’re not paid to go scrambling to show off because these girls are famous ‘Manson people’ and to exhibit your venom against.
    Leave them alone, it’s none of your business, politicians.
    Yeah, attention seeking and hate and politics…
    Hmm, kinda sound familiar, as in, say…corruption.

    All you gotta do is look at what these prosecutors turned persecutors have said about the girls: examples abound. How about how this one-“she’s all dolled up” and statements about how the girls dressed, and of, course that they lived as they did, you know, smoked pot and had sex and you know…
    Oh, okay keepers of ‘justice’ we see how you think, now go away and do your damn job.
    The 2008 California Supreme Court decision said that,in effect, the 3 girls should have been freed. It really is that simple.
    Either have parole rules and laws and the word rehabilitation in this system or don’t, but let’s stop with the bullshit and charade.
    It’s getting really old and there should be lawsuits filed against the prison system and the governor’s office. The DA’s out of L.A. should be fired and these nuts, like former assistant D.A.’s, that keep sticking their nose into parole hearing after hearing, should be told to take a hike.
    Thanks for listening.

  4. James Fulmer says:

    Donna,

    When did Debra Tate die?

  5. Dr, Dot says:

    I was wondering that myself. According to all the usual sources, Debra is still alive. Perhaps Donna meant that Debra can rest easy that they won’t be released?

  6. louis says:

    Fayez….excellent post. I couldn’t agree more.

  7. Fayez Abedaziz says:

    Louis,
    Thanks, I appreciate that

  8. Lee says:

    I’m absolutely appalled that people in society would favor release of any of these people after what they did. Who cares if they were “girls.” They invaded people’s homes, tied their victims up, mentally tortured them by letting them know they intended to kill them, made one of them sit there listening to her husband be gutted out like a fish, then stabbed her to death. It’s actually disgusts me that people are so quick to defend them simply because it happened a long time ago, and they were young girls. Gee, who cares. Of course there have been plenty of murders in Cali since then, but you don’t see the murderers parading up & down the courthouse smiling, singing and laughing about murdering people. You don’t see idiots shaving their hair off & carving hate symbols on their goreheads while protesting for the release of murderers, do you? These people didn’t help themselves one bit when they’re behavior indicated that they didn’t give two squirts of piss for their victims. Bobby Beausoleil till this day blames his victim for his own death. Now Pat Krenwinkel is trying to claim battered woman syndrome to get out. Leslie Van Houten, well, hell, all she has to do is look cute & flash her horse teeth a bit for people to melt like butter for her. I guess people have forgotten what, exactly these people did. Just because they look like innocent, old ladies, knitting their time away doesn’t undo what they did. You do not ever get a “start over” after participating in such callous crimes! I respectfully disagree with other posters, but understand that everyone is entitled to differences of opinion.

  9. Lee says:

    Excuse my typos on the above post, I was typing on my phone…

  10. Donna says:

    She didn’t die. I know she is sick with cancer. I simply meant she can live in peace because these people are never going to get out.

  11. Donna says:

    Exactly Dr. Dot.

  12. DJ says:

    I applaud Gov Brown for denying parole to Bruce Davis. It’s a shame that the victims’ families have to endure parole hearings for the Manson Family members. Those scumbags should’ve been put down a long time ago. Patricia Krenwinkel is not only ugly, but she looks mean as hell. Let all of them continue to be model prisoners and do good behind bars. Many prisoners do well in a controlled environment. Doesn’t mean they are fit for the outside. These people bragged about the brutality they heaped on their victims. All are sociopaths who don’t have any empathy for their victims or their families. Let them rot behind bars!

  13. Ama says:

    DJ perhaps you should use caution when your diagnosing someone with a term that is not even a medical term like “sociopath” because you hear Tate toss it around to slander and influence others with liitle knowledge, like yourself seemingly. Except consider this: When you call someone a “sociopath”, or being “mean” and “ugly” (none of which is against the law, just an fyi).. but your justification lacks sincerity or intelligence with the whole “scumbags should be put down” blah blah etc Please keep talking, this level of maturity and intelligence will actually help the women’s parole cases 😉

  14. Stephen Craig says:

    How interesting it is to read the above posts re: PK and her potential parole. It’s as if we are all looking at the same image, and yet see something different. When I think/see of PK, I cannot help but think of AF and what it must have been like for her, to be running through the Polanski house, looking to escape, already wounded by Tex, and being savagely assaulted by PK as she tried to run through the louver doors in Tate’s bedroom, where she fought so fiercely to save herself, then out on the lawn as PK continued to chase and stab, and how she finally called out, “Stop! I’m already dead!” before succumbing to her wounds. What that experience must have been like for her. The abject terror/pain. There are no words to adequately describe the reality of that experience. So, whenever I read about PK, all I “see” is a savage killer who should have been executed years ago. Yet, obviously, as indicated by the aforementioned posts, there are those who look at PK and “see” someone who has “earned” her freedom, and should be paroled. Obviously, I couldn’t disagree more. To me, it is irrelevant when these crimes took place, how old the defendants were when they commented these atrocities, whether or not they were high on drugs or unloved by their parents. Manson himself told the Tate killers as they left the ranch to “paint a picture” so gruesome that the world would never forget it. And they did. And in doing so innocent people lost their lives in the most unimaginable, horrific way(s). For me, PK (and the rest of them) are right where they belong.

  15. Mickey says:

    Stephen Craig – thank you so much for remembering AF, so rarely mentioned or recalled as the other innocents so brutally and horrifically slaughtered and mutilated that night. What an incalculable loss to the world. These murderous airheads do not deserve their life sentences, it is true – they derserved much worse but they got lucky. Now they continue to torture the victims’ families by crawling out of their cells every few years to reveal their hideous selves to their troll defenders. Justice in these cases will be impossible to come by, but at least Jerry Brown is doing his best at giving them a little of what they did to their victims.

  16. Terry says:

    Krenwinkel will never get out. It’s just not going to happen for her. If Davis and Van Houten can’t even have their recommendations for parole/release approved by Governor Brown (and also Governor Schwarzenegger in the case of Davis), and those two defendants were far, far less culpable than Krenwinkel in terms of the amount of murders they directly participated in, Krenwinkel doesn’t even have a chance of getting by a parole board to have her recommended release denied by a governor. Krenwinkel’s ‘intimate partner battering’ may have been a reasonable defense avenue to pursue if she had ended up killing Charles Manson for smacking her around, a la the Battered Wife Syndrome. As an explanation for her participating in both the Tate and the LaBianca murders, that tactic smacks of a desperation move offered by Krenwinkel’s attorney, and has zero chance of persuading a parole board that such behavior would make Krenwinkel any more suitable for release than she otherwise already is. I would tend to believe Manson did smack Krenwinkel around. The introduction of that into Krenwinkel’s historical psychological background isn’t some substantial pivot point in terms of generating a top-to-bottom reevaluation as to the nature of her crimes or her suitability for release. I agree with most of what Fayez Abedaziz says: I also do think Governor Brown – or members of his staff, which in effect amounts to the same thing – and various parole boards throughout the years have let the massive amount of enduring media attention combine with their own personal prejudices toward the various Manson defendants, and the net result of all of that has been one of denying parole on the flimsiest legal pretexts even when parole has been deemed warranted by the appropriate prison boards. It is prejudicial to the incarcerated Manson defendants, violates their rights and represents a hypocrisy against the notion of due process and rehabilitation. However, people live in a world where such paradoxes are inherent, and moral/ethical/legal trade offs are a part of life. The notion of living with what would appear to be two directly opposing points of view isn’t some lofty theory, but part of the price of doing business via living in society, such as it is today. It’s why I have no doubt Governor Brown and the parole board which oversees Krenwinkel’s incarceration will continue to lose not a moments sleep over Krenwinkel’s incarceration, regardless of how egregiously inmate Krenwinkel’s civil rights are continually violated. Even if that situation persists until the day Krenwinkel dies. And to be honest, I won’t lose any sleep over it, either.

  17. Vicki Mitchell says:

    I am a baby boomer & will sign petitions until my dying breath against any Manson member gaining parole. EVERYONE in America was affected by all the evil murders so callously committed by these devils. “Charlie’s women” were worst than the male killers. They are ALL sociopaths…NO cure, NO treatment, NO medication ever helps a sociopath. There is NO way they can be rehabilitated EVER, & they are much too dangerous to live in a free society at any age; yet, they seem to do well in a “controlled & structured” environment.

  18. Carri says:

    Their victims can’t get parole from death, so why should these killers. Sharon’s baby never got to see the light of day. They murdered a baby who was very close to his due date. Sharon and Abigail and the others were good people who still had plenty of good left to do in this world. Their lives were stolen from them. They were tortured and murdered. So, no, none of the criminals responsible deserve parole. Their sentences should have gone back to the death penalty. These killers have nothing to offer the world. Saying they’re sorry or were young and did stupid things in no way makes up for what they have done. Charles Manson may have put them up to it, but these killers had a choice. No one forced them to commit murder. They made the choice to kill all on their own. They should rot in prison forever.

  19. Justice for innocents says:

    I am so glad to see people remembering the innocent and condemning the psycho murdering creatures who ended those lives. Never, ever let them free or take a breath outside the bars of a prison. They should all have been executed.

  20. Gary K says:

    First to agree to parole any of those convicted of these crimes would be to invalidate and disregard the intent and desires of the juries that convicted them in the first place. The Jury meant for these to incur death due to their crimes and they should therefore die in prison and not released, for any cause.

    Second, given the descriptions of the murders there is no doubt that many or most of those murdered died horribly and aware that they would soon be breathing their last breaths while in pain and torment at the hands of people they didn’t know for reasons they could not imagine. People should be responsible for their actions and to allow parole, for any of the participants would be to send the message that at some point the decisions we make might be able to be forgiven or set aside.

    Third: While some of those, or even most, of those convicted and that participated in the murders have since their time in prison, apparently, found salvation in, and through, Christ is good news but should not be a get out of jail card free. What they did, they did and they should continue to serve the sentence they received (LIFE). If they have truly found salvation then their reprieve from punishment shall be found and had in the afterlife. We shall all face God’s judgment and all have sinned accordingly so we each shall face our afterlife judge one day and hopefully we all will find grace in God’s eyes through Christ for our offenses. The actions of the family, on earth, continue to have an affect on people and the relatives of those murdered and deprived those killed, and the unborn, of the chance for a full and bountiful life and that will never change with time or the laws of the land. Likewise the verdict for their crimes and what took those lives should not change accordingly so Parole should not be granted for any of them based upon the nature of the crimes and the veracity of them and the torture nature. I know there will be those that believe they should be paroled at this point in their life but let grace rule in the next life and the sentence first imposed in this life.

  21. Shirley Coffey says:

    After reading the posts above, I felt I had to comment. First, I am a criminal/forensic psychology major. I have been doing a lot of research re: The Manson Girls. In doing a lot of reading, I have discovered one key element: the word “Manson”. Manson falls in the category of the likes of Jim Jones, Father Divine, and David Koresh. Each of these so-called “Messiahs” all had the ability to manipulate and direct their followers by psychologically finding what each member’s trigger was. They used those triggers to get their followers to do whatever it took to please them. Now, almost 50 years later, people are using Manson as reason to say “no” to any and all paroles. Instead of taking each persons accomplishments individually, they are still associated with Manson whom none of them have had contact or dealings with in those almost 50 years. To a point, each of the Manson girls is under the same stigmata that is associated with The Peoples Temple followers. Cult “escapees” are unfairly judged even after many many years of disassociation. This, I believe, is the case of Leslie Van Houten. Almost two dozen renowned psychiatrists, the college where she tutors, family, friends, and prison officials agree that she is of absolutely no danger to society. Her chances of doing the same thing are 0%. The California Board of Pardons and Paroles concurs. Yet because of the name “Manson”, she is denied parole by the Governor. The relatives of Leno and Rosemary
    LaBianca are only harming themselves by re-opening the emotional wounds of the past.

  22. Fayez Abedaziz says:

    Hello,

    The California Supreme Court, in 2008 ruled that:
    The ‘viciousness’of a crime should not be the main consideration for the decisions on the granting of paroles.
    The main and most important consideration should be, from now on, for the granting of a parole is: is the inmate a danger to society?
    And, that the Governor cannot deny parole if there is no danger from an inmate.
    But the veto of Leslie Van Houten, last year, was by the guv’s office.

    There you have it.

    Susan Atkins lay on a hospital gurney, with one amputated leg and with cancer.
    That was at her last parole hearing.
    The doctors said, she has several months to live.
    The parole board actually stated in their conclusion, on why they are denying her parole,
    that she was a danger to society.
    Oh…okay…
    And, here too, there you have it.
    Others, strong and healthy, over 1400 of them, by my last tally, of sorts were freed between that 2008 ruling and 2016. Some had murdered one and two people.
    But this is the parole that people focus on, you almost never hear about the other convicted
    and then released inmates,
    no, it’s these thee that should be…denied, huh…?
    because of:
    this that and the other…

  23. Fayez Abedaziz says:

    That’s ‘these three that should be…’
    I misspelled the word three, thanks

Leave a Reply to Gary K Cancel reply

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