• Patricia Krenwinkel • 2022

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: We are on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: We're on the record. Today's date is May 26th, 2022. The time is now 11:48 a.m. We are conducting this hearing by video conference. Ms. Krenwinkel, can you see and hear me clearly?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I can.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So if at any time during this hearing, you have any problems hearing anyone, please let us know right away. Okay?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: All right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You're coming through loudly and clearly for me. How about you, Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Loud and clear.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So this is the 15th subsequent parole suitability hearing for Patricia Krenwinkel, um, she has present in the BPH room at California Institution for Women. Um, she's there with her Attorney and all other participants are appearing by video conference and will identify themselves shortly. Ms. Krenwinkel, you committed your controlling offense while under the age of 26 and so this panel will give great weights to the youth offender factors in deciding your suitability for parole today. Additionally, you are now over the age of 50 and have served at least 20 years in custody, which qualifies you for elder parole consideration. So this panel will also give special consideration to the elder parole factors in deciding your case as well. This hearing is being audio recorded so for purposes of voice identification; I will call on each participant. And when I do, please give me your first name and spell your last name. For our victims who are present and support people or representatives, uh, when I get to you, please just give us your relationship to the victim and, um, and your purpose for being here today. I mean, if you're a victim, you — just your relationships to the victim, for the representative, um, just state that you're the representative and who you are representing today. I will go first. My name is Dianne Dobbs, D-O-B-B-S, Presiding Commissioner Board of Parole Hearings. Commissioner Pomerantz.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Dale Pomerantz, P-O-M-E-R-A-N-T-Z, Deputy Commissioner Board of Parole Hearings.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. We will go to the institution, Mr. Wattley.

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

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Ms. Krenwinkel, your turn.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Hi. My name is Patricia Krenwinkel, K-R-E-N-W-I-N-K-E-L, my w number is W08314.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. All right. We will next go to Ms. Tate.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: Debra Tate, next of kin to Sharon Tate, D-E-B-R-A T-A-T-E.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Mr. DI Maria?

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN DI MARIA: Uh, Anthony DI Maria D-I capital M-A-R-I-A, Jay Sebring’s blood relative.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Um, Mr. Smaldino.

VICTIM’S NEPHEW SMALDINO: Yes. Uh, Louis Smaldino, uh, S-M-A-L-D-I-N-O, and I'm the oldest nephew of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Ms. Martley.

VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: Uh, Kay Hinman Martley, M-A-R-T-L-E-Y, Cousin of Gary Hinman, a victim of the Manson family and a representative for Debra Tate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. Um, at this time, I'll ask everyone to mute themselves. Um, and of course, you are free to unmute at any time during the hearing if you are having problems hearing or if you need a break or something like that. Um, thank you. Thank you, everyone. All right. So there are correctional officers there at the facility with Ms. Krenwinkel, and they are there for security purposes only. Ms. Krenwinkel, did you have any problems hearing any of the other participants?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. Yeah, no, you don't have to mute at this time, um, officer, thank you. Um, all right. No problem hearing anyone…

ASSOCIATE CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAHONEY: Commissioner, do I…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Oh, I'm sorry.

ASSOCIATE CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAHONEY: Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: I am so sorry. Um, Mr. Mahoney, go right ahead.

ASSOCIATE CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAHONEY: No problem. Steven Mahoney, M-A-H-O-N-E-Y, Associate Chief Deputy Commissioner with the Board of Parole Hearing. I am observing only.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, Mr. Mahoney. All right. So no problems hearing anyone, Ms. Krenwinkel. What we're going to do right now is going to pause briefly so that we can check the quality of the audio.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right. 11, 11:53 a.m. Off the record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right. Back on the record, 11:54 a.m.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So, um, as I mentioned, Ms. Krenwinkel, this proceeding is being recorded. That is mandated by Penal Code Section 3042, Subdivision B. It will be transcribed as the official record of this hearing. No other recordings are authorized, including a recording that's available through the video conference software and a violation of this provision may result in exclusion from this or future hearings. So it's important for you to know, Ms. Krenwinkel, that we are not here to reconsider the findings of the trial or the court in your case. We're also not here to retry your case. This panel accepts the findings of the court. Our purpose today is to find out who you are now and to determine whether or not you would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released. Now to reach our decision today, we will look at many factors, including your prior criminal record, your behavior in prison, the programs that you've taken since coming to prison, we will look at your parole plans. We will, of course, consider your testimony during the hearing as well. This is a subsequent 15, so, um, you understand at this point how this all works, um, there won't be a lot of changes. I did note in reading some of your materials that, uh, your Attorney indicated that you will exercise your rights not to discuss the facts of the crime. Um, but I did note that additionally, you did write some statements. Um, found in the 10-day file in your insight statement where you did in fact discuss the details of the crime. Um, so we will note that as well. So as usual, I'll start off with questions for you. When I'm done with my questioning, then I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Pomerantz. He will have questions for you. He — um, after he does any follow-up questions based on what you and I have discussed, he'll move on, um, to talk about some of your programming, then he'll move on to talk about your parole plans. Once he's finished, he's going to give it back to me. I will go over the risk assessment with you. The risk assessment we're using today is a risk assessment authored by Dr. Spain, S-P-A-I-N. That document is dated March 4th, 2022. Once I get done with that portion of it, then we get to the part of the hearing where your Attorney has an opportunity to ask you any clarifying questions. Once he is done with that, he'll have 10 minutes for closing statements. Once he's finished with his closing statement, you may give your closing statement if you choose to do so. And then at that point, what I generally do is I'll check in with our victims to see if they need a break at that time before they give their victim impact statements. If they do, we'll take a brief break so that they can gather their statements. And then once we come back, we'll take all the, the victim impact statements. And then from there, we'll take a recess. Commissioner Pomerantz and I will leave the call, we will deliberate on the case. And then once we've reached our decision, we'll come back and tell you what our decision is. Again, if at any time during the hearing, you need a break or if anyone needs a break, just please, for those of you who are muted, unmute, let us know, we’re happy to take a break. Any questions before we get started?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I don’t have any.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: I have a question, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Yes.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Maybe I missed it, but, uh, but it's my understanding that Ms. Martley is appearing as a representative of Debra Tate who is also here. And your understanding is that they will both be speaking?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: They can both speak according to the regulations, they can both — they both get to speak. All right. As usual, um, Ms. Krenwinkel, in these hearings, we expect you're going to be completely open and honest with us. So at this time, I'd like to swear you in, 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?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. All right. So our records show Ms. Krenwinkel that you were born December 3rd, 1947. Looks like you were 21 at the time of this crime. You're now 74, have now been incarcerated, um, for about 52 years. That sound, right?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So we're going to do a review now under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I've reviewed the DECS database system and your Form 1073. Um, I see you wearing your glasses. That's what I have reflected in the record as the accommodations that you would need. Are those working okay for you today?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, they are.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So if at any time during the hearing you find that you need extra assistance, just let us know, the officers can provide you with a magnifying device. Okay?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: I see from the record that you do have a GED and it looks like you also have higher, higher degrees as well. Um, have you ever been a part of the mental health services?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Um, no, as far — I've never been in CCCMS.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. Um, are you on any medications today that would make it difficult for you to concentrate, pay attention, stay awake during this hearing?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Mr. Wattley, do you believe your client's ADA rights have been met?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Yes, they have. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Any preliminary objections today?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Uh, no. I was going to ask about the, uh, the size, the volume of the 10-day, just to make sure you've seen our submission…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Oh, I saw it.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: pages, but, uh, um, I don't really have any other, uh, concerns and I’m, I’m confident that you’ve, you've seen them. So, um, no objections at this time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Trust me, we, we — uh, at the time when I look at it, it was 6,452 pages. Since then there have been additional pages added to that. So I am well aware of it. We reviewed the entire file in preparation for this hearing.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Okay. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So in preparation for your hearing, Ms. Krenwinkel, we did review your central file, the comprehensive risk assessment, all documents that were submitted for this hearing. As we go through the hearing, please speak up and let us know if anything in your file is either not correct, if you need to further explain or anything like that.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: We also, we also did review the confidential portion of your C-File. Um, there was nothing relevant there. Um, so that will not be an issue for us today. All right. So your last hearing was in June of 2017. At that time, you got a five-year denial. And from my read of that transcript, it appears that they had some problems, they felt that you still had problems with the insights. They thought that there were some credibility issues and that there were some problems accepting full responsibility. Did you have a chance to read that transcript?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. And so after that hearing, did you believe that you had any additional work that you needed to do to demonstrate your suit — your suitability?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, what I did is I involved myself in, at that time it was called the LTOP program from this, um, SAP, the Substance Abuse Program, and took about five different classes from them, which were all based on developing insight. The — um, we had — there was, you know, Criminal Thinking, Victim Impact, Anger Management. Um, so there were different classes and I took them for a year. That was part of that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: We'll talk about that some more. Let me back up a little bit. I just want to say, um, I already mentioned that you are accessing your right not to discuss your offenses. Um, just note for the record that you are serving, um, a seven to life sentence for seven counts of first-degree murder. Um, and of course, this is, um, the victims in this case, um, were Abigail Folger; um, I'm going to butcher this name, but I'll just say Mr. Frykowski, um, was an additional victim; Steven Parent; um, Sharon Polanski; Jay Sebring; um, Leno LaBianca, Rosemary LaBianca. Um, those are, those, those are the victims in this case. And of course you had co- defendants, um, popularly known as the Manson group. Um, and, and so these are, um, some of the broad details of this case. These murders occurred over a two-day period. All right. So you have been incarcerated for 52 years. Um, when I look at your file, um, I did not see any rules violations, uh, any serious rules violations of any kind. Um, during the time you've been incarcerated, have you reflected on your conduct in the crime and what led you to such a high level of violence?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I have. And I've made myself available to other psychiatric, um, programs that they had here. It's not all the CCCMS thing. I now have, um, individual therapy with a psychologist and two out of time, different groups that, um, from once I got here, there used to be a lot of psychiatric groups available and I made myself available to all of them. I have sought out all the help I can get with anybody to help me find and look at and discover why I would have ever allowed myself to become involved in such a horrific crime and allow myself to these — to do something which caused so much hurt and pain to so many. So I have, yes, I tried to find all the programs I could throughout these years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So what's your understanding today about some of the things that you now understand contributed to why you would commit this crime, these crimes?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: What I know is that when I, when I was young and I know one of the reasons that I, I wrote out my statement was so to try to make it more clear if I'm not as clear when I'm speaking. When I, when I was young, I really, I personally felt that I was never able to really speak my mind or felt like I was a part of the family structure, where I was getting some kind of assurances that I needed to move forward and feel good about myself. I felt really lost within the family structure and didn't have any, um, real support to be a — to have any drive towards doing the things that I wanted. I was very — I spoke very little and I felt and my — the house that I came from, both my mother and father were having difficulties in their relationship. And amongst that was my sister, who was someone who demanded a lot of attention. And so what began to happen is I, I never put myself forward because she was always taking up the attention. And I, I became someone who just was frightened to talk, felt very little about themselves and just went along with everything because that was the only attention that I actually did get. The more that I basically was silent and didn't create any waves, I found that that was the way that I was accepted the best in the family was like just, just keep going and kind of leave the problems to the other side. And because of that, I started to develop a resentment for my sister who was the one that got the attention. And, you know, I also became angry because no one had time for me to try to help me with the things I needed, even if I started to do poorly in school and they say, well, we can give a tutor to help you. We can get someone else. It was never from the people that I wanted to look to, to be my support. And I felt unsupported and I began to just close off. And so I looked for others to feed that need and what has started to happen and by a pretty young age, around 15 or so, I started using alcohol and my sister was a drug addict. And she along the way introduced me to drugs. And what I found is that once I started using the alcohol was the feeling that I could, and I have said before, it's like the feeling I could dance. I could, I could ease on and I, I, I could felt like I could fit in that I was accepted. Although sadly, I never got to see exactly how alcohol really makes you act. But I felt like being able to do that and take drugs made me feel in — feel like I was someone that had, that could talk and, and express themselves and give out and become a part of the group or whatever, but I was still, but that was by using that. I was without even recognizing this admitting that I couldn't, because…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: At 15 though, got there other things going on, because I think I read that at that time, your parents divorced that way as well, right?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, they pretty much separated at 13 and their final divorce was at 15. They were pretty much separated most of my life. My father honestly stayed away. He was a workaholic and he also was someone who had affairs on the side. My mother was very sad all the time. And she came from, uh, her backgrounds to be really pretty much a wife and a house, you know, to, to, to do housework and become, um, that, that was kind of what she had grown up to believe. And watching it fall apart, she started falling apart and she was very sad and very depressed most of the time. And she used certain like Valium and, and drugs that they would give at the time because of her depression. And so she didn't, as she separated, she also was a time when, um, I know that like, even in her considering divorce, we weren't supposed to talk about it. Silence played a big part in my family, too. My sister being a drug addict, no one really talked about what was going on. So I, I know that, um, I, I wasn't to speak about the problems we were having within our family to anyone. So that too was just one of those things that made me feel even less able to share or, or be outgoing or anything was that we lived in a, in a kind of a pond of silence.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So let me make sure I understand. So, um, the, your parents' relationship was, was kind of problematic. Your mom was depressed. Dad was, um, on available kind of it was involved in infidelity and kind of made himself available to the family emotions.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And then, um, your sister's abusing drugs and causing other problems for the family. She's getting all of their attention, right?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Your way of managing all of that was kind of just be quiet, make yourself the one that wasn't the problem child, but you weren't, you weren't speaking up for yourself. And at some point, you, um, became resentful, um, of all of that and angry towards her.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Right. Were, were you in the kind of family where, um, your mother would, you know, show you affection or your father would show you affection?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, at times, yes. I mean, they — you know, it had me, or, you know, they'd tell me I was a good girl. And most of that was dependent on not saying anything, being quiet and silent and not creating any waves.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So your sister was causing problems for the family. And all of a sudden now at 15, she introduces you to drugs, right? And what made you want to join her, knowing that she was causing so much distress to the family?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: One of the things about my sister was she was the only one that was in a way truthful in the family, I mean she knew everything was going wrong. And it was like she was the only one that I can ask or get, um, any kind of relationship. She's the one that explained to me pretty much about my period, about growing up. I mean, she was seven years older than I was. So she's the one that kind of introduced me to being who I wasn't. She would define when you can see mother is unhappy, dad is unhappy, you know. And so in her, I saw a truth that I didn't get from any, from any other available person or adult. And so at times it was — she was the relationship that I had to rely on for many — just even sometimes simple things. So our relationship was very complex because as much as I knew that she might be the problem and that she was the one that I would have to go to and say, could you help me out? Or would you take me here? Or would you, you know — and so when she was around, she was the one that I could relate to, because she was the one that would speak to me. So it was, like I said, our relationship has always been one of very — of complexity. I don't think at times I understood as much that she was using drugs. I need — you know, originally, I can understand. I think some of it, the problems that were happening with her would be with my parents, because she had been like in school deemed incorrigible, she ran away, things like that. So they would be talking about it but I wasn't brought into the conversation. So I didn't always understand it until later on, much of — some of that, some of it became hindsight, even, even then of what I was doing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So she started you using drugs. And when did it become a regular thing for you?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Pardon? I missed something.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So she started you using drugs. Did it come, did it become regular — how quickly after she introduced you to drugs, did you start regularly using drugs?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, when I was drinking more than anything, which wasn't something that she, she did, that was something that I think that we had liquor in our house a lot. And the people that around my mother, my father, they all used liquor and their friends used liquor. And so I started drinking, but what I found is that, you know, my sister, the first thing she introduced to me was like, benzedrine, which was — which would keep me up. And I felt like I could get more done. So she introduced me to that and she introduced me to like marijuana. She, she would like introduce it because the people that I was now already introduced to from school, even then that would drink with me were all teenagers too. She just kind of — it just kind of went along with something that I was already dealing, which was being around people who were, they themselves were starting to utilize things like marijuana and — but drank mostly.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So after you started drinking and then ultimately using drugs, did you — were you having problems attending school, cutting school, anything like that?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I did for a while. And that was kind of, I think one of the reasons that I — the benzedrine that she gave me seen your work, because then I could felt like I could do all of it. I could get to school; I could do all that. And I know that, yeah, there was time, I — while I was in school, I never did more than, I was just an average student because I didn't really get involved myself in school things. And by the time I was 15 and the people that I was around from school, I was picking a crowd that were not the A students, the people that were really looking at attempting to move forward to college and all of that. Drink was all taking a different road, a different route.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So, I mean, they were, they were drinking, but were they getting in trouble?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Some, yes. I mean, I — the people, and there was a, a little bit, there was, um, there was a friend that I had, um, that we used to get into her house, in the other house, there was no supervision. And so yes, things would, you know, could get — there could be a fist fight between the guys or there could be other, other things happening. Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: But I noticed that you have no juvenile record and it appears that the things on your arrest record, um, all came after you started associating with Mr. Manson.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So I just wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page with that kind of backdrop of what was going on. So you met Mr. Manson through your sister, I guess he came to visit at the house where you were living with her and ended up staying.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. I met him — um, actually he visited a friend of my sister’s who lived down a few houses, a few apartments down, because we were all in apartments. But, um, and I'm — so I met him there and my sister basically asked him, told him he could stay at our place, but the man that I met him through was someone who had done time with Mr. Manson at, um, Terminal Island, I believe it was Terminal Island. And they built it on time together.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: What, what attracted you to him?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: He was pointing out to me, my, um, feelings and I thought it was like some kind of, oh, great insight that he can notice that I was at that time, very depressed. I was — I just felt lost. I didn't really have any idea where I was going or what I was going to do. I had no — um, I was not looking ahead in any way. I had a job that I was not happy with. I was living with my sister at that point, was very depressed in head. At one time while I was with her, she committed — she tried to commit suicide. Um, she had, she had her son lived with her who had some — also some real issues and problems. And so I was living with her after coming out from living in Alabama with my mother. And I had hoped that once I got there with my sister, I could find a way to move out or something like that, but it never transpired. So when meeting him, he was someone who just, all of a sudden, I felt like he seemed to have the answers. He seemed, um, he seemed a bit bigger than life and knowing where he was going and, in his presence, I started feeling, um, like I, that he would — that somehow his take on the world was the right, was the right one. That he was very insightful of how everything was going.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Hang on one second.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Ms. Martley, are you, um, trying to say something I noticed your hand is up. If you'll unmute, Ms. Martley. Ms. Martley, can you hear me?

VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: All right. No, I didn't have my hand up.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. Because if you, if you — across the top of your screen, third icon from the left.

VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: If you put your cursor over there, there's a little hand, if you'll click on that, it'll pull it down.

VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: Oh, okay. Sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. That's all right. I just want to make sure you weren't trying to get my attention. All right. Sorry about that, Ms. Krenwinkel. Okay. All right. So, so it sounds to me like he was identifying a lot of your feelings, kind of like what we refer to today as he appeared to have gotten you, right? Right, he kind of saw your struggles, things like that. Um, and, and kind of pointing out what you already knew that your living situation wasn't the best in the world at the time. And then of course you thought that he was going somewhere with his life.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So you ultimately — well, let me back up. So when you initially met him, um, was there drug use together with him at that time?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yeah, I'm sure. Yes. As smoking marijuana, I, I think that was probably it at that point. Um, maybe, maybe drinking a little because my sister always had beside, besides my sister always had liquor in the apartment.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So how many visits — I'm sorry, go ahead.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: It wasn't any halluci — I’m sorry, but hallucinogens didn't enter into it for, uh, maybe I don't know a week or so when I eventually left with him at hallucinogenic were introduced by him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So that was going to be my next question. My next question was going to be what persuaded you to want to live with him?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Because in — I, again, I felt like I just had no, I had no control over what was happening in the apartment. I felt at a loss to be able to make anything seem to be all right at that point. Um, I was overwhelmed because I didn't know how to make things either with my sister who had — I said this — at this point was becoming highly suicidal. And she was really invested in her drug use. And I wouldn't be living with her, I got to really see her struggling with her life. And then her son was struggling with his, and I just felt like I had — I knew that I didn't have anything to seem to offer to this. I didn't know how to correct it. I felt, um, I just felt really lost. I didn't have any direction out.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So in deciding to go with him, what were you expecting to happen?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I had expected it somehow. He was like the new man in my life. And we were going to have some kind of intimate relationship that he, that you know, that I would be loved that I — that he was showing me definitely, you know, when I first met him, he showed me affection. He told me, um, he loved me, you know, he was starting to love me that I was beautiful. He, he gave all these very, very — had answers that I wanted to hear because I just felt like I've never had anyone that that gave me those kind of, of things that made me feel internally like I was — that I'm, I might be okay that I might be loved that I might have the kind of affection that I was looking forward to, uh, in my life. And so he seemed to fit that bill.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And so how long after you left, looking back now, how long after you left, um, did you start seeing signs that this was a bad idea?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think very — although I didn't really know, know what red flags may be, but there was his domineering, controlling was absolute and he, if he was — if he decided that we were going to turn right, it was always going to be turning right. No matter if I have even spoken up, but when I found this, I had already — I was already someone that did not speak up. And when I did, and if he came back even loud, I shut down even more because I was some — I never was someone that became assertive to what I want, my, my wants and my needs. I never knew how to demand for those or even present them. And so I would let him — I totally let him and just ride over and take control. It was very easy to say, okay, you have the wheel and that's it. And I found that I get, but I also saw that if the relationship never became what I had wanted, and I didn't say, you know, open and let me go, because now you've introduced even new women here and you're not treating me exactly I did — I didn't do it. I just kept accepting and allowing myself to go all along for the ride.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: When was the first time that you did something that, you know, was against the law after you started being with him in that group?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I, I think, uh, honestly, I, I started, I guess, in criminal thinking, it happened even before him and that, uh, being around with people that used drugs, my sisters and the relationships she — and all the people that he had around were all people that accepted drug use and him too, so that, I mean, the people we met were not the everyday good citizen, I guess, is what I’m saying.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Yeah, but I'm trying to, I’m trying to have you focus though on, you know, the point in time where you're being with him in that group turn criminal is what I'm trying to understand.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Probably baby food from markets or was probably the first simplest thing is that we would, we look — if he ran out of money that started happening, that we would try and get food. And sometimes we just really would steal. Uh, we met people who along the way, who definitely had, um, weapons on them, people that were selling drugs. Um, I met people who were selling from that — I, I met a pimp who was selling women. I met — you know, it was all — these people, people that we started, that he knew, um, a forger, um, he went to get high…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Well, let me stop you, let me stop you. I don’t mean to cut you off.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yeah.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: I, I'm just trying to understand. So you are somebody who had never pretty much violated the law aside from drinking, underage drinking, you know, and, and, and using drugs inappropriately. Up to that point, you had somebody who hadn't violated the law in any very serious ways, right?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So what do you think made you so willing to going in that direction at that point?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, my sister did, my sister — um, I had seen my sister fight. My sister had been involved in robberies. Um, so I have — I was introduced a bit through my sister through — to criminal lifestyle that she held and of course using drugs. And so I had seen violence when I was with my sister. Um, and like I said, and we had different people that were, you know, ex-cons that was an ex-con that I met Manson through. So I had been there to do somewhat to a different kind of an unstable and stable lifestyle. And then, so when I got with him and I started going around, the people we were around were all using drugs. So it all seemed like it was okay and appropriate, everywhere we went, there was a huge amount of drugs being used at that time, as we started traveling the roads, it was — I mean, I — and I — it always sounds cliché, but I was in the sixties when everyone was using, started to use hallucinogenics, were using a lot of weed, really using hash use and different drugs. And so when we started meeting people even on the road and would pick them up or stop, it just seemed like there was a lot of drugs at that time. And so introduced along the way with people that had their lifestyles were definitely into criminal side, they were, you know, they were doing that. And so they would just be around us. And so little by little that became the norm to me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. Got it. So there, you, you wrote about, um, a time when he asked you if you would ever kill for him.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, he did. He asked that of myself. I told him that that I would.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And he asked you that in what context, if you recall?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: He — this was later on after I was with him for a total of two years and when he — when we started to gather more people together and he was really struggling to create the, um, at this point I called, it was — there was more and more members and he would basically have — everybody had their like duties or whatever, but I know that, um, he started coming up with a philosophy that was that there was going to be more, he started thinking that somehow he was going to be some kind of leader in it. He started, he started emerging of course, as a leader, because he was the controller of the cult, he was the, the supreme at that point. But we had been using drugs along the way. And so when he started just the simple way with saying, we’re going to do always — you know, do what I say do. And then it became more a mantra of would you — what would you do for me. If you're here, you would do anything for me because he absolutely accepted the mantle of being the, the leader of the Christ life figure that was leading the cult. And so it became, it went from one to another, until he finally said, if I ask you even to kill from you, would you kill for me? And I said yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Right. And, and he, wasn't talking about just any war, he was talking about a race war.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, a race war, absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. So he's talking about a race war and, and I, I, I read, you said that, you know, it was kind of this, them against us mentality that existed in the group, right?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right. And we, we became isolated. And one of the things from the beginning was we isolated. He didn't, he didn't allow people to come in that were — that wanted to speak about things that were contrary to his philosophy. So when it became is that he felt that anyone that didn't agree with him was other. And so it was us and it was the other. And we ended up more and more becoming more internalized in the group that we were. And we had no one from the outside to try to open that up to other ideas. And as he accepted that, so grew his idea that somehow or another, there was going to be, you know, that this was going to be a race war and that he was going to somehow be some kind of leader when it was all over. And that we were going to go and live in a hole in the desert until it was over. So he started, he started getting more and more convoluted. And he started, he started talking about, he started thinking of weapons because people — because of the other, which also we did at times when there was a problem once with Viper Groups that he had created some kind of and they did come up to the ranch, we were carrying weapons. Um, he, he wanted, you know, he wanted to make sure they didn't come up and start something really — you know, that would have, that would have ended in a violent. So there was like he started watch outs and, you know, people watching out and things like that. So there was this little by little where there were other people that did not like us, and we didn't love — like them, I guess. And so we worried about the possibilities, so it wasn't…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Help me, help me understand. So you're kind of all in now in this, I'll just call it, alternate lifestyle.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You know, living, living off the grid basically.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You know, stealing to get what you want and, you know, kind of using drugs. Um, what made you stay, stay there?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: At first, I used — I stayed because I somehow kept believing that I was going to be able to maintain some kind of relationship with him. At times, he would be — I would have — it would be like good. And then other times not. But what started to happen is that there was of course a lot of introduction of violence and threats and, uh, definitely a lot of use of drugs. And if there was, um, any dissension it was dealt with and you could be beat up for it, you could be threatened for it. And there was always this feeling that through the isolation that there was, there was kind of no way out. And I, and the problem I know with just internally for me is that I didn't, I never really knew where to go. I — it's, if I did have it in me, and even in the beginning, it was like once I had committed to going on the, um, on — with him and we started isolating more and more, I didn't have any — I did — certainly didn't have my own money. One of the things is we never were alone. I had no money. I had no place really to go. I didn't want to go back to my sister. I had no other place. And I felt like I just had maybe if I stuck it out, it would get better somehow. And that — and so that and the drug use was like, and my commitment to him and to this idea that I had of some kind of relationship, just kept…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: SO let me ask this, let me ask this question then. So, you know, when I look at what you ultimately did in these cases, you know, it's pretty extreme behavior.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You developed some sort of disconnection, uh, with regular society?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Oh, absolutely. I mean, there was no talk — one of the things that we always had to do is we can never leave alone or be alone. And so we all supported as we can't ask — as he introduced a concept that we all supported by supporting one another and saw to it that each would continue on with that philosophy. And also it wasn't that we just kept that up. We also would tell on each other. I mean, if someone seemed like they weren't going along with the program, eventually that was told to him or whoever at that time that he also — at times would delegate his authority to some of the other man and they — and, and it became threats or violence. Um, if sometimes too, he would just send you away to places like we had different places out in the middle of the woods. And so he would get you there and you would be living out there, which made it really difficult because you also didn't have any communication with anybody. You were totally isolated. And, um…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay, got it. So a few years ago, I think it was 2017, you — um, a investigation was conducted into intimate partner battery, um, you know, and, and how that may have influenced your conduct in these crimes, right? So talk to us a little bit about that, that escalation, and what prevented you from, you know, leaving after he started physically and mentally abusing you?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, some of them, of course, was fear and, and I have to definitely introduce that because he had physically at times abuse me, he had also done things to humiliate and degrade. He was very good with a lot of different things that you do from standing you up naked in front of a whole group and just tear apart how you look in your body and he would make you just — he had make you feel like you were just worthless. And so that was his way of breaking you down and trying to then put you back together again. He, I — at times, if I even thought of leaving at the — like the first times that I left him, one of the thing is, is that I wanted this man to care about me. And so the horrible thing about it is that even when I did like leave, when he finally came and got me the first time, I was glad just to see him there, because maybe it's still that he cared about me. And he was very good at that. All of a sudden at — from you could go for weeks and I wouldn't even see him and I'd be doing other things because where we lived at, like at the ranch and stuff, I would be doing other things, um, taking care of other people or the children, or working with the horses or different things. And then also he would show up and he would, for us, small amount of time, he was like this great lover and friend and oh, everything is fine. And, oh, I love you. And then, so it was always this — it was from one to the other, you were — I was either worthless piece of garbage or I was this wonderful person here. And I couldn't, I — inside, I just started feeling that I couldn't, I couldn't, I couldn't figure out what I was supposed to do. One thing that I do know is that he was very good. At the minute, it seemed like I was starting to think or maybe moving to where I could understand — try to even get a grip on my own mind. He was there and he would change it around or we would go somewhere, do something. And he used a lot of threats and used a lot of different things. Like just driving in a car, maybe going around the curbs at like a hundred miles an hour or something. Then he got — throw open the door and say, well, if you want out, get out and say that like, you know, and almost to pushing, he was a lot of threatening things that he would do. And, and then, and so — and then all of a sudden, maybe the next day he would say, oh, you know, God, you, you know, thank you, you're such a — you know, I really care about you. And, and you know that, don't you? You really know I — you know, I love you. So it was his constant up and down. And I really have to say internally, I never had a good grip of what a solid relationship should be or what it looked like. I never knew that this was absolutely inappropriate and this is what would have been appropriate. I never set a boundaries or any way of, of grasping what should — what a relationship really would stand on, a good, solid relationship. So I was always felt, I was just kind of walking on, you know, sand.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So when I look at the details of, of, of these crimes, I mean, it's a high level of violence, very callous. I mean, these are victims that you guys didn't know, right. Just regular victims?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right. Yes, I didn't know that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And, and so I have to ask this question, where do you — did you develop that level of callousness to be willing to — especially since when I look at him saying, I want you to go, I want you to go over there. You're not going by yourself right, there are other people there, so you could have easily not participated, right? So help us understand where did that level of callousness come from for you?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Part of it is being surrounded by to be a part of that, the group that we all were seeing to be agreeing on the same thing and that the philosophy was that somehow if we did this, we were going to be safe and we were going to fit this — the world was coming to this end, and that we were somehow going to be safe. And his philosophy was that if we did something that, that was so horrible and wretched and scary, that then nobody else would ever try to intimidate us or, or come and, and cause any problems that, that, that if the worst you do one thing then you create this image of fear and that the, and that no one else would, would try to bridge that themselves. But you have to be the biggest monster in the, in the group. I think that'd be the easiest way to say to…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Did you also, did you also see it though as a way of you raising your status in his eyes?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Probably so because I wanted to do whatever he wanted me to do and be the best at it that I could, because that made me the good soldier, the good, I don't know, girlfriend, the good, the good member of this group, because after a while, the definition of what we had become was very different than when originally, you know, when we became a group of around 50 people, we were very different and there was a whole lot of different dynamics, you know, psychodynamics going on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So after the murder of the first two victims the second day, did you have any hesitation?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Not when he told me to get into the car.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And you kind of knew what was going to happen, right? Especially after the first day.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Tell me what you understand today are the things in your character that made it so easy for you to go along with such a level of violence. And then we're going to talk about how you address those things.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: What I, what I understand is that in, in this relationship, as it to complete this — continue to develop within the two years that I was with him, there was an elevation of violence in all directions. So I became more — it became more normal to see violence, to be around violence, to see, um, weapons, to hold weapons, that somehow the feelings and we would see at times, uh, there would be, uh, uh, uh, some kind of crisis with somebody that we'd come up to the ranch and there would be fights or there would be some kind of, uh, violence from then and they would be thrown off, um, the ranch. It was, it was — so it was escalating to where it would seem like this was, this was, uh, get — violence was now going to be something normal. We, we — he trained us in using weapons. Um, we had, like I said, we had other people that came to the ranch that used weapons and deliver them. And so it's like this idea that some — that if we would just show that we were, uh, the biggest monsters in town, somehow it was — I guess it was supposed to stop. I don't know how — I, I can't speak exactly for how Manson’s mind went, but I did know that I, I committed myself to him and I committed along the way to what he wanted to do. I didn't — I wasn't in on his — a lot of his machinations, but I — it didn't matter because I was there and I was willing, he knew to follow him wherever he wanted to go.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So, so you were, um, I want you to tell me some of the character, character defects or the things about your character that made this all so easy for you to be a part of, right?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yeah. I — the, the biggest thing was that I just never felt any self-esteem. I never felt like I had a right to step forward and speak and say anything that I should, when I did or ever had tried with him, I was shut down and abused for it. So I was even more quiet than I was even living in my own home. I, uh, I started by developing even there to that same idea, it was just playing out again that the — there, there may have been anger and resentment that I was not seen as being the primary figure in his life anymore. I had those going for me. I was — um, I had absolutely no boundaries of any kind. You — everyone can just come up and do say, manipulate me in any way. I also would use the philosophy that I have gathered to, to try to manipulate others to stay. I, um, I was definitely — uh, I wanted to be a follower of this man and where I thought we were going, because that's what I at that time told myself this love and affection and was my attention and I was that needy that I accepted anything that he — any, anything that he would do, any promise from his table to me seemed okay. I had just totally allowed myself to just start absolutely becoming devoid of any form of morality or real ethics. I just somehow bottomed out where there was — I gave up just anything that was — that had, that would question inside of me what was going on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Well, how do you, how do you begin to bring yourself back from, you know, at such a low place?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Um, I've — it has, it's been — what I have done for the last 50 years is trying to locate that bottom that absolutely allowed me to feel nothing and be nothing and see myself as nothing. And as it began is when we were arrested and we finally, um, were brought here. Then I started meeting with a — allowed me only to like meet with my family. And it was when people started questioning who I was, then I had to start looking again for answers. And they were all very difficult to find. I had psychiatrists that I worked with, psychologists that I worked with to try to locate what would allow me to ever allow someone to take over my life like that, to give up control of all — of everything that was important to me that I at least knew was good or so on. Why would I let someone else lead me in that direction? And much of it was that I never seem to have just a solid core of who I was, what I wanted and what I needed. And it's taken years of going through every little, every little thing that I had thought. And every little bit of — the philosophy that was kicked out the side — this idea that, um, education, wasn't a good thing. I mean, this man had developed his, uh, idea to where, uh, families were seen as enemies because they questioned things that anything that would possibly come in and, and his reality, he told us that he needed to make sure that we didn't have any if that happen to us either. And so when I came here to have people just ask questions, even basic questions had to get me to start looking again at who I was. And the difficulty of that was a lot — was also that one I started to, to starting to have to look at who I was and what I had done. Then I had to face what I had done and the damage and the absolute power, and the, and the cruelty, the callousness, the absolute horrible nature of my own person to be able to allow these things to take place and allow myself to do them to become a part of a group that was so horrific that human life meant nothing. And that human life was just — was somehow at this point an inconvenience to this great idea that this man, this is some philosophy had was going to happen. And it was — and so throughout time I have definitely worked at picking it apart, and I have had some amazing psychologists, psychiatrists along the way that have been very, very good with me in trying to — in, in helping me to find my way in.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Now, during the time that you've been in prison, have you used any drugs or alcohol?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Only when I first got here a bit, but pretty quickly I stopped. I — by 1980 nothing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: And so what made you stop?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Because I didn't want to, I didn't want to — I wanted to think clearly. I finally understood that I had to read in clearly in my brain, and then I had to look at everything no matter what that may cost me. I had to be honest to myself and drugs will never be able to be allowed in my system again, because that absolutely creates a different reality.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Now, just so that I'm clear, I think I remember reading that in both of the unbolted days of these crimes that you were not under the influence, is that correct?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right. I hadn't taken drugs. I was using marijuana probably because that was always available, it was like our tobacco.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Um, you are not diagnosed with any mental health diagnosis or a personality disorder at this point. Um, what have you learned since coming to prison that would help you recognize an unhealthy intimate relationship, um, for the future?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: First, it would be if I'm not speaking up and saying what my needs are. The first is defining my own needs. By setting boundaries, by knowing that I would not take abuse in any way, that anybody, that anybody saying whatever they wanting about me, that is not someone that would care about me or anyone that chose any physical kind of abuse. Um, mostly is communication. It is talking, it is the one thing that I did not do in my life, even as a child. And that is I never spoke up and to, and demand that I be heard. Now, I have to be able to say what my main basic needs are, and they need to be met by anyone else that's in a relationship with me, even friendships. I want positive feedback, not things which are bringing me down or tearing me apart. And I have found, you know, that the most important is speaking out, it’s letting somebody know you hurt my feelings or what you're saying is wrong. That I have this opinion, and this is my opinion and me not — and doing that too. I become, you know, I — in my own opinion, maybe person on things. And now I won't let someone just come and decide because I want, I want to be friends that I'm going to give up what I know is right. That isn't going to happen anymore and I've learned to stand up for myself.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So before I turn it over to Commissioner Pomerantz, I just want to ask, you know, when we look — when we make a parole decision, we look at who you were then, who you are now, what would you say aside from the 74 years old, what would you say is the biggest difference between the Ms. Krenwinkel sitting before me today and the person who committed these crimes, what would you say is the biggest difference that would make it show so that you never commit another crime again?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: First, that I enjoy my own company. That I know that I am a person that has wants and needs, and I go after them. Now, I, I decide that if there's something that I want to do, I — myself, I go out there, I'm the only person doing it. And I have started groups here that I've thought were important. I have decided that I want to train dogs and I have done it. And I haven't asked no one else. I listen to, look in teaching, but I have, I have — I got educated was number one too is that I love to continually educate myself and give myself a chance to think about new things, to engage myself in the world and listen to others, to always listen and to allow their ideas to be as valid as mine, whether I agree or not. I have become someone who likes to engage in debate and conversation and I put myself out and I have found that that is the biggest difference. It was very difficult at first. I started forcing myself out to absolutely stand up, like going to AA and finally be the person that sits in the front row and raises their hand when they say, do you want to share? That is the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life. And I do it constantly because it's important to me that I put myself out and not become internal again, that I let people know who I am, whether or not you accept me. I don't care. This is your life. And I am content with what I have done to try and put the pieces back together.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. So that that's a perfect transition. So your Attorney mentioned it earlier, there were thousands of pages, um, mostly made up of signatures, but there were also many letters, inmates’ statements from people out in community who absolutely think that you should die in prison. And so the reality is, you know, if you're allowed to leave prison, you are going to come upon a lot of people who don't believe that you deserve a place out there. So how do you plan to manage that if you are allowed to release, to leave prison?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I, I believe everyone definitely has the right to feel any way that they would feel about me. I, I, you know, that — there's no way to change people's opinions unless I am, you know, talking to them one-on-one, maybe they want to, you know, engage me in that. And I, you know, like we're doing now. I mean, I can, I can say who I am, if you don't accept that, that's fine. I can't force that. I know that there would be those problems, but I also know that if I'm released, I would not — I, you know, I definitely would change my name. I would have to, because of the kind of notoriety this was given. I would — that I would still intend to become involved. And in some ways, I — you know, I — there are teams and ways that I would like to as much as people may not like it. I would like to share some of the things that have been learned throughout this time and through, and through what, what drugs do, what relationships can do. And there's been many things that have happened in my life. So I don't, I don't want to just figure that because there are so — there might be so many against me that I would shut down. I will have to be present and do the best I can from there. I would — that I would not certainly not go out and, and, you know, save, you know, here I am and, you know, you're welcome to do that, but I, I know that there would be some, you know, problems with that if it became — if there was anybody would comment at me, you know, that actually would present problems, real problems, then I would have to call the police. I mean, if somebody was — it became that I thought would become hostile or be a threat, I would have to, you know, engage with the police. But especially at my age, I — there are even things that I would like to do upon release, if I would, we'd still probably be training, God, it’s something I can still do at my age. Um, it's something I could do. It's not something that puts me, you know, in the middle of, you know, of a populace anywhere. I would, you know, I — at this point, like I said, it's 74 up and I would still like to become engaged. I enjoy doing things. And I would like to — I'm sure there are places that I could help or assist that people would know who I am. Maybe they would take and help me out. Maybe my Attorney would have some side jobs for me to do, but, you know, it's — I, I would like to become engaged with what's going on in the world but I do know that I would be very — I would listen very carefully and try to make myself aware of who I am around. And if there is some feelings or if there's something that could turn into something that would be, um, negative, I would have to be aware of that at all times, that I do know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So we've been going a while now. Um, let's take a five-minute break before we, uh, turn it over to Commissioner Pomerantz. Time is 1:06, 5-minute break.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Off the record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right. We are back on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. We're back on the record. Time is 1:16. I'm going to turn it over to you, Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Uh, thank you. All right. So, uh, Ms. Krenwinkel, um, some observations, and then I'm going to have some questions about your response to these observations. So when the Commissioner was talking to you about, you know, how and why all this stuff happened, there was a lot of discussion about your circumstances and environment that you found yourself in, the drug use, you know, uh, what, what other people were doing. And you're basically going along with it or copying what they were doing. Does that sound right so far?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Okay. So, and that you know, one understands this, but then the question becomes, there's a couple of things that come up. First of all, you were the one that placed yourself in that environment. And number one, you didn't make efforts to remove yourself from it. And number two, you allowed or responded to that environment in these negative ways. So what did you learn about yourself as to why you — when you found yourself in this environment and these circumstances, you didn't attempt to extract yourself from them? And number two, you basically were a total follower with no independent ability to, you know, think for yourself or to remove yourself.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: What I did is I — for the attention, I would give up whatever was, what, whatever I needed to do to which became being pretty much silent and going along with it to get positive attention. I was someone that…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Well, all right, well, let me, let me stop for a second. I understand that, we've covered that. But then the question is why — what was, what was with you, your, your, you know, we'd call it a character defect, personality trait, whatever word you want to use, you know, the psychology behind it. Why were you — why did you need that? What, what was it about you that made it necessary for you to respond in this matter to seek this type of, uh, you know, reinforcement or, or input one might say?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I believe it's because when I was, when I was young, I was pretty much just put aside. I didn't — that my needs then were not met, that I didn't get the affection and the love or attention that I wanted or that I felt that I then I should have. And so I just always felt that I had like a hole that just needed to be filled, that someone was going to come along and make everything right. If I, if — you know, if I allow them to that they would give me this kind of attention that they would say that I was all right or saying that I was, you know, uh, there were — I was somebody that was worth being loved. I, I didn't feel like I had any worth. And so if you said, gee did, that was really good. I really felt great that someone would do that because I had very little of that when I was young. And I believe that was at the core of it is that I just wanted someone to attention and love and saw that and give anything that I needed to do to have them love me. And then once getting into the relationship, it became much more complex and it became more — there was, there was a fear of love relationship. There was, um, different, different things that I wanted from it, be it more sex or no sex or whatever, whatever was a part of that relationship. And I just really believed that someone else had to, had to define who I was that I didn't seem to have the wherewithal to define who I was add and present that person.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Okay. Well, that makes sense that, you, you've kind of covered that. So, so one could argue that at that point in time, he had extremely low, if not, non-existent self-esteem and you needed outside validation from others to make you feel good about yourself, right?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Okay.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Correct.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: And, you know, there are — I'm sure there's a lot of people that had that situation. Uh, you know, you could probably find it, you know, at that point in time or any point in time people that, you know, were, uh, in, you know, as a child in similar situations as yours, but they didn't wind up, you know, killing somebody or multiple people in your situation. Um, and, but one can understand how you got involved in this situation and, you know, and, and obviously there's the factor the manipulation, and, and there's no doubt that that Manson was a master manipulator and was able to recognize the weaknesses in people and use that against them, uh, to, you know, achieve whatever ends he sought to achieve at any given time. Uh, but at some point, in time, you had to realize that what was going on was wrong. Um, for example, you know, obviously we, we've established, you were a follower, you did what you were told, but one could imagine that if, you know, you guys were, you know, in San Francisco and he told you to climb up, you know, go up on the 50th or 23rd floor of some building and jump off, you know, you wouldn't have done it because you knew that was just, you know, too far, right? Um, or you don't know. I mean, do you think you were that much of a follower?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yeah, we would.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Okay. All right.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: And that’s sadly, I do believe yes. If that was what, uh, it would have taken at that point, because we did some very crazy things…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: That these , that, that it was this idea you have to follow. And, and there was a time like when I first met him that we did go out in the woods and he'd throw knives at me or at the, at the tree, hit me up the tree and do that. And it was about trust. He wanted this absolute trust. And so there was this giving up little by little of trusting that his, his suggestions or what they ask would be followed. And those that didn't, if at any point in time definitely were beaten, or, you know, thrown out or whatever at that point. So that we — there was a lot of these strange almost like I — something done in, in, in groups like we've fallen in each other's arms, like backwards, you know, these weird things that were supposed to be somehow developing as constant trust for, uh, that, I guess that whatever you did, you'd be safe. I — I'm not quite sure what the ultimate end that you had, basically I had to do it. And that was — and so there were, there was a lot of that that was along the way. So it wasn't just like one day. I mean, I actually — and there’s a point where if he probably had said to jump off the building, I would've, it wouldn't have been much else to think about though.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: And I'm afraid we displayed some of that. I mean, we were — there was a lot of drug use and that has a tendency to make things seem…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: No, it seemed pretty clear that that the use of, of hallucinogens in particular was utilized as a method of control or manipulation. Um, let me ask you, um, it would seem that, you know, the first night, when he tells you to get in the car and, you know, you go to this other house, you guys didn't really know what was going to happen initially, right? Um, but you know, the next night when he says, hey, get in the car with Tex and the rest of them, I mean you had at that point figured, oh, gee, you know, it's going to be a repeat, repeat performance of the night before, right? So why, why not say no, or say, you know what, I did my part yesterday, you know, let somebody else do their part.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I can't imagine saying that to him, but that — you're right. And I went — I absolutely went because as…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: No, I know. But did you, did that thought, did that thought even ever cross your mind that I could say no. Or did you think it just never came up in your, in your, in your thought process?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: It's hard to say. I believe that, yes, I'm — I didn't, I didn't want to go, but I, I — at that time I was — I felt really, really empty inside. And after, after the first night, I think everything really started changing. That didn't change. I just was trying to absolutely block out anything. I felt very — just, all I can say that I was a very empty human being. I just really got rid of anything that was questioning anything anymore. I, I — it was like, I knew I had, I had jumped off that building. I had taken, you know, that last — the night before, just like — it just was like, it was the complete dissolution of myself.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right. Um, it's pretty clear that the influence lasted for quite some time after, you know, the, the — all these murders took place up through the trials and, and, you know, the, the whole circus, I mean, I was a kid, but I remember that on TV.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: So what point would you say that you broke the chain or the link of control? Um, at what point in time would that have been approximately?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: It starts, but just barely by being away from Manson, uh, it started like even in the County jail, because the women there would start asking questions that I really didn't have answers for. It was that beginning of being, of being, of being shown a different, a different way, and, and I wasn't surrounded anymore with — I didn't have that next person to me to keep was being my end, we've got to keep this going. We — there was definitely a breaking up and asking myself, is that, that statement, did that person say, is that valid? I started thinking again, I started having to respond to them and I — and so many that that's crazy. What you're saying is crazy. And, and so little by little, um, it was, it was being pulled away. And when we, and when I finally got here to CIW is when things really started clearing up, we were — I was only allowed to see like family. There was no, um, male, everything was really just cutoff. And we started to see psychiatrists and psychologists and, and actually, and getting educated and studying and they brought in some programs, all that to start, uh, making it absolutely clear that I had been down some hole that had absolutely — was absolute insanity. And then I had to start asking myself that really important questions and look at it again and give answers because they were being demanded of me. And this in the environment that I would now was. I was removed from the environment of the, of the cult, the — of Manson of the courtroom, which was happening on a daily basis to finally being away from him. And that's when things really started to turn. And, um, I started asking those questions of myself on what had happened, what have I done? And it's, it's — I honestly — it's being pulled away from the influence.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Okay. Well, what would you say or what — how would you respond to respond to someone, making an observation that gee, this was, you know, being, you was a person who's, who's, um, you know, constitution, so to speak or psychology was so weak that she was readily controlled and turned into basically a homicidal robot and that a person like that, you know, they could be manipulated again? How would you respond to that sort of, you know, observation or, or claim?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I — at this point, I've spent the last 50 years really looking at how I ever got involved in that kind of thing, allowing other peoples to make decisions for me to think for me, this idea, because I gave myself up to it. I didn't — it wasn't like some that I — you know, when he met me, I was, you know, I thinking, feeling person, but I, I allowed — I went along with him and in doing so little by little, I gave up myself as I went and the things I believed in, anything for that attention, but I understand, and I've — as I said earlier, I've worked on finding what is solid in me, what I think, who am I, what do I believe in? And not allowing anyone to knock me off of that, that, that is that I have grown up that this is that I know what is right and wrong. And I had let that go. The thing is that I actually have been able to see all that I let go, everything that was of importance, everything that was right. And, and I've had to really look at what is right, and what is wrong for me now? What, what do I believe and what do I stand up for? And I stood up for nothing so I just wanted this, sadly, this to be a part of, to be loved, whatever, it doesn't matter to me anymore. I can be by myself and, and feel perfectly comfortable in myself and the things that I believe in now. It's — it definitely has been, um, a long road because I've had to look at each and everything that I do believe in.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: So that I never go down that hole again.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Um, if we said no today, what would you do?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Do what I have been doing all along, to participate in groups that I participate in. I maintain the relationships that I do, um, that I already have. I would just continue on with the life that I have created here for myself. Um, that, that, that, that to me continues to, you know, um, build more continued to train dogs. Uh, I — the programs that I do here, I feel are important to me. EA, the dog program, um, and reading and doing — cheering, things that I do, it would, it wouldn't change it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right. Um, I looked — you know, looking at your parole plans, I don't see thicker issues there. I mean, you may have good plans, you have transitional housing, you have support. Um, so obviously you've given a lot of thought and, you know, analysis, so to speak of your parole plan. So when you were thinking about all that stuff, what scared you the most or worried you the most about, you know, getting out?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I think the thing that scares me most is that I know that everything's changed. So it's having to start absolutely from scratch and learning technology is something, I mean, I'm — I have no idea, um, developing, you know, just not looking at a pre — any major relationships. I have a few good friends and people that I know on the streets that I love. I, I want to get to know my niece a little more. That would be important to me. Um, I like to still work with dogs and do some things with my hands because I happen to enjoy to different hobby craps and things that I do, but on the whole, it's, um, I think that, you know, I just know that I know that I don't know, so I would have to utilize other people to, to help me find my way. It would have — they would have to show me how to use the things that are available, how to redo everything again, it'd be, you know, relying on — that's why the transitional houses are so good because that's exactly what they do. The transitional houses always help you with every little thing, because you've gotten out here. So that would be, you know, I need help to learn anything again.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right. And, uh, different question, maybe the same answer, maybe not, but what do you think would be your biggest challenge if you were paroled?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Um, again, I think it's just, it would be just, um, getting used to all the changes that are — that have happened. Um, I've had friends, if they say like when — just even on the roads, they — people drive faster. So, I mean, there's like this sense that you have to become accustomed again to the way things operate, um, learning how to manage money, on technology. I mean, I was — I am from the era that you wrote checks and you banked, you went to a bank. So if — I know that, I understand that it's all — it would be, everything would be brand new and I would have to be reliant on those people that I think that are, that have — well, you know, they offered themselves to try to help you, you know, adjust. It'd be a lot of adjustment. And I just have to, you know, just go along with it, understand that it takes a while, nothing's going to happen fast. It would take a little bit to get to learn things and not to be totally frustrated all the time, because I don't know how to turn that on or turn it off or, you know, so it would be, it would be a huge adjustment that given, you know, if, if I just calm down and take it slow and let someone advise me in the best way and keep at it and until I would be able to, you know, feel like I knew again how to work and, you know, work within the, the structures of the world as they are now, because I know they've changed in 50 years.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right. Um, I don't have any other questions at the moment. Uh, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So, um, let's turn to the risk assessment. Um, this risk assessment, as I mentioned earlier, authored by Dr. Spain. Dr. Spain found that you represent a low risk for violence. Um, in this risk assessment, the doctor made several diagnosis, um, substance related diagnosis for you, those include, um, give me a second, alcohol use disorder, cannabis use disorder, hallucinogen use disorder, stimulant use disorder. All of these are in sustained remission in a controlled environment. As I mentioned earlier, the doctor does not make any mental health diagnosis and no personality disorder diagnosis as well. And the doctor's discussion of, um, your clinical factors, I just want to read one excerpt from a section where, um, the doctor notes, there is little to no evidence suggested Ms. Krenwinkel has had recent problems with any risk factor in the clinical domain, including self-awareness or violence risk, violent ideation intent, symptoms of major mental disorder instability, treatment supervision response, Ms. Krenwinkel demonstrating an understanding of the historical risk factors that made her susceptible to Charles Manson's indoctrination, motivated her to remain in the Manson group. And that contributed to her behavior in the instant offenses. This understanding includes the personal, interpersonal and contextual factors that contributed to her violent behavior. For decades, she has engaged in rehabilitative programming, um, demonstrating a regard for the rules and has remained effectively behaviorally and, um, cognitively stable. Ms. Krenwinkel understands the need for treatment and supervision, both while incarcerated and in the community. When discussing the incident offense, Ms. Krenwinkel accepts responsibility for her crime and express what appears to be sincere regret for the death of the victims and the harmful ripple effect the murders caused. She further disavowed the dissolution of the — uh, delusional, excuse me, delusional and paranoid beliefs she espoused at the time of the crimes and finds it repulsive that anyone would attempt to use the murders or her relationship with Charles Manson for personal gain, including herself. The doctor goes on in discussing risk management factors to say that there is little to no evidence suggesting that you will have future problems with professional services and plans, living situation, personal support and treatment or supervision response. So you are qualified for elder parole. Um, are there any physical limitations that you're dealing with, Ms. Krenwinkel?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Um, not really. I, I mean, I, I, I have back problems and there are some, you know, I have some indigestion problems. I have, you know, certain things or — my body's getting old. And so I have certain things that are starting to, you know, I — I'm getting assistance for with that, but I'm on the whole, I'm, I'm pretty healthy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Right. The doctor notes here that, uh, there's no evidence in the medical records suggesting that you have experienced any significant decline in cognitive ability with age. Um, noted that long-term confinement had a positive effect on you. Um, little to no evidence in the record or in, um, in this evaluation, suggesting that you pose a threat to society at this point. And again, the doctor rated you as a low risk for violence. Anything you want to say about the risk assessment that I haven't highlighted?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So at this point, I'm turning to your Attorney, Mr. Wattley, do you have any clarifying questions for your client?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Well, let me just check my notes real quick, Commissioner. No, I don't have any questions, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So we will take your closing statement then.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Okay. Thank you. Um, the, the thing that's very clear in this case is that it presents, uh, you know, the most extreme situation when it comes to violence, uh, um, but also public awareness and, uh, the continued anguish, heartache, um, but also love and anger that we see coming from members of the victims’ families. Um, and I know that that has made it hard for Commissioners, uh, to focus on questions of continued risk of violence. Uh, but, but we know that is your charge here. Uh, I will refer the panel to my May 13th letter. Uh, that's in the, in the 10-day packet, starts about page 6,080, uh, or in 6,080 and 81 is where I discuss how the Board’s structure decision-making framework, um, should help guide your decision. A couple of things to highlight are the fact that just since Ms. Krenwinkel's last hearing, she's participated in some 14 different programs that directly address criminal thinking, substance use, uh, insight, victim impact, denial, among other things. Your, your psychologist have repeatedly found her to present a low risk of future violence, and they found her to have significant insight as you just recounted into all the factors that contribute to these crimes. We also provided expert declaration from Professor Allan Shevlin. Uh, it’s at page 6,084 in the 10-day. It similarly explains how in life Ms. Krenwinkel was so susceptible, why she stayed with Manson, why she participated in this extreme violence and how she's changed her life since she's been in the prison. Um, and you of course have, uh, her own writings describing her history, how she got involved, why she believed why she engaged in violence. And again, how she's, she's changed. Um, and since the thing — I think it's helpful to put some context to this whole process. Since about the time Ms. Krenwinkel was becoming eligible for parole so the late 70s, we've had, um, we've had rules that required the Board to normally grant parole. The Board hasn't done that, um, but we — so we passed additional rules, additional laws over the years that are intended to force the Board to, to really comply with that original mandate, um, that was included into the partner battering and its effects that elderly parole, youth parole, um, those — all those apply to Ms. Krenwinkel as, as the Commissioner has already noted. Um, and even when you apply this more recent structured decision-making framework, uh, nearly all the factors there are mitigated. The exception is the self-control, which was clearly an issue with the crime. Uh, but it hasn't been in the five decades since then. And, um, the reasons we needed these additional laws and rules, because at least as far back as 1975, when the California Supreme Court addressed this issue, parole decisions were too often made based on how Commissioners feel about a particular person who appeared before the Board, uh, which, which led to bias. And what you've seen here though is I think a really good example of what happens when someone has done the work and can talk about their, their journey of transformation as I'm satisfied, the Board is able to see past the biases that may have been an issue in the past and focus on what you've actually seen in front of you. So you've heard Ms. Krenwinkel discuss some of those character traits that contribute to her actions, uh, including her own low self-esteem which she referred to as like a self-degradation. This certainly addiction was an issue. Um, anger was an issue, resentment, and also his involvement in unstable relationships, unhealthy relationships, um, where she was looking for acceptance, approval, even direction her whole, her life, whole life with someone else. Um, she's explained why those things were important and why for her, it was important to understand those factors so that because they still directly contributed to her being willing to use extreme violence in this case. So she's connected all those, those dots. Um, it is very well established. A couple of things before I wrap up that have come up in the past. It is well established that that Ms. Krenwinkel was throughout the time of trial and even filming phase going out of her way to try to do her performance at trial, to divert attention away from Manson. You know, this is all me, it was all us. We did this, he wasn't doing anything, the family, the family members would try to clear him so he could be released and go on. Um, I think, uh, Deputy Commissioner Pomerantz referred to the circus that, that this trial was. Uh, but one thing that has come up in Ms. Krenwinkel’s hearings, uh, and it started, started in late seventies was, was the DA's representative said that he recalled her testify that she was the one who carved the word war, W-A-R, into Mr. LaBianca’s stomach. Now I don't know if she actually testified that at trial or not, but it would be certainly consistent with her attempts to, you know, own all this responsibility, not, not blame, um, Mr. Manson. Um, but I also know that the Board has established and frankly, the victim's family has acknowledged and Tex Watson has repeatedly admitted for 50, 50 years, 5-0 years that he was the one that carved the word into Mr. LaBianca’s stomach. I’ll refer to Watson's, uh, October 27th, 2016, hearing at page 226. And it's October 15th, 2021, here at pages 77, 78 and 57. Uh, the record is clear that that Watson used the knife that Ms. Krenwinkel repeatedly stabbed Mr. LaBianca with a fork. And also want to address the previous panel's claim that Ms. Krenwinkel has minimized the crime by pointing out that Mr. LaBianca who was already dead by the time she stabbed him with the fork, but she doesn't emphasize that fact, but it is the fact nevertheless, uh, not only has Watson repeatedly confirmed this fact, but the DA has admitted this as far back as Ms. Krenwinkel’s 1982 hearing, April 11th, 1982, um, at page 12, and her 1988 hearing page eight, DA acknowledges this fact. Um, so I don't raise that because it minimizes Ms. Krenwinkel’s responsibility, but it corrects what seems to be an error with the prior, prior panel. Um, she's consistently admitted that she was the one who wrote the words rise and death to pigs and helter-skelter using Mr. LaBianca’s blood that she used a towel and, um, dip in the blood and write that on the walls and the refrigerator. She did this in order to do something which as Manson had instructed. And she understood what that meant, to further this race war, uh, idea. Um, she's explained what this philosophy was, why she was willing to embrace it and act on it, uh, there are statements that the Board has read. Just the last couple of things. Um, you know, I've been now working with Ms. Krenwinkel for about 12 years, and I see who she is. I've seen hundreds of my life sentence clients released, um, and she's still here. I think we all have to admit that that political implications from a program and the strong oppositions from the victim's families, um, have had an impact on this, this case in the past, but we know that the law and the facts actually require a different outcome. Ms. Krenwinkel happens to be the longest serving woman in the entire United States. Uh, every state, 52 and a half years at this point. She served longer than her crime partner, Ms. Van Houten who's — the Board has granted parole for last five years. She's done the work to completely transform herself of who she was at 21. She's now 74. Um, as I explained in my May 13th letter under the controlling law, the Board's current approach, 9 out of the 10 factors that the Board applies indicate Ms. Krenwinkel is suitable. Youth parole, elderly, parole, intimate partner battery and defense, the comprehensive risk assessment, criminal and parole history, programming, institutional behavior, offender change and her release plans. By contrast only, only, the only aggravated factor in the entire case is her self-control in the crime itself. And we know the controlling law says that can't be the basis for denying parole. So in the interest of minimizing also — in the interest of minimizing the victim’s anguish if Ms. Krenwinkel was released, her parole plans take her far away from the County in which this happened, even, even the San Francisco Bay area or all the way out of state. So the last thing that I'll say is that if the Board is going to continue ignoring all nine of these, these mitigating factors and deny parole anyway, I think you at least owe the people involved in this process, victim’s families, and Ms. Krenwinkel, the respect and dignity of calling like it is. If you believe her crimes are so that she can never overcome to be granted parole, I think you should just say it, just, just be direct, stop pretending that this process is something different. On the other hand, if you're ready to do the right thing as the law and the facts require, you should follow those things and grant her parole. I think she's demonstrated that she's ready to be safety released. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. Um, Ms. Krenwinkel, would you like to give a closing statement today?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Actually, the only thing that, um, I want to say is how terribly sorry I am for all the pain and suffering that I created when I took the lives that I did, that I was a part of such a horrible and nasty thing that took place in the 60s. I am so sorry. And I try every day to live amends where I can, that I try to participate in things that are — that make things better, not worse. I do the best that I can just to live with the knowledge of the things that I have done and try to just focus on being a better person every day. Again, I am sorry. I'm so sorry to you to even have to be here to go through such a thing as talking about this crime. I am so terribly sad. That is it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. All right. So at this time, checking with the victims, um, would you like a break before you start giving your statements? If you'll just unmute and let me know, please,

VICTIM’S NEPHEW SMALDINO: Uh, I'm, I'm fine, continue to proceed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Does anyone need a break before we go take statements?

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: I'm fine to proceed. This is Debra Tate. I finally made it in the hearing. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Very good. All right. And, um, let's see, I don't think I heard from Mr. Di Maria.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN DI MARIA: I’m fine as well. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. Very good. So who would like to go first? Whoever wants to go first, just go ahead, state your name and proceed with your statement.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: Nobody's volunteering, I guess, I’ll go first. Anthony, do you want to go,

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN DI MARIA: Uh, whatever you prefer, I'm good, Debra, what you like.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: It, it doesn't matter to me. I feel a little bit handicapped because I was unable to make it in for more than half of the hearing, but I do take issue with a few things. Uh, I want to start with the Attorney’s insinuation, uh, using the word love, hate by the victim's families. I want to make it very clear that I do not believe that any one of us in this room today, nor any of us that are not in this hearing today have hate in our heart for these people. What I would like to see, however, Commissioners, rather than a program that allows them to write their apology on a piece of paper and then wad it up and throw it in the trash and have that count as some kind of a, uh, apology or part of the 12-step program, I would like to propose that Ms. Krenwinkel as well as each and every one of the other inmates accept our invitations to have a sit down and talk face to face. Now, to me, that would be the test for the litmus paper, if you would, for a comfort level, that indeed proves that they could endure perhaps the scrutiny and the ugliness of — that society could have towards them because of their own actions. I want to make it abundantly clear that none of our family members created this situation. The only thing we do is show up and speak for those that can no longer speak for themselves. Perhaps a nice litness paper would be whether or not the inmates would be willing to accept the invitation and actually have a sit down with one or separately all of us, uh, I — that would be very beneficial for and healing for me. I don't know how anybody else feels. Personally, what in my notes, Commissioner, I have, there was, uh, as usual, I don't even know that it's worth stating again, very flimsy excuses. We all came from homes with problems and didn't decide to go out and brutally kill seven strangers. And I would personally like to say eight because my completely viable nephew, although not allowed by law, he was certainly a victim. Um, I, I just find big holes in the story or the excuse I will say that they just don't give a comfort level of sincerity. I really would like to have that comfort level. So I would like to propose that the inmate accept an invitation and have a sit down with each or all, and that's all I have to say. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, Ms. Tate. Who would like to go next?

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN DI MARIA: Uh, this is Anthony. I go next. Um, uh, first, thank you Commissioners. Uh, before I, uh, begin — oh, I'm sorry. My name is Anthony Di Maria nephew of Jay Sebring. Uh, before I begin my statement, I'd like to address just one thing that about a week and a half ago or two weeks, my mother and I had made a request for her to be present at this hearing and speak, but due to the 30-day rule, she was denied that, and we certainly respect and appreciate rules, but, uh, I just wonder that if, uh, for vetted victims’ next of kin, such as my mother, Margaret DI Maria, uh, she's been vetted since 2004, that maybe there'd be, uh, some allowance, maybe that it has more flexibility than the 30-day rule, uh, because uh, many of our families are dealing with business, family and medical, uh, demands. So that's just something I wanted to say. I, I, I want to, you know — uh, maybe you can steer me, uh, later into the proper authorities to, uh, pursue that. But, um, so, uh, today's hearing is the fourth we have attended in the past seven months related to the Manson crime organization. It bears acknowledging that the Manson family is no hippie cult. It is defined by its extensive crimes as a violent crime organization that conspired, tortured, mutilated and killed collectively as a syndicate. Patricia Krenwinkel is no follower. She's a cold-blooded killer of eight. The more accurate number, as Debra pointed out, of Krenwinkel’s victims is eight as I include the murder of Sharon Tate's unborn son. To be clear, our family's involvement in today's hearing has nothing to do with anger, revenge or hatred towards Ms. Krenwinkel. Rather, rather, we are present, have loved to speak for eight people who remain voiceless in their graves. The only hatred I feel is for the actual crimes and parasitic vermin who exploit these murders for profit and self-promotion. Part of what continues to impact our families are these hearings and what is said in these hearings, past and present. This is exacerbated by the twisted legal and policy reforms that perversely favor Patricia Krenwinkel at the expense of her victims. For the six killed by Patricia Krenwinkel at Cielo Drive, there is no youthful or elderly victim programs. For the couple she butchered at Waverley Drive, there is no next step program. There are no special considerations. Under the current leadership under LA DA George Gascón, our loved ones have been stripped of our legal voice after Gascón’s sweeping mandates forbidding all representation from his office and/or any involvement with our families with regard to all Manson Parole Hearings. Violent killers are coddled as the victims in our families are discarded like trash. I remind the Commissioners respectfully that Patricia Krenwinkel is one of the most deplorable killers of the entire Manson family. She dealt more direct and fatal blows than Charles Manson. Under California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Supervision, Patricia Krenwinkel and her cohorts have benefited from doing numerous interviews with Diane Sawyer, Larry King, Rolling Stone magazine, writing books, et cetera, et cetera. In 2014, Patricia Krenwinkel produced her own documentary titled Life after Manson, the Untold Story of Patricia Krenwinkel, available for purchase on Amazon and on its own website. The petitioner's role as producer is irrefutable as the film's director Olivia Klaus states, Patricia Krenwinkel “Approached me to capture her story.” Commissioners, I wonder if you might understand that from the victim's perspective, the world has been reversely twisted upside down. There is talk today of pre-commitment offense influences, prison programming, good behavior, elderly offender and youthful offender programs, 12 step programming, coping mechanisms, sponsorship support, the Parole Board’s investigative conclusion that Ms. Krenwinkel is an intimate partner abuse victim, rehabilitation and suitability for parole. I appreciate the opportunity to address these. Excuse me. But first, I direct each of us into this hearing to if ever orders could be described as crimes of the century, Ms. Krenwinkel’s actions embody this heinous standard. The unspeakable number of stab wounds, mutilations, Ms. Krenwinkel’s threats, smeared in her victim's blood of death to pigs and helps with her Skeletor on the walls at her crime scene terrified the entire nation. Patricia's obscene behaviors throughout her trial not only spit on the memory of her victims and tormented our families but directly created the destructive Manson family mystique causing permanent scars on American history. As no author, Joan Didion writes in the White Album, “The hippie movement ended abruptly on August 8th, 1969.” The exact night Patricia Krenwinkel killed five people and an unborn child at Cielo Drive. The rare, severe, egregious nature of the petitioner’s killings meet every criteria defined by Lawrence. The severity of her actions are so profound that her lethal legacy has been influential in murders after her incarceration. Detective Don Ryan describes the crime scene of Vivian French's murder March 7th, 1977. “As I entered the residence, I could hear the pigs are coming. It was playing over and over again. When we walked in, I observed a white female, later identified as Vivian French lying on her back. She was nude and I noticed that what appeared to be a black handled knife in her right side, just above her breast. I noticed on the wall, there were some things written in blood helter-skelter and .” Helter-skelter and all pigs must die, the same words written by Patricia Krenwinkel in her victim’s blood at the LaBianca crime scene. On May 30th, 2003, Jason Sweeney was murdered by 4 teenagers, ages 15 to 17. The weapons used to massacre the young man were a hammer, a hatchet and several large rocks. At one point during the attack, the hammer blow was so severe that it remained protruding from Jason’s skull as he continued to fight for his life. During the trial, the teenage killers testified listening to helter-skelter over and over repeatedly for several hours before committing the murder, helter- skelter. The prosecuting Attorney, Jude Conroy states, “it is really amazing at teenagers in Philadelphia Memorial Day Weekend are attuned to the whole helter-skelter mythology. It is a sad testament to the twisted brutal legacy those murderers have left behind such that it attracts 15, 16, 17-year-olds who are 40 years later across the country, 3000 miles, it is a powerful legacy.” Charles Manson did not write helter-skelter in blood, Patricia Krenwinkel did. There could be no Manson blaming in this, Patricia Krenwinkel is the author that ignited what would become an endless cultural cancer with sinister and deadly consequences. One of the things that my mother wanted to share in this hearing today was an incident involving her daughter, my sister, Michelle. Just a couple of years ago, she was at a concert. When the lead singer came out in a Charlie's angel shirt, she was so disturbed. She was so disturbed and traumatized; she immediately left the concert. On the t-shirt is a picture of Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten and Susan Atkins, as they laugh, walking into court. For many vulnerable and depraved minds, in our culture and among some youth, these crimes are almost cool. And in some circles in several circles, Patricia Krenwinkel and the other killers have attained serial killer rock star status. You have only to run, for instance, on the internet for evidence. I'm sorry. Thank you for bearing with me. At today's parole, today’s hearing, Ms. Krenwinkel describes allowing and allows as in allowed these things to happen, allowed to lead me in that direction. Living with loss and suffering that Patricia Krenwinkel has caused the families, our families, all these years for us any use of the words allow, allowed, allowing is quite disturbing, particularly painful and disturbing to our families where decisions and judgments that occurred in Patricia Krenwinkel’s last two hearings on December 29th, 2016 and June 22nd, 2017 when the Parole Board and CDCR decided to initiate an extensive investigation into whether Patricia Krenwinkel, the convicted killer of seven and an unborn child, was an abused victim. As I stated at the Don Thompson of the associated press, for this investigation to be initiated at this point after several decades is mind boggling. I don't understand how we go from being a murderer, convicted killer of eight to an intimate partner victim. It's absurd. It's like the whole world is upside down. How do you kill eight people and then become a victim? Just the sick and twisted of the initial December 29th hearing was Ms. Krenwinkel’s admission that she was in charge of watching the children at Spahn Ranch at her knowledge that Charles Manson was raping children there. From page 124 of the transcript, “There was people that took care of the children. There's a lot of people and there has to be designation of labor. So I would take care of the children.” And then on page 208, Ms. Krenwinkel refers to Manson as “a pedophile. He slept with 12-year-olds at the ranch, 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds.” It was in comprehensible to hear this bombshell admission and yet witness a rather feckless . The actual interaction is the following. Deputy Commissioner Lamb, but you knew he was sleeping with 12, 13-year-olds then, right? Inmate Krenwinkel, yes. I never thought about it. Yes. Commissioner Lamb, did that — did it bother you then? Inmate Krenwinkel, a couple of things he did, I mean his violence against some of these people, but I didn't think about it because we were all — it was this communal living.” So how does this rationale work? The inmate didn't think too much about the rights of children because it was communal living. This selective reasoning is sociopathic. Ms. Krenwinkel was also cunning enough to swap nouns after asked if Manson's rapes of children bothered her. Her response, “A couple of times things he did, I mean his violence against these people.” People, she was asked about crimes against children. It is established in several, several past hearings that Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten were the main caretakers of children at Spahn Ranch. In addition to Ms. Krenwinkel’s testimony, Leslie Van Houten revealed at her hearing 9/6/2017 path — “Pat and I were taking care of the children.” I immediately filed a complaint and request the CDCR’s Jennifer Schaeffer and Jennifer Neal demanding a formal investigation focused on the rapes of children at the hands of the Manson family in Spahn Ranch. Quoting from my initial complaint, “Since the Board is now opening investigations, in addition to its chief role of determining suitability of parole, I demand investigation, an investigation to determine if Patricia Krenwinkel was an accessory in the rapes of children. If these children were abused victims of Patricia Krenwinkel and, and they at the ranch. That there'd be no distraction from who the actual victims are with regard to these murders or in the rapes of children. When authority and judgment are formed selectively or politically, the scales of justice are thrown in the trash, leaving us all blindfolded. This is madness. I ask that this be entered into the record.” I asked for it to be entered into the record, Commissioners, if you don't have it in the record, I can send it to you after — during the break. I'm going to read a passage from Diane Lake's book, member of the family. On page 125, “Lanette and a girl named Patty, inmate Krenwinkel, stroked my hair and passed me a joint while Charlie strummed more tunes on the guitar. There was a lot of unspoken communication between Charlie and the girls. His expression changed slightly as if the scene had been rehearsed. Patty took his guitar from him. He stood, took my hand and led me outside. We walked hand in hand to the black bus.” According to Ms. Lake, this is when Charles Manson first raped the then 14-year-old. Petitioner Krenwinkel may describe this incident as communal living, but a vast majority of civil society know this to be contributing to the delinquency of a minor, roaming and facilitating the rape of a 14-year-old. Ultimately a formal investigation was and concluded that Patricia Krenwinkel was an intimate partner of Manson and a victim. To date, no inquiries or investigations have been conducted by CDCR or the parole Board delving into Ms. Krenwinkel's admission that children were being raped at the ranch. One can only imagine the extent of Patricia Krenwinkel’s knowledge and/or possible involvement of child molestation at the ranch would be a profound relevance in the calculus to determine suitability for release. No such regard or investigation for those crimes or those victims. The Commissioner, I point you to CDCR Executive Director Jennifer P. Schaeffer’s response dated February 14th, 2017, to my initial complaint. “Lastly, in the fact that the Board is opening an investigation to inmate Krenwinkel’s claim of intimate partner battering, you requested that the Board also investigate allegations that inmate Krenwinkel may have been involved or was an accessory in the rapes of children like Charles Manson around the times the murders took place based on her testimony, December 29th hearing. I appreciate your desire for additional investigation into these hearings. However, as I've explained , the Board is specifically required by law to investigate claims of intimate partner battering that were not admissible at the time of her trial. In rare occasions, other investigations that are not mandated by statute can be requested by a hearing panel, if necessary, for determining an inmate's current risk of dangerous — dangerousness, no investigation has been requested.” In light of Patricia Krenwinkel’s revelations of the rapes of children, Dianne Lake’s corroborating accounts, clearly Ms. Krenwinkel’s knowledge and/or involvement in these crimes at Spahn Ranch, her lack of regard for these children and her veiled secrecy after more than 50 years of rehabilitation is more than enough as evidence raising concern for the petitioner's current risk of dangerousness and suitability for release. On March 17th, 2017, Ms. Krenwinkel in a Primetime ABC tabloid said, “I learned choice at the most horrific cost.” She learned the most terrific crimes, not her victims. This statement is frighteningly insightful, and its ironic narcissism, narcissism as only can be said by a sociopathic killer who feels entitled to you serve the realities and rights of her victims by positioning herself in the role of the victim. It's in her nature. She doesn't even know she's or she does. I'm going to read from a cover of the inmate’s film Life After Manson, the Untold Story of Patricia Krenwinkel, which for the record can be purchased online for $15, $25 dollars. And for only $250, the educational package is available, which includes, which includes a booklet of trainees, personal collection of poetry and photos, uh, a PowerPoint presentation and licensing auctions for public libraries and classes, kindergarten through 12th grade. I have screen cap images for your reference if you'd like me to send them to you. Quoting from the DVDs cover, “Now, as California's longest incarcerated woman, she continues to be demonized by the public and haunted by the suffering she has caused over five decades ago.” Continues to be demonized by the public. It seems Ms. Krenwinkel and her production team have lost sight of who the actual victims are in these murders, even after 53 years of supposedly reflection and rehabilitation. So let us consider the untold story. The untold stories of Patricia Krenwinkel’s dead. Life after Krenwinkel, the Untold Story of Rosemary LaBianca, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, times. Life after Krenwinkel, the Untold Story of Leno LaBianca, found defenseless in a chair and stabbed throughout his abdomen and thorax, dozens of time with his butcher knife and carving fork. Life after Krenwinkel, the Untold Story of Abigail Folger, a death soak horrifically unbearable that her last words were, please stop. I'm already dead. Life after Krenwinkel, the Untold Story of an Eight and a Half Month Unborn Baby slowly suffocated to death while his mother is butchered and she screams for his life. Life after Krenwinkel, the Untold Story of Margaret DI Maria, my mother, who was pregnant with my, who was pregnant when her brother Jay was killed, so traumatized she was by Jay's murder that she lost her child. For the record, for the record that makes two babies whose lives were gone as a direct result of Patricia Krenwinkel and her crimes. When I read the, when I read that the petitioner has described as California's longest incarcerated woman, I'm haunted. I am haunted by the memories of, of our eight loved ones. All of them dead for 53 years and counting. All said 424 years in their black cold coffins. Commissioners, you've asked the petitioner who you’ve been, who are you today? I asked the same questions. Steven, Abigail, Wojciech, Sharon, Jay, who were you on the night of August 8th, 1969, who are you today? Leno, Rosemary, who were you on the night of August 10th, 1969, who are you today? While the inmate, her Attorney and believe Ms. Krenwinkel has been rehabilitated and is a changed person, I respectfully remind the Board that her eight victims remain entirely unchanged, unrehabilitated, unparoled. As my mother has stated in past hearings, they are just today as when Patricia Krenwinkel sent them to their graves. It's striking as the Attorney today, Attorney Wattley invokes rules in the law. You see blood relatives before you. Lou, Debra, Kay, myself, seeking justice. We implore you to indeed follow the law, protect as defined in Lawrence. For the rare, egregious, severe nature of, of Patricia Krenwinkel’s crimes, for how horror victim suffered, Lawrence. For her crimes against civilized society as she terrorized the nation with her blood-spattered threats and cruel perverse behavior during her trials, Lawrence. For the permanent cultural historical scars, Ms. Krenwinkel has dealt with destructive consequences even today, Lawrence. Commissioner, I reiterate the petitioner's knowledge and grooming in crimes against children at Spahn Ranch, as provided earlier in my statement. Again, I request an investigation to be conducted, to determine the role of Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten in the rapes of children at Spahn Ranch crews — crucial to current dangerousness and suitability of release of either inmate per Jennifer Schaeffer's response to my original request, January 30th, 2017. I mentioned earlier how the world has been perversely twisted upside, twisted and turned upside down in our families. Commissioners, respectfully, how can you make amends for Patricia Krenwinkel when nothing, no law, neither of you can make amends for her dead or the diabolical destruction she has caused the society. I urge the Board to consider parole for Patricia Krenwinkel once you have paroled her victims from their graves. As we acknowledge the cruel severe nature of Ms. Krenwinkel’s crimes, the impact upon and threat to society, the of minimization, the number of Ms. Krenwinkel’s victims and how horribly they suffer. We ask for a parole denial for the longest period of time. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. All right. Who would like to go next?

VICTIM’S NEPHEW SMALDINO: Um, I can do that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right, go ahead.

VICTIM’S NEPHEW SMALDINO: Um, I am before you today and will continue to be here, uh, as long as the process requires it. To express our family's concerns that, uh, Ms. Krenwinkel is ever paroled. Her callous disregard for the, for human life, her brutal participation in Leno’s and Rosemary's murder and total, this regard for the sanctity of life 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 group snuffed out, uh, two of our loved people in our family from their lives. Um, just as a side note, uh, they brought up the murder weapon, uh, just for the enlightenment of the, uh, inmate, uh, the bone handled fork or knife, whichever she used, was part of a set, uh, that we used at holidays and we celebrated at their house to carve our turkeys and she maliciously used it on a human being, unacceptable. Leno and Rosemary were innocent people who bore no malice towards anyone and were modeled for all of us in how to live and treat others. Leno and Rosemary were to say the least a very handsome and loving couple, 45 to 46 years of age, devoted to their family, and I might add five children. With this in mind, I would like to, again, remind the panel, Patricia Krenwinkel is a vicious and uncaring killer who has sentenced to die for her evil deeds and was saved by a court to life in prison with the possibility of parole. To this day, there has been no remorse shown to the families at all. We hear, uh, how sorry she is at the hearing, but in the 40 some years, she's been in prison, has never reached out to any member of our family. And I'm — uh, you know, I can't speak for the other families, but has never written a note, uh, asked for a meeting anything. So, uh, I think it's all for show. Yes, she worked with the prisons — work within the prison system, but these actions are self-serving actions and no way addressed the destruction and divi — devastation caused our family, both in our relationships, in our business. Uh, Leno was the President of a company, uh, that supported many members of the family, uh, to the children and their upbringing. Uh, just total devastation to our family. I ask you, what has Ms. Krenwinkel done to address the anguish caused our family? What single act has she done to assuage our pain and grief? For her, we do not exist and are merely obstacles to her goal of being released from prison for murders that many considered the worst of all time in our society. It is inconceivable for me to believe that Ms. Krenwinkel can never be rehabilitated. Like her, I grew up, uh, I'm a little older than she is, but we grew up in — uh, at the same time. While I was living happy days and starting my family, she and her clan were plotting murder, doing drugs, trying to initiate race wars. There is a real evil here that no one seems to be addressing. What spiritual awakening or enlightenment has taken place within her? There is none that I can see. Her goal here today is to say and do anything to get out. But I believe this panel should look to the — at the facts, no real remorse, no coming clean on her participation in number murders, no spiritual renewal, no concern for the victims and their families. Ms. Krenwinkel should already be dead for her vicious crimes that she committed and her part in it. I believe society has been most merciful and allowing her to live in peace with all her deeds and needs or all her needs cared for. Leno and Rosemary had been deprived of half their lives and their family has lost the joy and support of their presence in their lives. I again ask in the name of my family and in that of the decent honorable society that you don't deny parole. You didn't — you do denied parole to Ms. Krenwinkel. Thank you for your consideration. Uh, I'd go into much greater detail, but I think it's been more than covered adequately by previous speakers. Thank you, again.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. All right. So before we take the next speaker, I just, I just want to say, I mean, I hear this a lot and I, I, I always have to say this, but there is currently, um, no mechanism in place for inmates to reach out to family members. And so I, I feel compelled to say that she's actually prohibited from reaching out to family members. Just want you to know that. All right. So we'll take the next statement now.

VICTIM’S NEPHEW SMALDINO: Excuse me, but that's what lawyers are for.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right, sir. All right. We'll take the next statement.

VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: Okay. I'm Kay Hinman Martley, cousin of Gary Hinman, a victim of the Manson family and a representative for Debra Tate. I'm here to remind the Board of the horrendous murders committed by Patricia Krenwinkel and the Manson family. Patricia Krenwinkel was sentenced to death. And since that is no longer available, she should remain incarcerated. The Manson family still has influence today and releasing any of these people is a wrong message. What reasons can the Board possibly justify the release of Patricia Krenwinkel, who would again, find another Charlie to follow? It took a socio psychopath to — excuse me, to commit such crimes of savagery, because Charlie ordered it to be done. There is no known cure for socio psychopaths. Please review the circumstances of both the Tate and LaBianca murders. And you should realize that Patricia Krenwinkel was a merciless killer. Patricia’s excuse for seven counts of murder was lack of self-esteem, lack of courage to leave Manson does in my mind not justify her release. We as victim's families have a responsibility to speak out for our loved ones we lost and to remind the Parole Board of the pain and suffering that continues to this very day. I ask my questions, I end with, for the Board, why does portray Patricia say she has nowhere to go for financial support yet her father paid her bail in 1969. So she did have, uh, someone who would support her in 1969. How can Patricia blame her growing up with stable parents, but let Charlie mistreat her? Why would you commit yourself to killing seven human beings for no possible reason? Why was Patricia willing to change her name so she doesn't have any notoriety? Then she says that she's willing to do speaking to others of her crime and 50 years of incarceration, which isn’t notoriety or invisibility. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. Ms. Tate, you have your hand up.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: You’re on…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You’re mute.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: You're still on mute.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You're muted. Oh, there we go.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: I've had it up for quite some time, Commissioner. And the reason was during Anthony's letter, on my end, it was what I call machine gunning. And I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't that way on your end because of the audio record. So often get the transcripts back and there's pieces missing for little things like that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So, so it was going in and out and I didn't think it was bad enough. I could, I could hear what he was saying. I didn't think it was bad enough for me to interrupt his statement.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: Which is why I didn't interrupt either, but this end, it was horrible. It was really bad. I missed most of it, but…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Yeah, I believe it was sufficient.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: have a written copy that if it's not complete, perhaps, uh, the letter could be submitted, his notes could be submitted into the transcript.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: That would be fine. That would be.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Tate. Um, Mr. Wattley

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Commissioner, sorry, sorry to jump in here, but I have to correct something that, uh, at some point, uh, I believe it was mistake, uh, incorrectly said that I claimed in this hearing that the victim's families were motivated by hate. That was her work, not mine. I said love and anger. I think that both of those have been present today. Understandably so, but I think it's important that we stick to what's true and not just a different narrative that works for them. Thank you for…

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: Can I clarify for my notes that that was Ms. Krenwinkel’s words and not your words, Mr. Watley. So it's correct in my notes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: All right. So we're not going to go back and forth now. So, so I'm going to let that be the last word. Thank you.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: All righty.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you so much. All right.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN TATE: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So I think we've gotten everyone statements.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN DI MARIA: Commissioner?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Yes, Mr. DI Maria?

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN DI MARIA: I’m Sorry, sorry to interrupt, but would it — do you feel it's okay. Thank you. e-mail you, my statement. Or do you feel that you have enough to work with, whatever — you know, I to your judgment.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: So, so if your statement is exactly as you read it, that would be appropriate. If it's not, then it's something different than what you gave.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN DI MARIA: Yes, I did add some things. Um, so, okay. I can get that to you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: I think, you know, I was paying attention during your statement and you know, there were times when it was a little slow, but I believe it's transcribable so we will, we will, um, we will hope that that is the case. I believe after the transcripts come out; what I will do is I will ask our legal department to look out for that. And if it's not, you know, transcribable, then we will ask you to submit that so that it can be a part of that record. That way whoever's reading that transcript can see your full statement. So I think that that might be an appropriate way to handle this.

VICTIM’S NEXT OF KIN DI MARIA: Thank you, Commissioner Dobbs. I appreciate that, and also Debra for pointing that out. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: You’re welcome. You're welcome. Thank you so much. All right. Time now is 2:38. We are going to recess for deliberations and we'll be back when we have reached our decision.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Off the record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: All right. We are back on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Okay. We're back on the record. The time is now 2:57. All parties, all parties previously identified have returned for issuance of this panel's decision in the case regarding Patricia Krenwinkel, CDCR number W as in whiskey, 08314. Ms. Krenwinkel, our decision today is to grant you parole. Based on the legal standards and the record, we find that you do not currently pose an unreasonable risk to public safety and are therefore suitable for parole. So before I go any further, I, I need to, um, acknowledge that, you know, there is so much loss, you know, so much deep loss and suffering in this case. Um, you know, the parole suitability decision that we are making here in no way minimizes, you know, the tremendous amount of loss that the family members and the wide range of victims, um, in these cases have suffered, continue to suffer, likely will, will suffer for the rest of their lives. Um, that is undeniable. Our decision here, um, is based on the legal standard that we must apply in assessing current risk of dangerousness to society. And in acknowledging the work that Ms. Krenwinkel has done in transforming herself and in exploring herself. We did considered all of your statements today. Um, the panel really does appreciate you being here. We know that it's very difficult coming to these hearings time after time after time and how difficult that is to, um, just develop the strength to do that. And so we, we really appreciate you being here. Um, I want to encourage you to reach out to, um, CDCRs office of victims and survivor rights, rights and services, um, if you still have questions, um, or if you need additional support after this hearing. So in reviewing parole suitability, a denial of parole must be based on findings that the inmate poses a current danger to society. Also, in this case, this panel applied the additional laws in place that apply to Ms. Krenwinkel in court, specifically the use of fender law that requires us to give great weight to those youth offender factors when determining suitability. Additionally, we did apply the elder parole law, which requires us to give special consideration to the elder parole factors in deciding the case today. We additionally did apply the intimate partner battery law, uh, and that law requires us to give great weight to the information that at the time of the commission of the crime, Ms. Krenwinkel, uh, experienced intimate partner battery. The panel considered, um, the following information in reaching our decision today, we reviewed her central file, the comprehensive risk assessment, documents in the 10-day file, written responses received from the public. We considered your statement, Ms. Krenwinkel. We considered the statements of all of the victims present here today as well as all of the statements received by other interested parties in this case. Um, we considered the arguments of your Counsel. We also considered the intimate, um, partner battery investigative report dated February 17th, 2017. Our decision today is based on analysis of aggravating factors and mitigating factors in the case. Um, we find that your prior criminal history is a mitigating factor. You had no prior juvenile record, your record as an adult is minimal, consisting of arrests for drug possession, grand theft auto, um, and these crimes occurred in the two-year period proceeding the life crimes. Offender self-control, we find that your offender self-control at the time of these offenses is an aggravating factor in this case. At the time of the commitment offenses, we see that you were unable to control your behavior as a result of many factors. Um, the least of which is, you know, is not, not just low self-esteem, feelings of rejection, a lack of belongingness, a need for approval from negative peers in your case, um, undiagnosed and unmanaged depression in your life at the time. And of course, a severe substance abuse problem. The factors discussed thus far are what we call static factors, meaning that they will not change. And the California Supreme Court has found that after a long period of time, these kind of unchangeable factors such as the commitment offense can no longer indicate a risk of current dangerous to society in light of a lengthy period of rehabilitative programming. And so the following factors, which are dynamic in this case, um, represent areas in which you have, um, demonstrated rehabilitative change through programming. So your programming, we find to be mitigating as well. We find that you have attempted to address each of your identified areas of risk through active participation and completion of programming at a level that we find is relevant to help you address all of those risk factors. Specifically, you have consistently participated, participating in substance abuse programs, support groups and other programs to address the addiction problem that you struggled with at the time. And when we look at your over 50 years in incarceration, we find no evidence of any substance use. You've also taken programs to address the codependency that you were dealing with and our involvement in domestic violence. Um, and you've done so through several different kinds of programs offered in the institution. You've also taken programs to address, um, the attitude of violence. You've done that through some of the anger management programs that you've taken. You've taken anger management multiple times. You've done creative conflict, resolution, conflict transforming skills, criminal thinking. We note that you have addressed some of the low self-esteem issues through programs like Emotions Anonymous, you’ve taken yoga programs, you've taken coping and stress programs. You've participated in the puppy program. And you were able to write and speak about how that helped yourself esteem. We see that you have taken steps to address the callousness that you, um, displayed in your conduct in these crimes, through the various Victim Impact Program, Victims Awareness Programs that you've taken, and the Denial Management. Your testimony today, along with your writings on the topic of insight and your, um, details of the crime and your, your, your role in this crime shows that you really have developed a deep understanding of those character factors that contributed to your behavior. We didn't get the impression through your testimony today that you were blaming Manson or anyone else for your conduct. We rather viewed your testimony as your way of identifying how you got there and what are the factors that really contributed to your state of mind at the time? Um, and so we found that it shows insight into your behavior and really provided a guidepost view of the things that you needed to address to make sure that you don't return to the community with unaddressed issues that were relevant to your conduct in the crime. Your record, again, during your incarceration is devoid of any violence, any substance use or any antisocial behavior. You have taken the time to really develop your own self-worth and that came through, um, when we look at your conduct during the hearing. And when we talked to you about how you view yourself now, and, um, you know, what was different about you today? And what we got from your statement is that you have developed your own self-worth and that you have developed your own independence from others and that you have done so in healthy ways as evidenced by your good conduct in prison. Your institutional behavior, uh, we find to be mitigating as well during your incarceration. You have had no serious rules violations. Um, plus what we find is that you have demonstrate behavior that really goes above and beyond rule compliance. This is evidenced by your excellent work record, you, your vocational skills, educational upgrades, participation in programs, which help others, you know, such as the puppy program and the different charitable programs that you've participated. You have multiple letters of support from current, former incarcerated persons who speak about the positive contributions and positive interactions that they have had with you within the institution. And that really does speak volumes about the change in you or given the very cold and callous crimes that you have committed. And so we found your offender change to also be a mitigating factor. You've clearly demonstrated positive change. The panel identified a clear demonstration of, as I mentioned earlier, good self-worth consistent behavior stability for you, respect for the laws, the rules within the institution, respect for the rights of others, acceptance of responsibility for your crime, um, complete acceptance, um, of available programs needed to help you change. And your conduct in your statement today really demonstrates to us evidence of genuine remorse. And we see that you have taken the necessary steps to do what is necessary to, um, manage challenges your life without doing so in, in, um, antisocial ways as you did in the past. Finally, of course, we know that you have remained sober. Um, you have consistently participated in substance abuse support programs, um, to address your addiction. Your release plans we find to be mitigating as well. Uh, we find them to be concrete. They do address all of the things that would suggest stability in the community. You have multiple options for stable housing. You have skills, uh, that should allow you to support yourself financially. You have a strong pro-social support network in place. Um, you have realistic relapse prevention plans to help you manage all of your areas of risk. You, um, have a strong family support as well. And your support even includes, um, community organizations out there in the community. They're getting to help you make that very difficult transition if you are permitted to do so. I'll note that your relapse prevention plans address areas like substance abuse, criminality, violence, codependency as well, the risk assessment, the doctor found you to be a low risk for violence. Um, this means that you pose a non-elevated risk relative to other long-term offenders, which we find also supports our decisions here today. Um, in, in addition, the other factors that we considered include, of course, the youth offender factors. This panel did give great weight to the following factors that we found were present in your case. We saw that at the time of the crime, it's pretty clear that parts of your brain were not fully matured as is consistent with youthful offender. This of course resulted in diminished culpability in your case, specifically at 21, you had experienced neglect within your own family units, parental divorce, um, exposure to domestic discord in the home, including your older sister who abused drugs and was engaged in criminality. Um, she introduced you to drugs. Um, you started using alcohol as well. She also introduced you to, you know, a criminal element as well and irresponsibility. Um, you did have limited control over your environment. You know, of course, all of this contributed to your low self-esteem, made you susceptible to negative peers. You didn't think about consequences at that time in your life. We saw some of the hallmark features of youth as well at the time of the crime, which you exhibited. These include, um, immaturity, underdeveloped sense of responsibility for your conduct, impulsivity, impetuosity, vulnerability susceptible to negative influence. And we know that your influences, negative influences came from within the family as well as outside the family, your peers that you surrounded yourself with. You talked about, you know, some of your friends being involved in substance abuse and criminality. Your conduct in the crime showed a great deal of recklessness and heedless risk taken as well. And your decision to associate yourself with this group of people who were involved in so much criminality showed that reckless, heedless risk-taking. We see that you had a limited ability at that time to really assess the risks and the consequences, not just to yourself, but to others as well. Regarding subsequent growth and maturity, since you committed your offense, you really have demonstrated some growth. And it's pretty clear as it's consistent with most youthful offender, that it took you a while to find yourself, um, and to start reflecting on your behavior, um, and, and to really start demonstrating that your own independence and your self-worth and all of that. We looked at your insight statement, it really showed that you have engaged in a great deal of self-reflection. You know, your good conduct again, in the past 50 years really shows that you now exercise maturity of judgment. You know, we see improved impulse control in your heart. You developed pro-social relationships. That is something you didn't know how to do before. Independence from negative peers is something that you didn't know how to do. Um, you now recognize your own words and your own potential, um, and that of others as well. You have developed remorse, you have shown positive institutional conduct, and of course, you have consistently worked on yourself to improve yourself and make yourself a better person. We did give special consideration to the youth offend — um, excuse me, to the elder parole factors that we found were present in your case. The panel notes, you are 74 years old, have been incarcerated now for 52 years. You don't appear to have any diminished physical conditions, at least nothing inconsistent with your age at this time. The panel determined, however, that these factors, um, you know, the sustained period of positive conduct are all consistent with rehabilitation, um, and do reduce your risk for violence at this time. Regarding, um, evidence of intimate partner battering, the panel, the panel finds that you were experiencing intimate partner battering at the time of your crime, and that you committed your crime prior to August 29th, 1996, as the law dictates. The panel based these findings on information that is in the intimate partner battery investigative report, that report is dated February 17th, 2017, and it confirms the abuse, the controlling and human — humiliating relationship, the cult like environments that you placed yourself in leading up to this life crime. Um, you said that you worshiped Mr. Manson, um, and would do anything for him, even though he was brutal towards you and to the other women in the group. Others in the investigation confirmed mental and emotional abuse towards you and the other women as well. You confirmed that at times, he would slap you, pull your hair. Um, he professed his love in one breadth and then declared that you were ugly and that no one would want you, and that he was the only one that would love you. And he also threatened to leave you in the woods, um, in the past. The panel finds that these statements very likely instilled fear in you and the other women and really impacted your thinking, um, and at the time of your crime and that it contributed to your willingness to commit these crimes, to blindly commit these crimes. Therefore, the panel, um, gave great weight to this evidence, um, concerning the nature and the effect of the physical, emotional and mental abuse, um, and what it had on your beliefs, on your perceptions, your behavior at the time of the crime and the extent to which your criminal behavior was influenced by this abuse. Anything to add, Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Uh, yeah, I, I would, I would agree. I would just add that as you mentioned, um, the youth offender factors are very clear and apical here, along with the others that we talked about. And basically under the destruction — structured decision-making, every single domain is mitigating with exception of the static, uh, and historical factor of the crime itself. Uh, so therefore under the law, you know, there's no evidence to show there's any current dangerousness. And in fact, the doctor themselves, they say — they use the term, there's little to no evidence, uh, multiple times in the report, indicating that there's no evidence of current dangerousness. And then in the end where they give the, uh, risk considerations, uh, there's a whole slew of mitigating ones. And the only ones that are relevant as being a, you know, consideration of, of potential risk is historical vulnerability to indoctrination, history, history of chronic substance abuse and history of weak sense of self. And we've talked about those things. I mean, I honestly, I don't see you at, at 74 or 75 years old of age being vulnerable to indoctrinate — indoctrination, leading to a murder. Um, I don't see you having a problem with chronic substance abuse anymore. You've been sober for years and years and years, and you've been doing all the programs and we have all the programs in place and plans to, uh, stay sober. And your history of weak sense of self, we discussed that extensively today. And it seems that you have gotten an understanding of why you were so easily manipulated in the past and that you don't have that vulnerability anymore. So really when it comes down to it, there are no risk considerations left, uh, you know, from a psychological standpoint, which is what the doctor recognized. And we've confirmed today with our discussion with you. So, you know, it's very clear that you, uh, represent a low risk of violence as the doctor said, and there's just simply no evidence as we sit here today to suggest that you pose a current risk of dangerous, dangerousness to the community. So therefore by law, we, uh, gave you a grant and that's all I have to add. Thanks.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOBBS: Thank you, Commissioner. Um, so our decision is not final, Ms. Krenwinkel. It must still be reviewed by the Board. They will have up to 120 days to do that review. Um, and then after that, it, um, will be reviewed by the Governor. He will have up to 30 days to do that review. You'll be notified in writing if any changes are made to our decision. If you are released from prison, you will be subject to all general conditions of parole required by law as well as any special conditions of parole imposed by the Division of Adult Parole Operations. In addition, this panel orders the following additional special conditions of parole. We are ordering that you participate in a transitional housing program for a minimum of six months, you've identified several options. Um, and you can work with the Division of Adult Parole Operation to determine the most appropriate placement for you. You are to have no contact or communication with the family members of your victims. You are also have no contact or communication with your crime partners. Because of your very lengthy incarceration, this panel is ordering that you participate in a psychiatric evaluation and any treatment deemed appropriate for your successful adjustment on parole. And this is what used to be called Parole Outpatient Clinic. Um, it's called the Behavioral Rehabilitation, um, and Reintegration Program I believe is the name it's called right now, but it really is a program that provides you with additional support as you make that transition. Um, we believe that you will benefit from that. Do not possess or consume alcohol. You are to submit to random testing for alcohol, do not enter any establishment where you know or reasonably should know that the sale or consumption of alcohol is that establishment’s primary source of business. This includes bars and liquor stores. You're to also submit to random anti-narcotic testing, including for marijuana, do not possess or consume marijuana. And we are ordering that you're participating in a substance abuse, relapse prevention program. This would be support groups that you continue attending AA or NA, um, on a regular basis. So I want to thank everyone for their participation in this hearing. The time is 3:22, and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER POMERANTZ: Off the record, off the record.