SUBSEQUENT PAROLE CONSIDERATION HEARING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration Hearing of:

PATRICIA KRENWINKEL

CDC Number: W-08314

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

CORONA, CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 20, 2011

1:12 P.M.

PANEL PRESENT:

SUSAN MELANSON, Presiding Commissioner

STEVEN HERNANDEZ, Deputy Commissioner

OTHERS PRESENT:

PATRICIA KRENWINKEL, Inmate

KEITH WATTLEY, Attorney for Inmate

PATRICK SEQUEIRA, Deputy District Attorney

DEBRA TATE, Victim's Next-of-kin

ANTHONY DIMARIA, Victim's Next-of-kin

JAMIE LUNA, Victim Witness Representative, Observer

FELIX FIGUEROA, Public Information Office, Observer

GREG MILLS, KCAL 9, Observer SCOTT MOULTON, KCAL 9, Observer

LINDA DEUTSCH, Associated Press, Observer

REED SAXON, Associated Press, Observer

PROCEEDINGS

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: I'm ready.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay, we're on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: All right. Good afternoon, everybody. Today's date is January the 20th, 2011. The time is 1:12 in the afternoon. We're located at the California Institution for Women in Corona. This is a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing for Patricia Krenwinkel, CDC number W-08314. The inmate was received on April the 28th, 1971 from Los Angeles County. The controlling offense for which the inmate has been committed is PC 187, murder in the first degree, case number A253156, count one, and there was a knife and gun used as well, sentenced to life. Originally it was the death penalty, but that was turned over. Additional counts, they were one to seven. They were merged by the court. The inmate's minimum eligible parole date was February 16th, 1997, I mean, I'm sorry, 1977. This hearing is being recorded, and for purposes of voice identification, each of us will state our name, spell our last name, and when it comes to you, Ms. Krenwinkel, if you would also add your CDC number. My name is Susan Melanson, M-E-L-A-N-S-O-N, Commissioner. We'll go to my left.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Steven Hernandez, H-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z, Deputy Commissioner with the Board of Parole Hearings.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Patrick Sequeira, S-E-Q-U-E-I-R-A, Deputy District Attorney, County of Los Angeles.

MS. TATE: Deborah Tate, sister of victim, T-A-T- E. And I'm also today the appointed representative for the LaBianca family representing Louis Smalldino, S-M-A- L-L-D-I-N-O.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you. Are they being picked up okay?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Do you want to come up closer to the mike?

MR. DIMARIA: Anthony DiMaria, D-I capital M-A-R- I-A, nephew of Jay Sebring.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you.

MS. LUNA: Jamie Luna, L-U-N-A, Victim Witness Representative.

MR. MILLS: Greg Mills, M-I-L-L-S. I'm with KCAL 9, a CBS channel.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

MR. FIGUEROA: Felix Figueroa, F-I-G-U-E-R-O-A, administrative assistant, Public Information Officer.

MS. DEUTSCH: Linda Deutsch, D-E-U-T-S-C-H, Associated Press reporter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: And in the corner.

MR. MOULTON: Scott Moulton, M-O-U-L-T-O-N, with CBS Channel 2, KCAL 9.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

MR. SAXON: Reed Saxon, S-A-X-O-N, Associated Press photographer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: The Associated Press and the other media, CBS and KCAL 9 will be observing today. They will not be participating in the hearing. And we also have a correctional officer present who will not be participating in the hearing, but is here for security purposes. So, let's go back over here.

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

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Inmate Patricia Krenwinkel, K-R-E-N-W-I-N-K-E-L, W-08314.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you very much. All right. I've reviewed the 1073 and the DEC System, and there's a statement right there in front of you. Can you look at that statement and tell the Panel what it means in your own words?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: It's about disabilities, if I have any disabilities that make it difficult for me to participate in the hearing today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: And if you did?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I would have some help, assistance.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. That's correct. Okay. And it tells you what form.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: 1074, if we didn't provide the assistance you need. Okay. Do you have any disabilities we should be aware of today?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: None. I wear glasses.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. And I note you're wearing your glasses. Okay. And you can hear me okay?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: All right. And any limitations on your ability to walk, your mobility?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. And I note that your GPL was 10.0, but you have an AA and a BS degree. Is that correct?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yes.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: But that (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Yeah. I'm sure if they --

INMATE KRENWINKEL: (Inaudible) whatever it is that it was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right. Okay. So, you have no problems reading, comprehending and understanding?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No, I do not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I'm just going to push this mike over a little closer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Yeah. She's got a quiet voice. There you go. Okay. And have you ever been part of the CDCR mental health system, such as Triple-CMS or EOP?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No, I have no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Thank you. We've had the opportunity to review your Central File and your prior transcripts, and you will be given the opportunity as always to correct or clarify the record as we proceed today. We are not here to change the findings of the court, and we are not here to retry your case. The Panel does accept as true the findings of the court, and we are here for the sole purpose of determining your suitability for parole today. Counsel, did you review your client's rights with her prior to the hearing today?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: And you reviewed the procedure regarding today's hearing procedures and so on?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: All right. And I note, Ms. Krenwinkel, that you signed BPT Form 1002 September 24th of 2010 indicating that you were given a copy of your rights for the lifer hearings. Is that correct?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: That's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Do you remember signing that?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Excellent. Counsel, have your client's rights been met for purposes of today's hearing?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Well, I would say for the most part. One thing that concerns me is that Ms. Krenwinkel did ask not to be videotaped and photographed, but it looks like they are videotapes and photographs going on.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yeah. I note her request, but due to the public interest in this case, I'm going to allow them in today.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: I think that in the past that it has been from the back so that her face is not showing, but obviously you'll handle that however you see fit. Other than that, I think her rights have been met so far.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Thank you. All right. I've passed the Hearing Checklist over to you and marked it Exhibit One. Can you do a little bit of comparing and make sure that we're all working off the same documents today?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Yeah. These are the same documents I have in my packet, and I note that there's no letter in the packet that's an official letter or any recent opposition letters. And it's not marked here, so my package --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yeah. And I didn't receive any either. We do have the District Attorney represented here today.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: I'll sign it and put today's date on it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. And if you would then pass it over to the District Attorney so that he can initial it as well. Commissioner, any confidential information today?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Yes, there is confidential information that is in the file, and we may possibly use it. If we do use it, we will make that abundantly clear.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Thank you.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I do know in terms of the Notices that the LaBianca family apparently did not receive notice of the hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: That's right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I don't know if that also may have affected any letters to the Los Angeles Police Department. But in at least one instance, there's been lack of adequate notification.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yeah. Let me see what we've got here. We've got your letter, the Presiding Judge, the Police Department, Paul Fitzgerald, that was an attorney. Is that correct? Anybody know?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: That's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: An Attorney General. You're right. Yeah. They didn't send one to the LaBiancas, and who else were you asking about?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Ms. Tate. I don't believe Ms. Tate received a letter either, did she?

MS. TATE: I received notification from this institution, and I spoke with Victims Services in Sacramento three times to Katie James, one time to one of her deputies, and left a voicemail confirming that I would be here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Really?

MS. TATE: And I just double-checked just before I left for this today, and we got it straightened out.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yeah. The gate pass for her wasn't processed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

MS. TATE: My gate pass was not processed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yeah. The institutional staff mentioned that to me this morning, and I, you know, they were taking care of it, so it was no concern. But certainly, I will note that notices did not go out to those individuals.

MS. TATE: And might I say as far as the Smalldinos, which is the next-of-kin for the LaBiancas, this is the second time that that has happened.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

MS. TATE: In their case.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I see that notices went out to Alyssa Statman, Debra Tate and Bree Tate, and those went out on 10/19/2010.

MS. TATE: Alyssa Statman is not a member of the Tate family. Bree Tate's name is Bree Ford, and not Bree Tate, and I am the primary speaker for the family appointed by my family, as well as recognized by Sacramento as the next-of-kin.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I'm just reading what --

MS. TATE: I know. I just wanted to straighten it out.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yeah.

MS. TATE: So, it's on record. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: So, did a notice go out to you?

MS. TATE: I only got the notice from this -- I believe this is from this institution, as I'm told.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Can you pass that over? Officer, can you --

MS. TATE: I read it to your, the institution victim person this morning, and they identified it as it was from them. And I might note that the postmark on that was in October. So, the institution itself did their part in October.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Mr. DiMaria also indicates he never received a notice.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Oh, really?

MR. DIMARIA: I received a notice after I learned of the hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: That's right. I didn't read your name in here either.

MR. DIMARIA: Yeah, but so, I called Katie James and I couldn't get a hold of her or anybody, and then I spoke to Katie, and then it was sent out. And it's marked January 12th.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That's for the gate clearance.

MR. DIMARIA: Yeah. That was gate clearance. But there was no notification, you know, until I had talked, so I don't know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. I'll certainly follow up with that and let Sacramento know and make sure --

MS. TATE: Commissioner, I didn't know how this worked, but I did make a copy, just one extra copy of the LaBianca family's letter to give to you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

MS. TATE: I didn't make one for, I'm sorry. It just didn't even occur to me. I'm so sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: It's all right. We can share it with --

MS. TATE: All right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And she'll be reading the letter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yeah. Okay. Would you like to see it?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: I would, but I'd have to object to it because we haven't gotten it before.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yeah. Clearly, I understand your objection. It didn't make the ten-day rule, but because the notices were not sent correctly, I would either have to put this entire hearing off to allow the ten-day rule, and considering that everybody has made their way here today, I'm not likely going to do that. So, I'm going to overrule your objection based on the notice issues that we've just identified.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: I also note, I typically don't see in my packet the notices that go to victim's next- of-kin. I don't think it's provided some other way, so they're usually not included here. For what that's worth. I think it's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: It's under confidential file, and so, yeah, no, you're not going to see them. But yeah, okay. Okay. All right. That'll take care of that. Okay. Anything else about confidential information? You indicated there is some, but if we use it, we will let everybody know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right. And any other objections at this time, counsel?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: There are. While you're discussing the confidential material, in the past, I've seen that there were a number of opposition letters from, either from the public or from other people who were interested in the outcome of this case. And those have been reviewed by the Panel, but they haven't been provided to Ms. Krenwinkel or her attorney. I don't know if that's the plan today, but I'd have to object because those things are not properly made confidential and kept from her, so I would have to object to anything like that coming in.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Commissioner, is that any of the confidential information that's there? Are there any opposition letters or anything?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: From what I've seen, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. If we use it, we will let you know.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Well, but the rules require that if there's information to be considered, that I have to have any non-confidential portion of it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Right. If we use any of it, I would make that available to you at that time.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: But the problem is, you will have considered it, and it will have come in to this proceeding after the ten-day rule, and again, would not have been considered by me and Ms. Krenwinkel. So, we wouldn't have been given an opportunity to address it, respond to it, any of that. I mean, it's the basic reason for the ten-day rule.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. I'm going to note your objection. I've got it written down. And I'll rule on them later. So, go ahead and give me your objections at this point. Did you want to say something, Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Can we take a recess?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Certainly. Let's take five minutes. You can leave everything right here. We'll be right back.

(Off the record.)

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. We're back on the record. The time is 1:42. All right, Mr. Wattley, I've, we've looked and discussed and conferred about confidential information, and it will be used, and we will record it on a separate tape at the time of deliberations, and the nature of the information or the letters that you're objecting to, and I'm going to overrule your objection. Title 15 allows for confidential information, and that's the policy we're going to follow. Go ahead.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Well, I was going to ask you what specific section you're referring to in Title 15, because the sections that cover confidential information do require you provide any non-confidential --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Right. Which I will do once we figure that out, and we won't be considering it until deliberations. So, when we come back on the record after deliberations, I will certainly tell you any non-confidential information that was used in those letters.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you. Any other objections, sir?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Yeah. I have to object to the Board's implementation of Proposition 9 on a number of grounds. All the constitutional grounds with the -- we think it improperly expands the scope, role, number of victims and their representation in these parole proceedings. Also, we object on the grounds that the exposure to such a lengthy denial of parole, potentially of up to 15 years, violates the ex post facto clause. And I think the change in law also violates due process under the constitution. I know that the Board, it's the Board's policy to follow that law as it exists and so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: That's correct.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: I don't know how that objection will be ruled, but I wanted to state that for the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: That's correct. And we do follow current law, and Marsy's Law or Prop 9 is currently the law. So, I will overrule that.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Those are the only objections I have right now. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Thank you. All right. Will your client be speaking with the Panel today?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: She will be. She's not going to discuss the details of these crimes, but certainly, on the various factors that led up to her involvement and things she's been involved with ever since.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: All right. Okay. Okay. Before I begin, I need to swear you in, Ms. Krenwinkel. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to provide in today's hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you. All right. This crime was committed on about August 9th and August the 10th of 1969, these crimes. And for the record, I will utilize the summary of the crime in the Board Report on the first page to page 2, because the Probation Officer's Report is very, very hard to read, and it's the same information. And so, for purposes of today's hearing, I will be putting that on the record. Summary of the crime, Probation Officer's Report. Defendants, Susan Atkins, A-T-K-I-N-S, Leslie Van Houten, V-A-N capital H-O-U-T-E-N, and Charles Manson, M-A-N-S-O-N, were taken into custody by Los Angeles Police Officers on October 13th, 1969, November 25th, 1969 and December 9th, 1969 and were booked into the Los Angeles County Jail on suspicion of murder. Defendant, Patricia Krenwinkel, was arrested on a fugitive warrant by Alabama Police Department on or about February 20th, 1970 on suspicion of murder. Counts one through five refer to the murders which occurred on or about August 9th, 1969 at the Polanski residence, P-O-L-A-N-S-K-I, located at 10050 Cielo, C-I-E-L-O Drive, Los Angeles. As to count one, Abigail Ann Folger's, F-O-L-G-E-R, death was caused by multiple stab wounds to her body. Count two, I'm not going to, I can't even say it -- It's W-O-J-I-C-I-E-C-K, and the last name is F-R-Y-K-O-W-S-K- I. Frykowski's death was caused by a gunshot wound to the left back and multiple blunt force traumas to the head. He was also stabbed. As to count three, Steven Earl Parent's, P-A-R-E-N-T, death was caused by multiple gunshot wounds. Count four, Sharon Marie Polanski, P-O- L-A-N-S-K-I, cause of death was multiple stab wounds to the body, and count five, Jay Sebring, S-E-B-R-I-N-G, cause of death was multiple stab wounds. As to count six and seven, these refer to the murder of Leno A. LaBianca, L-A capital B-I-A-N-C-A and his wife, Rosemary LaBianca. These killings took place on or about August 10th, 1969 at their residence located at 3301 Waverly Drive, W-A-V-E-R-L-Y in Los Angeles, California. Cause of death of Leno LaBianca was multiple stab wounds to the neck and abdomen. This refers to count six. Count seven cause of death was Rosemary LaBianca, was ascribed to multiple stab wounds to the neck and trunk. And I did have questions, so now I've got to reformulate some of this as to how we're going to talk about it. I note in the prisoner's version in the Board Report that I was just reading from, that you talked about as a member of the cult called The Family led by Charles Manson. "I was ordered by Manson while in a trailer located at the Spahn's Ranch, S-P-A-H-N, taking care of some children, to come to the front of the ranch where I met up with Tex Watson, W-A-T-S-O-N, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian, K-A-S-A-B-I-A-N. Manson told Susan, Linda and myself to go with Tex and do whatever he says." You drove out to the Cielo Drive. Watson cut some telephone lines. He came down, he took a rope. He went over the fence. He told Susan, Linda and the inmate, he motioned them to the fence, told us to climb over, and eventually they did. He motioned to follow him into the house. He went through a window, and they went in and they found the victims and pretty much terrified them and then tortured them as they killed them. And that's the best way I can summarize this. There was a lot of activity around those killings. Basically, they were stabbed, and there was writing on the walls and the doors between the two residences and blood before all of the offenders left the house. So, I'd like to talk with you about why -- let's go back to social history. You were raised in a home that sounds fairly normal to me. Can you talk a little about your social history and help us get an understanding about where you came from?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I came from a middle class home, and my parents divorced when I was 15. I had a sister, a stepsister, who was seven years older than I was, and it, my parents, my father was a workaholic and eventually broke, destroyed the marriage, and that's why they divorced. There was a rather, you know, during the 50s, no one really talked about their problems or there was very little discussed. And at that time, there were problems with my sister. She was a drug user and (inaudible) she got pregnant. She had a child. She had, at different times had had a lot of problems, so there was, the division in our home was between my mother and father and then on who was responsible for her behavior. What I see now is that he, that it was that there was for myself, there was just, there was little expectation for me to any achievement as it was. It was trying to deal with the problems that my sister was presenting. And it eventually tore our family, and I went and lived with my mother. And we, in my, I went to three different high schools, and we eventually, I went to, I had a semester in college. Along the way, I was introduced to drugs through my sister, and drinking, as I felt,I never felt like I fit in. So I found out a way to be accepted, and it was through drinking and through alcohol, drugs and that my parents' separation was, that at that time, you know, I felt it was definitely my problem, that I had created it. So, I took on responsibilities that I didn't at that time have, due to the fact that my mother really didn't, was terribly upset, and my father separated from her. But they didn't know I asked -- I didn't get answers to those things that I was questioning as a, you know, 15 year old girl or 16 year old girl. So I just, to me the best answer was to, my peers, when at that time, I found that if we drank and we, it was just best if we drank. And my sister was using marijuana and pills.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: What kind of pills were you using?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Benzedrine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. right. And did I read that you originally took weight?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. I had actually took it from a doctor, because I was overweight was young.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Right. All that for but I when I

INMATE KRENWINKEL: And he prescribed like Dexamol or something that's more, but it's similar. They have the same kind of components, anyway. It would be considered another -- and so, I went to Benzedrine, which is something my sister took along with (inaudible) and she had them available, so I used Benzedrine, and I took some Seconal and some other drugs that my sister had. I was looking for someone to explain what was going on, and I sought my sister. I sought out my sister. She was the older one, and I had no one else, so I created, you know, that's why I created a relationship with my sister.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. And when did you leave the home?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I didn't leave until I left college. It was just my mother, and we stayed pretty much together.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Until I left. And I graduated from high school, University High School.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: When you left, why did you leave and where did you go?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: When I left Alabama at that time, I was in college. I was at Spring Hill. I went back to California, and I lived with my sister.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. And did she keep the baby, and was it her and her child living there?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, Ronnie. She had two children. One of them was adopted out and the other one she had was Ronald.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. So, when you went to live with her, Ronald was there.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: He was about nine years old at the time, and she was living down in Manhattan Beach.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. And so what were you doing there?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: When I went there, I went and found a job, and I was working at the Insurance Company of North America.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right. And then what?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: And while I was at my sister's home, I met a lot of her friends and one of her friend's names was Billy. And we went to his home and that's where I was introduced to Charles Manson, and he asked to stay at, he was there with his friend. He said they had done time together at Terminal Island, and he asked me did I have a place to stay, and my sister invited him to our place. And while he was there and I was looking for someone to, like a boyfriend, you know, and then it started, you know. In those about three days or so that he stayed there, I was -- he sang to me, he made love to me. Basically it was, you know, I was developing a relationship, I thought, with him as a, you know, girlfriend/boyfriend relationship.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I was 19 at the time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. And so, after three days, what happened?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: After three days, he said he was going to be leaving, and he wanted to know if I wanted to go with him, and I said yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: And so, did you leave your job? What did --

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. I left everything. At that time, I was someone who had felt, you know, I was in transition. Living with my sister was not working out. I felt it was not working out. She was using drugs at the time, so I felt like, you know -- and her son, she had some problems with him. He was having emotional problems, and I didn't know how to handle all that. So, this seemed like the way out. He was a boyfriend, someone I, you know, he seemed like the answer. He seemed like my salvation at that time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. So, you left with him. And tell us what's next.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: What we did is, we had started going on the road. He was traveling. He wanted to go visit with some different people in some different states. He said he wanted to go make music, you know, to find his mother. He wanted to visit his parole officer, who was in Washington. He decided that we would just travel the roads. Along the way, we met up with Lynette Fromme and Mary Brunner who were people that he, I didn't know about until he (inaudible) and they joined us.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Where were you living as all this took place?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: We were in a van.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Go ahead.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: We were living in a small van and we had, and we would do certain things for, you know, for money before we took off. I started using my father's credit card that he had given me and started using it to pay for the gas and tires and whatever we could do there. We started to do, once in a while, we would just do kind of like odd jobs along the way. I mean, if somebody gave us money, but he also sang. We'd stop at little coffee shops and sing. He was, somehow we just kept going and we found people that told us we could stay with them. (Inaudible) invited them, and so, we began traveling around.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: At some point, did your father cut off that credit card to you?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: And how long ago, I mean, how much time went by while you were using it before he cut if off? And did you talk to him about that when he cut if off?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No, I think as I began to use it, I started realizing that what I was doing was not right. In a way, I was starting to feel guilty about using the card and eventually got rid of it. I don't remember how long. It was months, four to six months maybe. And one of the things that immediately, that there, any mention of contacting my father (inaudible) was something that was basically really frowned upon. It seemed if the family was brought up or discussed at all, that Mr. Manson was negative. And at that time, I wanted to, you know, I was beginning to want to please him. I wanted him to like me, and so, bringing up that idea, you know, bringing up that, and he was really adamant about family and the importance of family. And he obviously didn't care about you in the first place if, you know, you were in the situation that you are and the way that you were living with your sister. So, obviously he didn't have a very high view of families. And little by little, I was, you know, I wanted, I really, I was doing anything I could to get his attention and love.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I was committing to his (inaudible) relationship, and I kept saying yes, and it seemed appropriate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I was changing my values and behavior.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yeah.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: To meet with his and to meet what I considered a way to please him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. I'm going to come back to that. But your sister died at age 29 of a drug overdose, yes?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, she did, in 1971.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: That's a shame.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, it was. It was horrible. She never stopped using drugs.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: And your father, how was your relationship with him prior to his death?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: It was really good.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Was it?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: It was my father coming, really coming to visit every single week. It was here at the institution, and after the arrest, I was picked up by him. And little by little, he started to bring a sanity back, and he kept holding to the kind of, you know, to the values that I once held to and believed, and he kept believing in me. His loyalty and his love, his unconditional love and acceptance were the beginnings of the foundation for me to stop and realize what I had become and what I allowed to happen (inaudible) and the monster I became.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yeah. So, when did you end up at the ranch, all of you?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I was with Mr. Manson for 2-1/2 years and we, before we ended up at, because it seems, at Spahn's Ranch, we didn't end up there for a rather long time. It was a lot of different places that we lived at. That was the end of, say, I don't know, maybe even a year and a half in the time that I was with him. We lived in different houses in San Francisco. We went all the way to Washington. We were in Florida. We traveled the road and went different places, houses in Topanga Canyon. We were constantly moving. We lived in the bus, a VW Volkswagen bus and then we also eventually got a school bus and wherever we parked and the different places that we lived, eventually, Spahn's Ranch became available. Someone found Spahn's Ranch and we were there for more than a year. It wasn't, you know, there was many other residences and then the ranch, the Barkers, we went out to the desert.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. So, how many of you were traveling around together?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, it originally started with myself and Lynette and Mary Brunner. Then eventually, about I would say, nine months later or so, we met with some people in San Francisco, and Susan Atkins joined us, along with some, a couple other women. And little by little, after that point, it started to gather more momentum. It was after -- because Mary Brunner and Lynette Fromme and myself, like I said, we were probably the first nine months or so, we were all the women. Then it began (inaudible). Once Susan came and this other gal came, I think from San Francisco, it seemed like after that like every couple (inaudible) more people joined us. Probably by the last days, there was probably maybe 50 people; throughout time, there were a lot of people that came and left. They would come for, and realize they didn't want any part of this, and they left. Others came and stayed. There was a lot of different areas that we'd be staying, so that at any one time, it was never like a complete, everyone all together at one time, so that there was more of being aware of them. But I would be in one area of the ranch or out in the woods or at the fountain of the world, and there would be people at the recreation -- there was just a lot that I, my, I would guess 50.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Fifty.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: At any given time. And you know, everyone knows that drugs were a big part of the whole culture. that?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: LSD, marijuana.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: How did you get

INMATE KRENWINKEL: A lot of it was given to me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Who would give you the drugs?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Friends of the Mansons. At that time it seemed, and it's -- When you're in San Francisco at that time, it was, drugs seemed to be everywhere. You could walk the street. When I walked the streets, on Haight Street in San Francisco in 1967, you could always get marijuana. You could have gotten just about anything, and it seemed like at times we paid for them, but there was other times when someone would hand these acid -- just put on paper, these, I'd say, cards that were just dotted with acid (inaudible), marijuana. People were growing it. Some places we went we actually, it was bought by, at that time it was just called a key. There would be a whole, it was a huge thing, and we'd clean it and smoke it. We smoked marijuana every single day. It seemed to be something people did like smoking a cigarette, and we did that, I did that every day. It was part of the lifestyle that was -- the lifestyle was becoming very engrained and enmeshed in the hallucinogens, marijuana, a bit of methamphetamines at that time was starting to enter. I really didn't know much about intravenous drugs, never had used an intravenous drug. Some people did Methedrine. I remember there was some people that had come back at one time later on that were using intravenously, but I just stayed pretty much with the different forms of hallucinogens.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. So, I've read the previous transcript that was in '04, and noted some of the things that were said during that hearing, that there were notes that you didn't have much emotion when talking about the crimes. And you talked about the peer pressure involved that got you in the life crime, and I note that in the current psychological, you talked about the motivation for the murders was not her own. Her motivation was to maintain a relationship with Charles Manson, which meant doing as he said, and you indicated that you feared and revered him. So, the question I have without, and I'm not talking about the facts of the crime, but how did you manage to become involved in these horrible, vicious crimes? What inside you -- the external is Manson, drugs, and all that. What was the internal? What's driving you that you would do something this horrible? Where did that come from?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I wanted this man's love is what originated my relationship with him, and I continued to justify a way each time that I, you know, I said yes to him. I said yes to our relationship, and as things began to change over those years, I began to, any time I saw something that I normally would be against, any of the values I held, I began to justify it away in my head or rationalize it as something, you know, oh, well, I can accept this. I can keep accepting these differences, even though they don't feel right. And little by little, I allowed myself to continue to commit to him and believed that either things would change, that he would finally love me the way I felt I wanted him to love me, that I, you know, that if I did, you know, if I did this, then things would change or it would be better, that somehow I was never enough or I wasn't, you know, I just kept recommitting to this relationship. And I kept, the more that I did, the more I lost any values I held, any belief systems I held, that I'd been brought up with, things that I knew were right, I slowly gave up to try to be something that he would love, because that, because I had no self-worth. That's why I totally kept giving up anything that I felt about myself in order to be what I considered acceptable to him.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right. I might have more, but do you have questions, Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Yes. A few minutes ago when you were talking to the Commissioner, you said something to the effect when describing yourself, the monster that I became. Explain to me what you meant by that.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: To give up, I was raised with all the best that my parents could give. I went to church. I loved my church. I loved my friends. I loved my family. But there were problems, and I wanted to be also accepted growing up. And so, I didn't have, I didn't feel inside me that I was a whole person. I did feel that I was pretty and was worthy and whatever, and my self-esteem was at the bottom, and I sought a relationship to help somehow give me that salvation, that somebody who seemed stronger and had better ways to handle the world, someone more knowledgeable than myself, that I would listen to them, that I would allow them to somehow, you know, let myself believe that what they said is real, and myself, take that on and commit to that, commit to the words that person was saying and would go there with them. Because I wanted so badly to be acceptable, to be loved, and the more that I did that, the more that I gave up who I was, and as I began to do that, everything that was good and decent in myself, I threw away. That which people had left in me, that which people had ever found within me, I threw away. I became anything, I would do anything, because I wanted somehow to have someone say I was something special in their eyes. And by doing that, I became a monster. I gave up all that was good and accepted all that was bad and allowed that to be me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: And you did that by following.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I see. Sorry. And you did that, made that decision to throw away all of those things without any thought about the consequences of doing just that as a person? Because we all have a basic need to be wanted, to be liked, to be accepted. But it sounds like you're saying that you threw that all away and all of the good things that went with it and accepted all of the negative things that came out of it. But it sounds like you did that without so freely and without any thought to the consequences to you and people and things around you. Is that accurate?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. It was a process. It was a process in the relationship that changed from day to day as I was with him, because he would change what was needed to be acceptable to him. And slowly but surely, I (inaudible) everything in order to be able to be, as he redefined constantly what it was that he wanted.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I see.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: And I did that freely.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Are you the same today?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: My gosh, I hope not.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: You hope not?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I certainly hope not, but all that I have done, all that --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: How would you know that?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: How would you know that?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Yeah.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: By the person that's sitting here and speaking to you. By someone who I accept what I have done and I know the other person that I was. And as I said, having someone that I'm keeping in my life, as my father who came, and by that, at times when I turned him away -- there was a time when I rejected everyone that was from my past and slowly bring them back. So did all that I had turned away from back, slowly but surely, a very difficult, with difficulty. Through the help and assistance of psychologists, through self-help groups, through the people that have come and made me work at looking at where I had been and who I had become and demand that I face myself. That's what begins to make the difference and the changes for today, by putting myself into recovery, to recover from the harmful drugs and putting myself into, you know, looking at the relationships with co-dependency in a relationship, by going back and revealing each and every step of my past and where I went and coming back from that and facing myself, which has taken years of therapy, years. Because I realize I had gone so far away from anything that was myself, the core of myself.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: And how could a person be comfortable now with you and knowing that you are a very changed person today, as opposed to what you were then, and you as you described yourself, the monster I became?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think it would be number one, for others. You see me in the light that I am. I think that's what basically a file does, a psychologist does, the people that have written the papers that you're reading from family and friends in society that you see. I think that tells a story, and from the efforts that I have put forward in the, you know, in the groups that I attend and the people that, in the life that I live. And in, I guess, the words that I give you, although they are so weak to express what (inaudible) so inadequate to say what transpired in my life. I hope it's -- I'm sorry.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Well, being here in this very controlled setting, it's very easy to go along with the rules and the regulations and basically with the flow of prison life. And my question to you is that your decision-making then was so very serious and life-altering to not only yourself, but many people. Why would a person think that you are different now and today? And if that's the case, then why would a person think that you are different today in your decision- making?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think it would be, to start, would be attempt with educating myself because the person that was a part of, that was (inaudible) -- education was nothing that I did. It was looked down on. It was frowned upon. And basically that I would call it a cult that I was in, education was definitely frowned upon. I achieved a bachelor's degree (inaudible). One of the things that started this educating myself, attempting to get help, knowing I need help, reaching out to those people that have come in my life, sponsors, and going to groups, extending myself to Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous and Emotions Anonymous. That I keep myself constantly involved in these kinds of groups bringing people into my life to challenge me, that challenge who I am, and setting goals to move further ahead to become a better person, to work with others, constantly working basically the steps and sharing my experience, strength and hope in other ways, admitting every day in relationships that I have with others. I have, I am someone that you would never want to have been. These are the steps and things you can do to not see that you ever go to the dark places that I have visited. By making, by showing that, by when I can, taking on projects and things that assist others. I don't, I try to find healthy relationships. I try to seek out things that every day support growth and responsibility and --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Relationships are a constant within our society and communities. And you described a relationship that you had developed with Charles Manson. Now, would you describe yourself as a leader or as a follower? And whichever one, how would you say that would affect your future in the community if you were in it or make it to the community?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I'm not --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Am I clear on that?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. I'm not a follower, and I choose not to follow any more than I choose not to lead anyone. There is no place I'm trying to take anyone with me, and there's nobody that I believe takes me with them. But I think relationships are in everything I do. It's communication. That everyone puts the truth on the table and we go from that point, that we, that I bare my soul when I can to be the exact person that I know that I need to be to be healthy, to be honest, to be open-minded and to move forward. And I definitely have no ideas of either leading or following anyone.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay. But I think you said earlier that you would, if you were to get into a relationship that you would listen to that person.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. I think communication is --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: And what that person said.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I mean, I think in relationships comes negotiation and compromise. There is no one that runs the show completely unless that seems to be that we both agreed that this is the best direction to go. But this time, opinion matters. My opinion matters to me, and I need to be able to tell someone I'm speaking out and we discuss it. If we disagree, we work it out, and then we compromise and negotiate a resolution.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: You would compromise and negotiate a solution.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: A solution and a resolution.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Even in an instance where there may be something that was suggested?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: If it was harmful to me, I'd just say no.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Illegal or harmful.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yeah. And then it's just no. If it's something that's harmful. But in a relationship that I'm trying to build as a friendship, we have to define a good relationship. Bad relationships and with people in here who are, I think simply, they know that I have no interest, and I just, you know, that I'm --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: But yeah, and I think you're hitting on where I've been in this line and that you said, I was not hearing you say that I have developed that ability in my decision-making, in my relationships forming and my outlook, worldly outlook and community outlook, that I've not developed the ability to say no or to say, I'm not going to do that. And I missed hearing that.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I say no a lot, and that's one of the reasons that I haven't really been in trouble in here.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Am I not getting that or --

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No. I know how to say no very well now, because that is the first thing that I developed is the ability to say no and stand on things that I worked believe in. But as of now, I'm ready and I've for it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: And I have asked think, in a couple of different ways to try and that, to elicit your response, and I didn't feel, you, I get at I didn't seem to be getting that, but you're saying that you have developed that ability over time since your incarceration. Is that correct?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. I just have a couple more questions on this subject. In your hearing in '04, and that was your most recent because you've had several postponements, so I just want to state that for clarity, Commissioner asked you, do you ever try to get away or want to get away. This is referring to back when you were with Manson. You said a couple of times, I'd left and he came and got me from the place that I had gone. And that's my man, that I had went to his home. He came and got me from that home.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: And then a few minutes later, did you have any idea at that point that you wanted to get away and could have gone home, you weren't being held against your will. This is on the day of the murder, you and Susan, the ones that were alone while Tex Watson first climbed over the wall, and what you said, that's correct. Okay. Did you have any idea at that point that you wanted to get away and could have gone home? You weren't being held against your will. And your response was, "I never thought about leaving." And then back on page 31 of the transcript, this is Deputy Commissioner Keenan talking, and he's citing, let me see. He's citing some of the psychiatric evaluation, and he said, I'm going in the middle of the statement, you acknowledged that you knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of the commission of the crime, however, she felt overwhelmed and mortified by Mr. Charles Manson, such that she felt she had not been, that had she not committed the crime, she would have been killed for refusing Mr. Manson's directive. Can you talk about that, the inconsistency and then that statement?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I'm a little unsure exactly what you're asking. I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: He came and got you. Talk about that.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: That was early on I left with a biker, and it was in Redondo Beach and it had been friendly, and Manson came and got me. After a while, the relationship was such that there was implied and direct threat and that I was his, and that that was it. And he made it real clear to this man that there would be problems, you know, unless I went with him, and I did. I went back. That was, I don't know (inaudible) a year and a half. I wanted to be -- if there was any kind of, especially, eventually expressing my own opinion or expressing any kind of disagreement in what, in my relationship with Mr. Manson, he became, there was consequences and they were negative. It was so, after a while, the love that I thought was also very much fear. It was as much, it was fear and love because it was built on this not knowing what dance I was to do for that day, because without it, there would be consequences. One thing that I learned early was that there was consequence for all action in that relationship. When I went to the house with Tex (inaudible), I should have immediately left. I should have found a way and not gone over the fence and run down the hill. (Inaudible) me screaming. Because there was no doubt that I knew that what was ever going to happen here was not going to be good. I did know that that was, the plan was to murder two women inside the house. That was given, was a given.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. I'm not going to ask you to talk about the day of the murder, but I understand what you're saying.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: It was -- I should have, but I, you know, I committed to it. I committed to what Tex said and I, you know --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. And so?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I was willing basically to sacrifice other lives for my own.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: But then you left after the murders. You left the state.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No. I was, that was when I was released from custody to my father.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Tell us about that.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: When everyone was arrested in the desert, I was taken down to Inyo County and I was released in Inyo County, and they kept saying what's your name. My name was Katie. That was the given name Manson gave me, and that was the name I used, because people were not allowed to use, he did not want people to use -- he gave names to everyone. No one was allowed to have their old name because their old name belonged to the past. It was one of his philosophies that I adhered to, so my name was Katie. Katie the (inaudible) is the name he gave me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: And when we went and we were interrogated on the (inaudible) that were found there and there were different things that were stolen, stolen property. And eventually, they asked my name, and I said my name is Pat Krenwinkel. And they contacted my father, and I was picked up by my father. I was released to his custody. And people were still in the jail and being released to different areas. Everyone had, there was a group of people and not everyone --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Right.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Others were arrested again in the desert, but I was released to my father.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: And then what did you do?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: What I did was I, he thought it would be best if I went to my mother's, who lived in Alabama. By that time that I even reached Alabama, I was already getting phone calls from people like Lynette Fromme and other people that said I need to get back to California now, that Manson wants me back. I was eventually arrested in Alabama, so a week or two there, and I was arrested (inaudible) and it was because I never spoke with my family about any of this. I wasn't capable of doing it. They didn't know, and so when they were contacted by people, they didn't answer; they gave them the phone numbers and they called there at my mother's and the police started to leave messages.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right. So, we do have relatives of your victims in the room, and they will be speaking later, and they will be able to give an uninterrupted statement. What do you think you've put them through?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think that I have destroyed their lives. I've taken away from them the relationship with their loved ones. By my actions, I have truly created such grief for them, there is no way to say how much hurt I have caused.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Have you ever written a letter before today?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I have written letters. Some I could not send out to anyone. I threw them away. I have written (inaudible) I have written.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. What do you think the impact to society was of this crime, these crimes?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think it threatened them. I think it made people scared in their own homes. I think it made for everyone to be extremely careful because that violence could enter their home.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: And how do you think the public feels about this crime today?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think that they feel the same way that there is crime and no one wants to be hurt or violated or have their home invaded or their life impacted by violence. It destroys the fragile network of a family, the fragile network of our lives and our friends and our community. All of, any form of violence at all rips us apart. It takes, it rips apart our heart. It diminishes us. It takes away the civility I think that we all cherish and try so hard to build. I believe that any form of, that crime is horribly frightening.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. And how do you face this day after day? How do you cope?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I may never -- this is something that there is no way to ever diminish. I know each day, the more that I understand myself, the more I know the damage I've done. The more that I hold precious, I know that those precious things have been taken from others. I know and I try each day to help others where I can to give back any way I can to my surrounding and to the people that I live with here. I attempt to be, to mentor those who need it, to tutor where I can. I try to involve myself in things that fill up myself and others, to give back to others. I try to involve myself in any way in anything that is (inaudible) to me to try to feel that I am not in any way by my actions causing any harm or hurt to anyone. I try to be honest and truthful and open with my relationships, and I try to be respectful. I attempt to live as a good, what I view as a good, honest person. I try to be, as I said, I try to make things better, not worse and to be a part of solutions, not problems.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Any questions on any of that?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Not at this time, thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right. At this time, I'm going to note that there is no CI&I in this file that I could find. But the Parole Officer's Report has the convictions and arrest history as taken from the CI&I, and you have a very, very brief criminal history prior to the life crime. On June 22nd of '68, in Ukiah, you had Health and Safety, possession of dangerous drugs with a prior, possession of marijuana. It was dismissed. And on August 16th of '69, Los Angeles Sheriff charged you with grand theft auto, which was ultimately dismissed, and then you were charged in 10/10/69 with the life crime. And you had no juvenile record. Is that correct? Okay. All right. Well, at this time, I'm going to turn it over to the Commissioner, and he's going to go over the post- conviction factors. And I may well have more questions for you, but if you want to turn your attention to him now, he'll be going over those things.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Thank you. For the purposes of today's hearing, we have reviewed the Central File, the post-conviction progress reports last updated on October 1st, 2010 by CC-1 L. Neff, N-E-F-F, as well as the Life Prisoner Evaluation Report prepared for the February 2011 calendar by CC-1 L. Neff, as well as the psychological evaluation prepared by Dr. Jana Larmer, L-A-R-M-E-R, and the first name is spelled J-A- N-A. In reviewing this, it's noted that you continue to remain at Medium A custody level with a classification score of 28, which is essentially a zero under the old scoring method. You last were at classification committee on July 28th, 2010, and they indicated that there would be no changes to that. In the past 39 years of your confinement, you have worked in various job assignments, such as the culinary, mural painter, graphic arts, janitorial services, community resource clerk, camp trainer, teacher's aide, hobby craft clerk, recreation clerk, inmate assignment yard worker, various clerk positions and other volunteer assignments. And all of your work supervisors' reports were exceptional dating back to the first. They indicate that you were self-motivated and very capable. There were no, actually at this time, your current, you were in book binding and that you're always willing to assist others. Your current work assignment is as the Chaplain's clerk, effective May 28th, 2010, and there were no supervisory reports on file. With respect to therapy and self-help activities, you continue to participate in AA and NA, drug awareness counseling and relapse prevention group, Convicted Women Against Abuse, Long Termers Organization, and you've participated in charitable donations for Crossroads Program, and you've earned a certificate from the Canine Support Team as a certified pet dog trainer. As far as disciplinary is concerned, it's indicated that you have no 115s, and you've had one counseling chrono, which was on February 26th, 2005 for your cell not being in compliance. They said that at the last Board Hearing, it was recommended that you stay disciplinary-free and that you earn positive chronos and that you get self-help and attend self-help groups. You have no enemy concerns that were noted. There's no holds and no warrants. And the Correctional Counselor advised you that if you had any new letters that would be post-completion of this report, you were to bring them to the hearing. And if you have them, you can give them to me at the appropriate time. You did do the Central File review. Some of this is repetitive, but I want to make sure that I get everything in here. I think I've already talked about your vocational training. The one thing that I did want to mention is that you had gone to University High School, and you, did you graduate from there?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I did.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay. And you have one semester of college and that you're now attending academics. During the period between August 1st, '09 and August 1st, 2010, your TABE score is listed at 10.9, IQ of 109, and I believe you had completed an AA degree at Chaffey College. Is that correct?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: What was that in?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: It was in general studies.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: General ed?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: It was general studies.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: And you have completed, have you completed your BS?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. In human services.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Human services at the University of La Verne.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: La Verne.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Was that in 1980?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. (Inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: As far as 128Bs are concerned, there is some at the back here, as well, but we have one listed, August 12th, 2009 for the Cat Care Program. You were thanked for donating ten dollars, and then August 26th, 2009, Emotions Anonymous, it's called EA, from January to June 2009. It's a 12- step program adapted for people in dealing with emotional problems. Would you consider yourself to have emotional problems?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: We work within EA on unresolved problems and how we are to live our lives in a healthy way such as guilt and grief and things that we would carry inside ourselves for the rest of our lives and how you learn to live with that, because it will never be totally resolved.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Today, do --

INMATE KRENWINKEL: And so, it's for helping --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Sorry. I didn't mean to talk over you. Today, do you feel that you have unresolved issues that you would like to deal with or feel that you need to deal with?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I think it's just finding always healthy ways to live with, you know, the absolute guilt that I carry and the grief that I feel. And I think that there is just, with what I've learned, is that I should live every day one day at a time to how to, you know, to present any issues that I'm, you know, been raised to feel. That's really what EA is. It's a culmination of learning how to live with the past, with having had a drug, having used drugs, having bad relationships, having all those things and trying to always find a healthy way to look at changing them.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay. And today you would identify guilt and grief as two of those issues.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, and shame.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: And shame. Anything else? Should I not assume that those are related directly to the life crime?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: But they are related to the life crime, absolutely. And I'm trying to find a way to navigate my life in the healthiest manner possible.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: How far along do you feel that you are personally in resolving those issues or coming to a good understanding of those issues?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think it's through these groups that you go and support, that it makes it all possible. It's the constant use of the 12 steps. It's constantly moving forward in the day and time to who I am, being open and honest and following the guidelines of the steps in my life, the acceptance of the mistakes and the continuing --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I understand. But how far along in the resolution of those issues do you feel that you are today?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think that many of the solutions, I'll carry to my grave. It isn't that there's an end all to these. It's living with these unresolved things. It will never be resolved. How can I make right what I have made wrong? I can't do that here, but I'm learning each day to find peace and moving forward so these things don't paralyze me, that I'm able to live and find outlets to continue to move forward and grow. And some things will always be unresolved. (Inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: But is that not part of the resolution in coming to grips with these and learning how to work with them and live with them day to day?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: That's part of the steps. The steps offer how to deal with things on a day by day basis. The inventory and personal inventory every day and learning and talking with others. (Inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I see. Also, we have listed 128 as far as the prison PUP program. You got a commendation on 1/1/2010. And some of the group activities are listed as the African American Women's Prisoners Association. That chrono is dated 3/25/2010 for participating in drug awareness counseling and relapse prevention group. The group was started in September of '09 and continued through March of 2010. And then on May 2010, CIW Cat Care Program. I think I mentioned that already. And then June 8th, 2010, it's another repetition of Pathways to Wholeness, July 6, 2010. It's a spiritual based self-help group. Women Against Abuse, July 26th, 2010. And certificates that you've gotten have been Language Arts Success Centers at Chaffey College for successfully completing the requirements for the tutor certificate at the regular level I. A certificate for appreciation for drug awareness, July '09. It's also noted, too, it bears mentioning, I believe, October 26th, 2009, a 128B states that you fell to the ground and broke your arm. How's that healed? Is that all right?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: They structured it with metal.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: No residual issues with that?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: You did have a surgery on that.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, they did. They (inaudible) metal hinge.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I see. Okay. The psych evaluation from Jana Larmer, L-A-R-M-E-R, indicates that you were interviewed on July 3rd, 2009 and that the previous Panel had requested a new evaluation to specifically discuss the areas of insight, remorse and assessment of dangerousness. The doctor goes through your educational background and some of the things that you've participated in. Talks about your drug use, drug abuse, and that you describe yourself as being addicted to drugs. And that you used drugs daily, marijuana, hashish, LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, speed, opium. Do you, you attended NA and AA for some time now. Do you feel that that is sufficient for you to be able to control any potential urges you may have out in the community for relapse?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. I am an addict, and that is why I am constantly involved in the 12-step program, with Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous to keep the 12-step principles, because it's a way of living one day at a time and be able to (inaudible) addict.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Do you have a sponsor?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think we have basically (inaudible) Emotions Anonymous is a home group. They don't, I've had sponsors here. I've had women sponsor me, and I've sponsored others.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay. Well, it's a very important part of the 12-step program.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: So, it's both. I've had people that work with me and (inaudible) I've sponsored them.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I see. Now, you indicated that you have plans for entering the Crossroads program. Have you sought out or gotten a sponsor for your AA/NA meetings now for possible future use?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I've spoken with Sister Terry Dodge who is the head of the program, and she said she will put me, connect me with all the drug programs that are available out there or any program I need to get a sponsor, because when you go out, you have to seek out a sponsor at the time (inaudible) and then she's, you know, very connected with the community-based programs. She herself in her program has groups.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: That's what she's done or is doing. But what have you done?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I've made my connection with her, and I was, if I should ever be released, I would go to her program, and she would assist me in connecting me with those at the time when I would be released (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Why are you not doing that yourself? I mean, contacting someone in NA that you could develop a sponsorship relationship with?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I've tried and I've talked to different people and they would say as soon as I have a release date that (inaudible). That's, I mean, I can write. I can talk with them, but again, they just need to know when and they will do it. It's they don't really do any -- I talked with the sponsors of our AA and NA who have been coming in for the last 25 years, and they won't, they will not hook you up with a sponsor on the street until such time as we would be coming out to that particular meeting (inaudible). I have tried that. I have spoken with them about that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: You have?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: So, your sponsor (inaudible).

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: I'll note, this will become clear when you look at the Crossroads and kind of what they provide.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: We'll talk about that in a minute. I'm just trying to get, I'm exploring what efforts she has made --

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I tried, yeah, I tried.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Yeah, she reached out to Crossroads.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: And I've spoken with different sponsors over the years, but they don't provide anyone on the outside to do it by letter.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: And they cannot, and so your only way is (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay. Have you developed a relapse prevention plan yourself as far as your drugs, drug use is concerned?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Will, I feel I have in knowing that --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Written?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Written?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Uh-hmm.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No. I don't think I have it written down. I mean, I have, actually at times, I have, and in different groups, we've done that kind of work, and you know, I've gotten (inaudible) papers. But the idea that I have to, that I would immediately hook up with a sponsor at any time prior to release, and again, we'd find, you know, a psychologist to go to. Those are things that I would do and definitely have immediately, you know, someone that I could contact at any time if I was feeling depressed or whatever, that I thought would be a trigger. So, it's recognizing triggers.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I understand. But you have not written yourself a written type relapse prevention plan that you can look at and work through and add to and subtract from and things like that?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No, I haven't. That's a good idea. I haven't done that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: My question is, why not? I mean, you had an extensive, excuse me, you had an extensive history of some very serious drug use in your past that seems to be connected to the life crime. And I would think that that would be the first thing you'd want to do would be to, hey, I need to write down and document a relapse prevention plan that I can look at, I can hold and I can refer to that if released, I can look at and say, hey, I'm getting an urge to use some drugs, what do I do, kind of thing. And I'm curious as to why you hadn't done that.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I mean, I've taught classes on relapse, but so I, but I don't have one that specifically, it's just something that I work on and like, you know, that I update or anything like that I've done for myself. But I have actually, like I said, I've taught classes in relapse prevention and on triggers. I have taught on anger management. A lot of what DAC is, drug awareness counseling group is, is that we each take on issues and teach classes on a, you know, on a weekly, a six-month program. And then as you go back, everyone chooses issues and then they teach that particular night whatever the issue that you choose to do. And that is, it's kind of like a home group. We each get up there and speak on it and how it relates to our issues.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: You may consider that, doing that.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: The doctor, Dr. Larmer, continues to write that you have been sober since you've been in custody, and you've expressed your commitment to abstinence, and it appears that she's very capable of remaining free from substances in the free community, but that's how I got onto the relapse prevention plan part of this. As far as impulsivity and behavior control, the doctor writes that there is, there was no evidence of behavioral or emotional instability during the interview. Her disciplinary record while in custody demonstrates that she has not been prone to violent outbursts, physical aggression or verbal threats. She maintains positive and rewarding relationships with peers and work supervisors. Ms. Krenwinkel has never incurred a rules violation, a 115, and has received the one 128 that we noted. Your Axis I diagnosis is poly-substance dependence in a controlled environment. There's no Axis II or III, which would include physician. As far as remorse and insight into the life crime, the doctor writes that it is clear that Ms. Krenwinkel has given much time and thought to the circumstances surrounding her crime. She spent equally as much time in group psychotherapy exploring the causal factors. She demonstrates insight into her state of mind at the time. She was essentially a member of a cult. And you said, "I was told what to do and I did it." She expresses great sorrow and genuine remorse for committing the murders, and while she recognizes the extent of control that Manson had over her, Ms. Krenwinkel does not shift blame to anyone but herself. She said, "Ultimately I will always have their blood on my hands, all the sorrow and the tragedy." She goes on to say, I'm reading what the doctor said, and she goes on to say that she should have seen the "red flags along the way" and is ashamed that she did not act to prevent the murders. Ms. Krenwinkel said, "I like to think that I am someone who values life. I can't believe that I was such a coward that I didn't do something along the way." Now, the doctor says that she reports that, you indicate that she has a positive and rewarding relationships with both staff and peers. And then the doctor gets into the assessment of the risk of violence and goes on to talk about the instruments that are used and says that in the -- and I'm not going to go into that detail, but on the PCL-R, the doctor rates you in the low range of the clinical construct of psychotherapy, I'm sorry, psychopathy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Psychopathy, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Psychopathy. I'm having trouble with my tongue today. When compared to other female offenders, she scored lower than one percent of those offenders on this instrument. On the HCR-20, the doctor notes that your, her life crime was of a violent nature. She was young at the time of the crime, 21 years old. She had a demonstrated history of relationship instability, and she had a significant substance abuse problem. These factors have a higher correlation with future risk of violent behavior. In the clinical or more current dynamic domain of risk assessment, Ms. Krenwinkel displayed none of the predictive factors for recidivism. All other reports indicated that she is both emotionally and behaviorally stable. As far as risk management is concerned, items on the HCR-20 identified minimal concerns for future risk of dangerous behavior. Ms. Krenwinkel's prospective plans for parole are feasible and comprehensive for residence at Crossroads. She does not have a formal offer of employment yet, but has assistance in the community to find work. She has many marketable skills and a college degree. She plans to continue her participation in NA and EA which should minimize her exposure to the destabilizing effects of stress, drugs and alcohol. Although her family is deceased, she appears to have substantial emotional support from friends in the community. Ms. Krenwinkel may be underestimating the stress she will encounter while reintegrating into the community after such a lengthy incarceration and the notoriety of her case. Ms. Krenwinkel's overall score as measured by the HCR-20 placed her in the low risk category for violent recidivism. Factors which increased her risk of recidivism were having three or more current offenses, having been incarcerated, having deceased parents, having a family member with a criminal history, having some criminal acquaintances as friends, having a past history of drug abuse. Overall risk assessment, after weighing all of the data from the available records, the clinical interview and risk assessment data, it is the opinion, it is opined, I'm sorry, that Ms. Krenwinkel presents a relatively low risk for violence in the free community. Ms. Krenwinkel's risk of violent recidivism could be expected to increase if she returned to the use of intoxicating substances, if she found herself without a permanent residence, income insufficient to meet her living expenses, or no social support in the community. Ms. Krenwinkel may be underestimating the level of stress she could encounter from the media and community upon release. However, she has a plan to mitigate the potential stressors by changing her name and relocating as soon as she is allowed to. Ms. Krenwinkel could decrease her risk of violent reoffense by verifying all parole plans, continuing to seek the support and encouragement of friends in the community and continuing to attend NA and EA. I did, we did review the 128s, and I'm going to just go through them quickly. Actually, I think I've already gone through them, the PUP program, the African American Prisoners Association, EA. I think I've covered all of them. NA, AA.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Are there any that you can think of that he's missed?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: If I've not covered any of the things that you'd like for me to cover, let me know now, and we can do that as we speak.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: I think you've covered most of them. Tai chi comes to mind as having been missed.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Tai chi?

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: I think you've gotten most of them.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay. If you can think of anything else, now would be a good time. I see that you have a 128. It looks like it's a relatively new one. Is that --

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: These are all the ones you've gone over.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: You've got them all? Okay.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: EA, PUP program, you've covered all those.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Good.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: They are updates of ones you've just reviewed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: All right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay. Thank you very much.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you. I think at this moment, I'm going to take a comfort break. I believe we can all use it. We've been here about two hours, so let's have a brief recess. The time is 3:10.

(Off the record.)

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: I think that we're all back in here.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay. We're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Thank you. The time is 3:30, and all parties that were in the room prior to our recess have returned to the room. Okay, Ms. Krenwinkel, we are now going to turn to the 3042 Notices. We really actually talked about who got the notices at the outset of the hearing, so I won't reread all of those. They've already been read for the record. We didn't receive any responses that I see from law enforcement, the court, or prior attorney or the Attorney General's Office. We do have the District Attorney represented here today, so we will hear from him shortly. I do have a letter here from a Joey Griffin. Do you know who that is? It's a support letter. He lives in Montana. You don't know him? Okay. All right. Well, he wrote a letter of support for you, and I note that it's in the file. It's from Joey Griffin, G-R-I-F-F-I-N. He lives on Conley Lake Road, C-O-N-L-E-Y, in Montana, Deer Lodge, Montana. He believes that you've been rehabilitated and believes you've changed and so on. And then in my file, I just had this one from '08 which is probably from when you were noticed before and then it was a postponed hearing, I'm imagining, that this letter came from. And this letter is from a Nicole Holland, H-O-L-L-A-N-D, and she is expressing her opposition to parole. And that's about it in the file. Under the ten-day notice, we did have a couple of letters of support. We received a letter from Crossroads signed by Sister Terry Dodge stating that she, it's a letter to verify that you have a place of residence upon your release from prison. That you were accepted in April of 2004, and they are continuing to guarantee you a place of residence. It's at no cost to the resident. They have a six-month residential program that provides board in a structured environment. They do use community-based programs, and they have some in their own -- they have their own programs within the residence. Normal length of stay is six months. Nine months or a year seems to be more conducive, and they have had someone stay as long as 14 months, but they allow you to stay as long as you need to be there. And then the Canine Support Teams from Temecula sent a letter offering to hire you, actually. They would consider you for a position at Canine Support Teams, given a position and funding is available at the time of your release. And they wanted to acknowledge the good work you've been doing training these pups for service dogs, and they state that they are grateful to have you in their program. And I know it's a very, very worthwhile program. It's a nice way to give back. So, and I did mention previously when we were going through your objections, that we do have letters of opposition that we will be considering in closed session and during deliberations. And I will, as I said before, inform you of the content once we review them. We haven't had a chance. All right. Parole plans. So, Crossroads is in your plan. What else?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I would hope to go to Crossroads, and eventually, after I feel like I'm, you know, able to understand all the technology and whatever else that's out there and the differences between when I was free and then, I would hope to be able to go back and live either with my cousin or a friend. One lives in South Carolina. One lives in North Carolina, and I also have a friend that's offered her home in Idaho.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: So, I would eventually leave this state. I would hope to be able to leave the state and take up residence there and find work. And I would hope at some time to be able to work in, hopefully, counseling of some kind, either with a battered women's shelter or drug counseling or work with dogs, continue to work with dogs. that?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Do you enjoy

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I love that, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Good. Okay. So, you have job skills.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. I do. I mean, I've taken, you know, I have different ones, but I'd be perfectly willing to (inaudible) so, you know, whatever would come up.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: You know, I would be willing to do that and to, like to eventually to obviously change my name and take up residence with a friend or my cousin out of state.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right. Okay. All right. And you'll continue to attend NA/AA?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I would immediately, yes, and I would be able to set that up prior to leaving, because I have already -- when I sought out Sister Terry to find out about the Crossroads program, I needed to know that she could assist me in finding, you know, a sponsor, help me to find where these different groups are, and in speaking with even the people that have come in from the outside, you know, I can find and connect with even to different states. Because actually you know, Alcoholics Anonymous is around the world.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Absolutely.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: You can go to Italy or France and find an AA or an NA or even an EA. I know it seems new, although it's been since 1971, Emotions Anonymous has also been one of the programs.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: No kidding.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: I wasn't aware of that. Sounds like a good support group.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: So it's, you know, so and find a psychologist and find those things. Plus the people that have offered to assist me, they know my needs, too. I've, you know, I've always made clear of the things and the support system that I would need and want to be able to reintegrate and be --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: To reinhabit the community.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right. Well, sounds like you've got that in place. It doesn't sound like you're missing any of the significant pieces for parole. All right. At this time, I'm going to go to Mr. Sequeira of the District Attorney's Office, and Mr. Sequeira, this is your opportunity to ask clarifying questions, and please direct your questions to the Panel. And if you, Ms. Krenwinkel, will do the same in your responses, he'll ask third person. He will ask us to ask you, rather than me repeating the question, if you could just respond to the Panel, I would appreciate it. Okay? Go ahead.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. I don't recall if the inmate indicated that she's talking about the life crime today. Is she or is she not?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: She's not talking about the facts of the life crime.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Those are primarily the questions that I have for her at this juncture.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. So, you don't have any at this time.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: If she's refusing to answer the questions, I would have no questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right. Mr. Wattley.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Thank you. You've got, you know, extensive history of drug use for the years leading up to these crimes. What's your plan to not potentially return to drugs?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Well, I think that I do a, similar to what myself and others here who acknowledge the fact that we're addicts, I think (inaudible). Emotions Anonymous was started by a group of us who attend on a continuous basis the Narcotics Anonymous, AA (inaudible) is a really strong (inaudible) group support, emotional support and honesty and people that would call you on the things that you do. That's really important. So, what we did is we came together and we went to the Chaplain and asked the Chaplain if we could start our own home group, a very tight-knit group of people that have been attending one form of one of the anonymouses that are offered here, either Narcotics Anonymous or CODA or AA, and we decided we all had one problem or another that may have been our basis. But what we wanted is a really strong support group because we have come to understand that nothing is more important than that, and we, and so, we chose EA. We know that we will always be living with things. We will always have problems, and we will need to always know how to face them. These things will enter our lives in and out, and we will need the strength. And how we've gotten that strength is by being honest and open with each other. This will translate to one of the most important things that I would do ever upon leaving here, and that is make contact, and that's what I've even asked Sister Terry, contact with any of the anonymous groups, of which there are many. Because basically every one of them comes down to 12 steps. Every one of them comes down to those initial 12 steps of how to live your life of how to, you know, know how to take yourself through a day when things seem to be pressing again, when your possible triggers, like mine might be depression or feeling not that I have no connection or with isolation or any of that. I know that through the 12 steps and through people that attend the 12 steps, when people have a support group, they are the ones that give it back to you. That's what we do. We are a group that gives back to one another to keep ourselves moving forward, and that would be on the outside, too. That's what I know the home groups on the outside do. That's what sponsors do, and that's something that I realize that even a group of us came together to initiate for ourselves was a really strong support group. And as I know that EA, everyone wonders what is the -- basically what it is is something that allows us of all different reasons, if they're overeaters, for whatever reason that they go, this allows us to come together to support and would be absolutely imperative that I have support people on the outside.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: And EA is something you would consider continuing while paroled?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Certainly. I can go to an EA (inaudible) everywhere.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: How do you rationalize for yourself why, I don't know, what decisions you had to make, choices you had to make in order to commit the crimes, I guess?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I think the fact that I allowed myself, that when I just committed myself to whatever this man said, that I would somehow be acceptable in his sight. I began to lose -- I know that he presented himself as a messiah, and as the relationship, I was willing to let go of my entire self, my spiritual being. I was willing to give up everything that I was. I allowed, I took whatever I thought would make this move forward, I would be coming --

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: And even embrace his --

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I was committed to this relationship with this man.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: There were all these ideas that seem to be going around that he would talk about, we'll do this and start a race war. We'll do this to, you know, recreate a separate society. Did you embrace these things at the time?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes, I did. If he said those things, I accepted that and I would repeat it back to him. I was willing to take whatever he said as the gospel.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: At some point, I guess a few times, you've talked about how you feared that he would kill you if you tried to leave again or if you tried to stop these attacks. You said that, right. But you still could have left.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Yes. I could have left. I absolutely could have left. People did leave. So, I, like I said, I committed myself fully to him. I committed myself to the act of murder. I was, I went with whatever was wanted at that time. That's where I allowed myself to be (inaudible).

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: And you realized at some point, obviously, that there would be some victims of these crimes of what he had in mind, what he was planning. What do you think about, how do you justify that?

INMATE KRENWINKEL: At that point in time, I was, as I think I had said, I was willing to sacrifice others' lives for my own. It's a horrible thing to live with to know that you never -- I was such a coward. But that is who I was and what I allowed to take place at that time.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: In the, I guess it was seven years ago when you last participated in a parole hearing, the question came up in reviewing some of the 12 steps, and the Commissioner asked you about step eight and where you make a list of people who you've harmed, and you said you were at the top of that list.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right. And I was absolutely wrong. It was a total mistake. At the time, as I am now, I was nervous. I was also in, I mean, I know that, obviously, you know, the victims and the families and those that were injured by just even the briefest association, the people that were lost, the people in the community that were fearful, all of them, those are all those that are always at the top of my list. As I said, I made a mistake. I was wrong. I had been involved in some, basically, work that was, that I was working within myself to try to, and with a group of people to, in one of our groups, to look at how there has to be, I have to be able to author my words that have anything, any meaning, I have to be a good person inside. I have to do the work. I have to realize who I was. I have to rip myself open to see who I am and what to do, and I have to find some serenity in my life. I cannot say to someone, I'm sorry, if I don't understand, and I am fully committed to what it means to have the grief and the regret and the horror behind it so that it has meaning when I give it.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: I think those are the only questions I have, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Did you have any clarifying questions? I didn't ask you before.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: No, I don't. Not at this time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. All right. Then we'll go back to Mr. Sequeira, closing statement at this time.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. I would ask the Panel to find this inmate unsuitable for parole at this time for a number of reasons. First of all, looking at the inmate's prior social history, it's clear that she came from an unstable social background, a background that was tumultuous, where the parents divorced, the sister who was involved in drugs, and her own drug involvement. I think one of the early admissions by the inmate regarding her attitude as a youngster prior to the life crime is captured very well in the Probation Report, in particular on page -- I'm not sure if the pages are numbered correctly.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Yeah.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: But it's under defendant's statement, where basically, and I'll quote from the Probation Report where "the defendant declared that she was always very unhappy as a child from the first time they gave me a rule." She clarified this by explaining she meant the first time they forced her to conform. She added that they, meaning society, all live lies. "Each person she watched, she would see break. Anyone truthful with themselves are beautiful." That's a quote from her. When the Probation Officer pointed out that the very people she criticized in society were also the shop people who gave her food, etcetera, she admitted this, but stated that if they were truly honest, they would open up the markets to people to take what they wanted. In relation to her feelings about Manson, here's a quote from her. "He never asked any questions except hi, how are you. Are you having a good time." While on the ranch, she would do anything she decided she wanted to do that had to be done. She worked with the horses. She ran, jumped, swam in the creek and took care of each other. So, it's quite clear from her own admissions that from her childhood, she had an anti-establishment focus, a rebellious attitude towards society, which fits in perfectly with why she would gravitate towards and become involved with Charles Manson and the other individuals who were part of the family and shared in their, later on, their joint criminal enterprises and their desire to start a race war. Additionally, in looking through her psychological evaluations, you can see a number of interesting facts as well that point to some areas of concern. With regards to her remorse, in 1980, Dr. Francis mentioned in his report that remorse seemed to be more shallow and intellectualized than it should be. In 1989 and 1990, Dr. Armstrong pointed out in discussing the inmate's psychological evaluation, that there was something missing, that her insight into her underlying needs were substantially lacking. Judgment appeared impaired, and on page 3 of the '89 report, he writes, she seemed to have little insight into her profound sensitivity to loss, particularly her family members. But when this became apparent during the interview, she hastened to obscure. The impression gained from this by the interviewer is that she could profit from individual psychotherapy. And then the next paragraph on page 3 says, while there is no striking psychopathology in her responses, there is, however, a suggestion of "something missing" which, in my opinion, takes away from her overall presentation. Ms. Krenwinkel appears to lack a certain spontaneity or ability to risk this favor in her general demeanor. While this is certainly not unexpected, in the special circumstances, her tendency to avoid a sense of sexual identity is worthy of note, if not a criticism. It goes on, and there are some interesting comments in 1993 and 1997 by Dr. McDaniel when discussing a particular incident where the inmate was trying to show that she had made some progress, and Dr. McDaniel felt that it was very strange. This is the incident in the cafeteria where someone accidentally spilled some, a hose and spilled some water on her, and her only response was, well, I smiled and I didn't do anything about it. And in a prison setting, Dr. McDaniel asked her if she explained to the other person that it was okay, and all she said was that she had smiled, and that caused some concern with him as well. And then, of course, in 2004, a psychological evaluation by Dr. Wu, W-U, he points out that the inmate, this is on page 1, bottom paragraph, the inmate demonstrated no emotion, although she acknowledged the fact that she accepted responsibility for endangering the victims' lives and that she was in part responsible for the numerous injuries that the victims incurred. I am unable to detect any remorse or regret expressed by the inmate regarding the crime. The inmate acknowledged that she knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of the commission of the crime. However, she felt overwhelmed and mortified by Mr. Charles Manson, such that she felt that had she not committed the crime, she would have been killed for refusing Mr. Manson's directive. And it goes on to conclude on the third page that she has yet to demonstrate any insight regarding her actions. She has yet to demonstrate remorse or regret for her actions and has not been able to recognize the loss that the victims' families suffered over the years. In my opinion, that she has maintained a habitual pattern of defusing the intensity and severity of the crime by acknowledging in a subtle manner that it was Mr. Manson who was ultimately responsible for the commission of the crimes. And of course, in 2007 in the most recent Board Report, that same feeling is present, and even in the statement from the inmate today, that she was present, but that she was an unwilling participant, that she only cooperated and went along with these crimes because she feared Charles Manson. On the one hand, she wants his acceptance and approval, but on the other hand, she fears him so much that she felt that she would be killed if she didn't go along. Now, that needs to be contrasted with the facts concerning not only the murders, but also the entire lifestyle that she was leading at that time. And I think she adequately described how this group of people began collecting and eventually began living at the Spahn Ranch, and this is a group that used drugs to facilitate their enjoyment, their pleasure. It was a large part of their lifestyle, but also music, in particular, the Beatles, was also a large part of their lifestyle and eventually part of their philosophy. And it's not only political, but also quasi-religious philosophy, as the inmate has even admitted. Through listening to the Beatles and revelations, their began this joint, and I say joint because it was embraced not only by Charles Manson, but also by this inmate and the others, this joint philosophy or feeling that there was, that helter skelter was coming, that the Beatles were prophets, and in the White Album, through various songs in that particular album, they were foretelling what was going to happen in the future, and that there was going to be a race war, that there was going to be, and then during that race war, the blacks would rise up. The blacks would basically wipe out the whites, but that Charles Manson and his family, who foresaw this happening, had hidden in the desert. And they'd hidden in the desert for a large number of years, and after this race war was over, they'd come back and emerge from the desert and that because the blacks were less intelligent than they were, they would have difficulty ruling if they return, if the blacks return to Charles Manson and his family and allowed them to basically rule things, and whether it was rule the United States or rule the world, it's not clear, but in any event, at least the United States. This is a far-fetched and absolutely ridiculous notion. However, you have to realize that back in the 60s, there was a lot of racial tension, particularly in Los Angles County. The Watts riots were a few years earlier, and there were flash points and there were trigger points in which certain incidents could trigger violence. And it was based upon this theory that helter skelter was coming, and it was the desire of Manson and the family, including Ms. Krenwinkel, to facilitate the beginning of helter skelter, to start this race war, to provide a catalyst to cause even more violence. These crimes in and of themselves are horrible enough. You're talking about the brutal slaughter, mutilation of innocent people for no reason. Seven individuals plus, you know, the unborn fetus of Sharon Tate. But beyond the horror of that alone is also the larger horror, that it was designed to start a race war, to cause even more violence and more people to die. This is really an act of domestic terrorism. These murders were designed to not only create terror amongst the community, but also cause more violence and terror as well. The inmate has indicated that she was an unwilling participant, that she went along only because Manson wanted her to or that she was afraid. But prior to the Tate-LaBianca murders, there were things that took place at the ranch that not only were huge red flags, but should have encouraged someone like Ms. Krenwinkel, if she were so inclined, to leave. There were preparations that were made for helter skelter. Dune buggies were equipped with machine guns. There were preparations to go into the desert. The Barker Ranch was going to be the hideout. They were acquiring weapons. They were making preparations. They were attempting to collect as much money as possible. Tex Watson was conducting sessions with the girls on how to stab, not just stick the knife in. You also had to stick it in and you had to pull it up as well. There were creepy crawly missions in which inmate Krenwinkel and the other girls were dressed in black clothes. They were designed to sneak up on houses in the middle of the night and maybe see something, leave a window open or something to terrorize people. These were all practice missions for the Tate-LaBianca murders. Two weeks prior to the Tate murders, Gary Hinman, an associate of the family, a musician who the family believed were about to come into a large amount of money, was held captive in his house by Susan Atkins, Bobby Beausoleil, Mary Brunner; Charles Manson later came over. Tex and Bruce Davis was also involved in this murder, where he was kept captive for over two days. He was made to sign over the pink slips to his cars, and they basically took all the possessions that he had, and in the end, he was brutally stabbed and killed and left for dead in his residence. And the significance of that murder is twofold. In that murder, they also wrote in blood on the walls of Hinman's residence, and they also put the paw print. The paw print was the symbol for the Black Panther party and it was designed, the cover up was designed to make it look as if blacks had killed Gary Hinman. Bobby Beausoleil was arrested. Susan Atkins was not at that time. She came back to the ranch, as well as Manson. Now, this is two weeks prior to the Tate-LaBianca murders. It's inconceivable to think that this inmate, Patricia Krenwinkel, wasn't aware that her crime family, her fellow crime partners and fellow terrorists, had already brutally murdered someone who was a friend of theirs. But yet, she didn't leave. Ms. Krenwinkel didn't leave the family. She didn't see what was more than a red flag at that point. It would have been a huge beacon that this group of people planned to kill more individuals. Because as you know, with Tate and LaBianca, those crimes were also designed to make it look as if blacks had committed them to start the race war. And that was part of the philosophy. On the night of the LaBianca murders, Ms. Krenwinkel, armed with a knife and with her crime partners, drove approximately an hour to Cielo Drive. There were knives in the car, and there was a gun, you know. Again, we keep hearing from Ms. Krenwinkel that she's the unwilling participant, and I believe in previous statements to Panels, she's indicated she really didn't know it was going to happen. She said she thought it was just going to be a robbery. Well, that's a little hard to believe, especially when two weeks earlier your crime partners have just brutally murdered someone, to think that if you're going out at midnight or one o'clock in the morning to someone's residence, that you're just going to go there to rob them and then take off. And then she was there when Tex Watson went up the telephone pole and snipped the telephone wires and then scaled the fence. And then poor Steven Parent, who was just visiting a friend who lived in the back house, was trying to, was on his way out the driveway when he was stopped by Tex Watson and shot brutally four times in the car. Again, Ms. Krenwinkel didn't turn away. She didn't run. She didn't freeze. She didn't say, hey, I can't do this. Instead, she waited until Tex went and sliced a hole in the screen and went into the residence and opened the door for her and for Susan Atkins to go into the residence. Now, I know that in looking at Ms. Krenwinkel's description of the crime, she seems to leave out a few important facts. Number one is that when she went into the residence, not only was she armed with a knife, but she also assisted in bringing Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring and Abigail Folger into the living room at knife point. She and Susan Atkins accomplished this. So, while they were in the living room and being tied up, that's when Abigail Folger broke away. Ms. Krenwinkel chased down Abigail Folger, stabbed her numerous times, 28 times she stabbed her, and then later ran for some help from Tex Watson. Tex Watson came over and also administered some blows. But the point is that she was the primary attacker. She was the primary person that personally killed Abigail Folger. But yet, when you look through her statements, she says in the 2000, actually in the 2004 report, she says, she attempted to stab her several times but was unable to successfully kill her. This is in the inmate's own words, again deflecting full responsibility for taking the life of Abigail Folger, the same situation we see later when we discuss the LaBianca murders. But let me still continue with the Tate killings. And of course, as you well know, the victims at the Tate residence were brutally slaughtered. Sharon Tate was killed, brutally killed, along with her unborn fetus. She was told that she was going to die and that was just too bad. She and her baby was going to die. That was said by Susan Atkins. There were a total of, I think, 102 stab wounds on the five victims, and in addition, they were also struck with multiple blows and they were also shot. Now you talk about sheer brutality, just at that one location alone. Five dead bodies, 102 stab wounds, and this inmate was more than just a passive participant. She was active in stabbing. She was active in collecting the victims, and she was active afterwards in helping cover their tracks by disposing of their clothes and the weapons and then going back to the ranch. One would think that if she were truly that afraid of Mr. Manson or that afraid of what her crime partners were doing, she might think about leaving. She might think about maybe telling the police, doing something, but no. What does she do the following day. She, along with Barbara Hoyt, a family member who was a witness in the case, and Leslie Van Houten, who was not with the group on the night of the Tate slaughters, sat around and watched the news accounts all day because they wanted to see what their handiwork was. This is not what I would describe as someone who was terrified and was not an unwilling participant. And after watching the news accounts, a plan was formulated for a second night of killing. Now, even if inmate Krenwinkel didn't quite know what the true intention was the first night, she certainly knew what the true intention was the second night because there was a meeting, and the discussion about how the killings were going to occur the second night with Charles Manson, Tex Watson and herself, Steve Grogan, Linda Kasabian and Susan Atkins, and Charlie Manson made it a point to say things were too messy the night before. You have to do it better this time. They then brought, you know, they brought their clothes. They made their preparations, all seven of them got into one vehicle and they began searching for victims. And I think it's detailed pretty well in the reports, but anyways, they went to several locations. And one location they went to a priest's house and they wanted to, Manson's intent at the time was he wanted to hang the priest upside down and kill him as a symbolic gesture. But apparently, the doors were locked and they couldn't get in. Another residence was discarded because there was children there, and Manson said it might be necessary to kill children some time in order to stimulate helter skelter, but not this particular time. There was a motorist who nearly was killed, a random motorist, but apparently, that didn't happen. The motorist managed to get away. They finally settled on the LaBianca residence on Waverly Drive. And the reason Manson went with them that night was also to make sure that they did things better. He was going to show them how to do it, because he thought that they botched it the night before. So, he went in and he tied up the LaBiancas. Tex Watson was armed with a bayonet and went into the residence accompanied by, well, before he went into the residence, Manson came back out. He told Ms. Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins and Tex Watson that they're tied up. I told them we're just going to rob them. Don't let them know that you're going to kill them. He then told the three of them to go inside, so they went inside. Tex Watson was armed with a bayonet. Ms. Krenwinkel was not armed, but what does she do? Immediately upon entry in the house, she goes to the kitchen and she obtains two knives. She gives one knife to Leslie Van Houten. She keeps the other knife for herself. Tex Watson asked the LaBiancas for money. Mrs. LaBianca said she had some money. They untied her briefly to try to get some money from them, and then she was tied up again and she was brought into the bedroom. A pillowcase was put over her head, and Susan Atkins began wrapping a cord around Mrs. LaBianca's neck. At this time, Mrs. LaBianca heard the struggles of her husband, or basically her husband being stabbed to death in the next room, so she immediately swung the lamp at Ms. Van Houten, and a struggle ensued. During that struggle, inmate Krenwinkel took the knife that she was carrying and she plunged it so hard into Mrs. LaBianca's collarbone that she bent the blade. And so, they at that point, Leslie Van Houten, I believe, ran into the living room, got Tex Watson to come back in, and then the two of them, in particular, Tex Watson and Leslie Van Houten, began stabbing Mrs. LaBianca to death. Now, I noticed that when you talk about the familial relationships, I noticed her looking back at a couple of the prior hearings. When inmate Krenwinkel was asked about Ms. Van Houten's participation in Mrs. LaBianca's death, she neglects, in fact says, that she didn't see Leslie Van Houten stabbing Mrs. LaBianca, which is absolutely not true, because even Leslie Van Houten admits to stabbing Mrs. LaBianca. She claims that Tex Watson went into the room, that she, meaning Ms. Krenwinkel, that Tex Watson went into the room with a bayonet and that she and Leslie just walked out. They went into the other room. Now, why would she say something like this, if she knows fully well that Leslie Van Houten participated in the stabbing and killing of Mrs. LaBianca? The only conclusion I can draw from that is that there still, at least back at that time during those hearings, there was a loyalty there. There was an unwillingness to fully admit what horrible acts your crime partners just committed. I mean, it's easy to say Tex Watson, because everybody knows that Tex Watson did it, and Tex Watson is, you know, lifelike, and he could be another, the second boogeyman to Charles Manson in terms of blame, because there's no question about what he has done. But now Mrs. LaBianca is killed in the bedroom. Mr. LaBianca is stabbed, and he's either dead or dying in the living room. So, what does Patricia Krenwinkel do at this point? Does she recoil in horror? Does she leave the residence? Does she say, oh, we shouldn't do this? Does she look around for things to steal? No. She goes to the kitchen. She gets a carving fork, a long two-tined carving fork and she proceeds to stab Mr. LaBianca in the stomach and chest area seven times, causing 14 puncture wounds to his chest. But that's not enough for Ms. Krenwinkel. Ms. Krenwinkel then also, with that same carving fork, carves the word, and it's war, W-A-R, in the stomach of Mr. LaBianca. Now, I don't have the crime scene photographs to show you, but I can tell you, they're horrific. There's this huge W-A war, R, carved in his stomach. Why the word war? Why did Ms. Krenwinkel carve the word war into his chest, or excuse me, stomach? Well, she's not talking about the crime today, and that's certainly her choice. But war has special significance to the Manson family. They felt that they were at war with society, that they were the counter- culture, that they didn't care for those people who worked and had jobs. They were called piggies, just like the song piggies on the Beatles' White Album, and in fact, not only did inmate Krenwinkel carve the word war, but she then took a rag and dipped it in Mr. LaBianca's blood and wrote above the door, the inside door of the residence the word rise. Also wrote on the wall, death to pigs, and also on the fridge, the words helter skelter. War, rise, death to pigs and helter skelter had significance not only to Charles Manson, but to Ms. Krenwinkel and to her crime partners. This was all part of what they believed the Beatles were foretelling on the White Album. One of the songs was named Helter Skelter. One of the songs on the Beatles album was called Blackbird, and in that song, they were talking about blackbirds arising, and the family believed that blackbirds referred to black people, that they were going to rise up and take flight and take control. Death to pigs wasn't a reference to police. Pigs were people who were described in the Beatles' song as people who went to work and had regular jobs. They were kind of a boring suburban people, mostly white, and so, death to pigs was also significant writing. But this all indicates not a mindless following of someone and a killing and slaughtering and butchering of someone because you think you're under duress. These are all acts by an inmate, by this inmate here, Ms. Krenwinkel, that shows a complete embracement, and a complete agreement and willingness to follow this misguided philosophy of starting a race war and causing further violence. Does she have remorse for what she was doing? Did she have any remorse on that night? What did she do after all this happens? She and her crime partners go to the refrigerator and they take out food at the LaBiancas' house and they eat. They eat, they drink some milk, chocolate milk, maybe. They took showers to clean the blood off of them, and then they left. A short time after that, they all left the ranch, the Spahn Ranch, and they moved out to Barker Ranch in the desert, and that's where, as Ms. Krenwinkel mentioned, they were all arrested because of the stolen dune buggies and some other stolen vehicles. And that's why they were in custody in Inyo County Jail, which Ms. Krenwinkel was released and fled to Alabama where she was ultimately arrested. What I find interesting in looking at the inmate's accounts, and I've looked through a number of her statements from other parole hearings, and if I missed it, I invite Ms. Krenwinkel to correct me, but I don't recall her ever saying and admitting that she carved the word war into Leno LaBianca's stomach. In fact, she was asked at one hearing, she said she didn't remember. And I don't see it in her statement of, her statement for this particular hearing. She admits to stabbing him with the carving fork, but she doesn't admit carving the word war. Why would she not admit that important fact? Is she trying to minimize her embracement of the philosophy? I would think so, because the word war is over and beyond just killing somebody because you felt that you're under duress. But of course, she also wrote in Leno LaBianca's blood other indications of her embracement of the philosophy. The victims in this case were chosen at random. They were innocent people. They had no connection whatsoever with this inmate or the family. To choose people at random and commit these horrific crimes in its misguided effort to start a race war is horrendous, and it is beyond the pale. It is beyond what we normally see in murders. This isn't a murder for robbery and murder because you're angry with somebody and murder of passion because your spouse is sleeping with someone else, or even a gang-related incident where there's an ongoing war between two factions. This goes far beyond the pale of any of the normal murders that we clearly see. And in terms of this inmate's remorse, when looking at the psychological evaluations that point to some strange areas that are of great concern, also her entire behavior, if you follow the history, I mean, after she was arrested and she was in jail, there were the news coverage. I mean, she and her two crime partners, the other two women, were singing and dancing. They were making a mockery out of their own trial. There is courtroom disruptions. There was the announcement when they were given the death penalty that basically, you know, thumbed their noses at society and those who convicted them and imposed the ultimate sanction upon them. And this trial took place quite some time after the murders, with plenty of time for reflection, with plenty of time to say, hey, I never really wanted to go along with this. I was just doing it because I was scared of Charlie. Well, Charlie was in prison, I mean, he was in jail, I should say, at that time. He was in jail, as was Ms. Krenwinkel and her crime partners, for that period of time up until their convictions, and until their convictions were later on overturned, at least as to the death penalty aspect. So, you look at her early history in prison, there's no sign of remorse. There's no sign of regret. There's no sign of any deep change. Now, granted, she's been able to, you know, all these years to learn to adapt, and it's pretty simple when you're in a, you know, at a prison that lacks the type of violence we see in the men's prison. But she's been able to adapt. She's been able to accomplish things. But the point is, her intelligence didn't change. She was a smart person before she committed these murders. She was intelligent enough to graduate from high school, to go to college, to achieve a degree. None of that is any surprise. What is surprising is that being that intelligent and coming from a middle class background that she chose to throw that all away to go completely counter-culture and to embrace this bizarre philosophy. And that's the thing that is the most disturbing, because that I think is what one of the doctors mentioned when he said there was just something missing. There's just something wrong there. There's just something, not only inherently evil, but just something that's just beyond the norm that would cause an individual such as this inmate to embark on these horrendous crimes. Does she have remorse? I don't, I think the only remorse that she has, appears to me is her remorse for being in this situation, remorse for getting caught, her remorse from having to come to parole hearings. Because I think if she had true remorse and she truly understood her crimes and her horrific natures of it, she wouldn't be here at a parole hearing. She would just accept a punishment and not come to her parole hearings, that she would just say, I deserve to spend the rest of my life in prison for what I've done. But yet, she is here telling us that she's done everything the Board has told her to do and so she should be released, that she somehow is worthy because she's taken a few classes here and there, because she has a job outside or a place to live. I trust when this Panel looks carefully, and I'm sure the Panel already has looked carefully and will continue to look carefully at all the factors surrounding this particular inmate, this is a most unusual situation. This is a most bizarre and horrific crime. This is not just some drug-crazed hippies who were just, you know, happened to stumble onto these acts of violence. These were planned, pre-meditated criminal activities, terrorist criminal activities designed to cause even more violence, and they were crimes the inmate knew exactly what she was getting herself into, which she helped plan for and prepare for, you know. And there's no question that drugs were part of the life. I've seen it in the past where drugs became the excuse, oh, everybody was just kind of hallucinogenic, but even by the inmate's own admissions, they were not under the influence of drugs on either of those nights. I think the only one that mentioned that he had taken some speed was the second night was Tex Watson said he wanted to stay awake. But nobody was taking LSD on the night of the Tate-LaBianca murders, either night. No other drugs. For all of those reasons, I'd ask this Panel to deny parole to Patricia Krenwinkel at this time and to make it a lengthy denial. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you very much. All right. Mr. Wattley, it will now be your opportunity for your closing statement.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Thank you. The DA has made his standard clear, that this criminal shouldn't even have the right to parole hearings. I don't think there was any mistake about that. That the DA's Office apparently has no regard for the law that says that she has the right to parole hearings, that there's the possibility of parole. There's no mistake about that. There's also a concern that, and I've seen this in other parole hearings, where this District Attorney's Office is willing to ignore the limits placed upon this parole consideration process by incorporating as much of their personal, not just opinion, but statements, knowledge of other cases unrelated to the prisoner's case being reviewed. And the rules are very clear, that if the DA makes a statement of any fact at a parole hearing, that he or she is required to cite to the record that supports that fact. You heard this particular DA go on at length about crimes Ms. Krenwinkel didn't have anything to do with, citing nowhere in the record to support his conclusions, and all for the purpose of leading this Board back to, this was a terrible crime. These were terrible people engaged in terrible activities, horrific things that they were up to, planning that was involved, ultimate crimes that were carried out. Listen to him, you'd have to conclude that Ms. Krenwinkel should be convicted of murder. Well, we got that. What else is he offering? Nothing. Nothing. He's reaching back 20 years to old psychological evaluations and statements that those evaluators made to say that Ms. Krenwinkel is currently dangerous. It just doesn't work. The law doesn't support his approach, and the unfortunate thing in this case is that it's obvious from this side of the table that this is the way these hearings have always gone and will always go until we actually have people on the Board of Parole Hearings that are willing to do the right thing, which is follow the law. The DA made clear he doesn't really care about certain aspects of it, because it's convenient to him to forget important things that would limit him in this proceeding. But this Board is supposed to follow the law. The law says someone serving a sentence of life with a possibility of parole must be granted parole unless there is actual current evidence, not that they committed a crime 41 years ago, but that they're currently dangerous. Currently dangerous. There hasn't been any bit of evidence, one scrap or piece of paper to indicate current dangerousness in this hearing, nothing. And the DA didn't even try to point to it. His most recent report is at least seven years old. That gives you a clear indication that the current picture is of no interest to him. But it has to be of interest to you. By law, it has to be of interest to you. This is, one thing that concerned me early on in this hearing was that Commissioner Melanson, when you were, you said you were summarizing Ms. Krenwinkel's version of the offense from the most recent Life Prisoner Evaluation Report, and you said that in summary, she said that they, among other things, they tortured the victims after they killed them. And I guess that's your shortcut way of describing this crime. Certainly, Ms. Krenwinkel said a lot more. Another thing that concerns me, though, is that this version that people point to to say, well, there's something, she doesn't say more here. This is a version, when you look back through the file, it's just been adopted from prior Board Reports. These counselors aren't asking her anew to discuss the offense. And every time that they look at the prior report and you go back and this version is essentially the same for about the last 30 years. These are not people who are sitting down saying, what's your version. Let me ask you some more questions about this. And when you see that she, when she does get an opportunity to talk about it a little, these are just statements back then. How do you feel about this now? Even if she's not discussing the details of the crime, she's very clear that she's taking responsibility for her own actions, and I think that this record is very solid on that point. There's in this case, if you go back to the Probation Officer's Report and review her statements at the time and you stop there, you'd get a very different picture of who Ms. Krenwinkel was then versus who she is now. And what you see when you look through these psychological evaluations, and I think there have been ten or twelve of them over the years, but you see a progression where they're saying she's starting to change. Oh, she's still holding on to these certain beliefs back in the early 80s, for example, and then you see a progression, which is sort of the design of this process. And then you start to see, she's developing more insight and understanding, participating in groups. You see the numerous group therapy programs she's participated in, individual therapy she's participated in. All these psychologists come up to recognizing that she's developing greater insight, so by the time you get to the most recent reports, they say she's got insight into the factors. While she identifies the factors that contributed to her involvement, why she got involved, why she stayed, she doesn't blame anyone else. This is what your evaluators find. Legally, you cannot ignore that. You have to consider that as evidence of her current suitability. And it's not just me saying it. It's what the law says. And the unfortunate thing is that in this case, there's a clear effort to continue to rely, primarily, certainly on the commitment offense. And there's no suggestion, obviously, that there's anything minimal about these offenses. The details which the Deputy DA recalled at length, you know, from things that he added and things that are actually in her file, details that most of us are at least generally familiar with, having seen many iterations of them over the years. Those things don't change. What changes is the person who is doing time, the person who is in prison, and so this Board's obligation is to recognize that change, if it exists, and determine whether the person has changed to the extent that they no longer present a risk. Does the, I notice that the Deputy DA couldn't get any more recent in reviewing the psychological evaluations than seven years ago. There's a reason for that, because it's not convenient for him to acknowledge the current evidence. Current evidence is the psychologist, not just this year, but the one, her last report also concludes, made some significant conclusions that have conveniently been ignored. There are certain aspects of it that have been acknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner, but some of them have been overlooked. The 2009 evaluation by Dr. Larmer finds that Ms. Krenwinkel had gained considerable insight into his manipulation, that would be Mr. Manson, of course, and control, as well as insight into how she fell under his control. She became increasingly more self-aware with her own ideas and values. And here the psychologist is reflecting on her development since she's been incarcerated. The clinician goes on to talk about Ms. Krenwinkel recognized a need to continue with what 12-step programming can support and provide, and it says that Ms. Krenwinkel reported that her continued sobriety is very important to her and that she will always attend NA and Emotions Anonymous, which is also going to be a part of her program as she goes on to Crossroads as she discussed. She's even talked about her, the role that drugs and alcohol played. The psychologist observed that Ms. Krenwinkel stated that she initially used drugs because it made her feel more socially accepted and she became less inhibited. It goes on, this is on page 6 of that, Dr. Larmer's report. She does not blame the drug use for her role in the crime, but recognizes the role drugs played in her continued involvement with Manson and her subservience to him, which resulted in her involvement in the crime. She goes on to say that Ms. Krenwinkel states that the 12 steps are just amazing, a good plan for living. She reported that she'll always attend NA, whether she is incarcerated or living in the community. Given Ms. Krenwinkel's 28 years of sobriety and her expressed commitment to abstinence, it appeared that she is very capable of remaining free from substances in the community. Your psychologist has determined, it appears she is very capable of remaining free from substances in a free community. You cannot legally ignore that finding. Your psychologist goes on to say that there is no evidence to suggest that she has an Axis II personality disorder. On page 8 of that report, Dr. Larmer says, she described the details of the crime in which she admitted responsibility for stabbing Abigail Folger and Rosemary LaBianca on two separate evenings. She also admitted that she stabbed Leno LaBianca in the stomach with a fork, but maintained he was already deceased when she did this. Now, Ms. Krenwinkel did not actively participate in the other murders, but she takes full responsibility for not doing anything to stop them. In other words, even the ones that she didn't personally commit, she acknowledges responsibility for not doing anything to stop it. You reminded me of something that came up a couple of times today in this hearing, but that just seems to have been lost on, certainly on the Deputy DA, because I don't think he was interested in the current evidence. When Ms. Krenwinkel said, this is in discussing with the Panel why she stayed, why she actively participated, why even if she was afraid, why she still went ahead with this. She said she was willing to sacrifice other lives for her own. She said that a couple of times, actually. Now, there's not a more basic truth, I think, in this case that explains her involvement. That given all these circumstances that have been identified as contributing to this, she's not saying those are circumstances that justify or excuse her actions. At the basic level, she's acknowledging to this Board that she could have gotten help, even if it cost her her own life, and she should have. Now, she said that. She's acknowledging that she sacrificed those other lives for her own, not something she's proud of. But it's the truth that she's acknowledged. No way can you find that as lacking full responsibility for these crimes. The psychologist on page 8 says, it is clear that Ms. Krenwinkel has given much time and thought to the circumstances surrounding the crime. She has spent equally as much time in group psychotherapy exploring it and the causal factors. She demonstrates insight into her frame of mind at the time. She goes on later to say, while she recognizes the extent of control that Manson had over her, Ms. Krenwinkel does not shift blame to anyone but herself. Again, a finding by the psychologist that you cannot legally ignore, and I'm pointing this out because, well, because I know how these hearings go. I know that there is sometimes an interest, maybe even a commitment by someone when reviewing a case, to deny them parole, to decide, we're going to ignore all this stuff that's not going to be convenient to our parole decision. We're going to rely on old stuff. We're going to rely on statements taken out of context. That's why I'm emphasizing, these are things that your psychologists have found that you cannot legally ignore, however much you may want to. And I always say that, not because the Board's Commissioners who review these cases are bad people, but because there's some serious pressures at play in this case. And we shouldn't pretend otherwise. So, I emphasize these findings that haven't been contradicted by anything in this record or anything in this hearing. This psychologist goes on to say, still on page 8 near the bottom, Ms. Krenwinkel is tearful when she discusses the victims and their families. "I go to bed and wake up thinking about it every day." She expresses great sorrow and genuine remorse for committing the murders. No two ways about that. Referring to the families of the victims, Ms. Krenwinkel said, I can understand wanting vengeance. It is a natural reaction, wanting someone to pay for the crimes. I understand them wanting me to stay in prison or hoping for me to die. She added, "There is no making it right. I can't ask for their forgiveness. That is something someone has to find in themselves to give. I don't expect their forgiveness. I don't expect anything. It's for them to decide how best to deal with their grief." Ms. Krenwinkel acknowledged the devastating loss of her victims' families and noted that grief lasts a lifetime, something that she also discussed with Deputy Commissioner Hernandez about the, in the Emotions Anonymous group, that they deal with these issues, some of which are just long-standing. They don't go away ever. Their group is focused on dealing with them on a day-to-day basis. This psychologist, on page 9, this is something, now the Deputy Commissioner read the sentence that says the reports indicate she has positive and rewarding relationships with both staff and peers, but didn't get to the next sentence. Through years of group therapy, Ms. Krenwinkel has gained insight and self- awareness. She has developed a stronger sense of self, which presents a marked change from who she was 38 years ago. She has developed her own values and beliefs which are counter to the culture that Charles Manson created. So, what you heard Ms. Krenwinkel acknowledge was, not only was she doing what Mr. Manson was telling her to do, she said, "I embraced that lifestyle. I embraced those goals." I embraced and acknowledge 41 years ago. What we have here is the psychologist concluding that there's a marked change from who she was back then and her own values, which are counter to the culture he created. The psychologist concludes that Ms. Krenwinkel displayed none of the predictive factors for recidivism, demonstrated significant insight into her personal characteristics at the time and the circumstances of the crime. She communicated no attitudes or values that were pro-criminal in nature. All reports indicated she is both emotionally and behaviorally stable. At the bottom of page 10 of the report, the psychologist says that Ms. Krenwinkel, and the Deputy Commissioner reviewed this statement, Ms. Krenwinkel may be underestimating the stress she will encounter while reintegrating in the community after such a lengthy incarceration and the notoriety of her case. The Deputy Commissioner did not read the next sentence. "However, she has done what she can to have community resources in place that can plan to mitigate any possible stresses." That's the record. It's not to be ignored. Concluding overall that she's in the low risk category for violent recidivism. There's a whole paragraph on page 11 of Dr. Larmer's report, after identifying and reading the whole paragraph which identifies the factors which increase her risk, there's a whole paragraph that talks about factors which decrease her risk. They include her lack of prior convictions, not having any arrests prior to age 16, never having been punished for institutional misconduct, never having a prior supervision failure, never having been suspended or expelled from school, her current employment status, excellent work performance evaluations, ability to integrate well with co-workers and supervisors, maintains a supportive relationship with other family members, recent participation in an organized activity, lack of a current alcohol or drug problem, positive attitude regarding conventions of society, positive outlook regarding future supervision treatment, and a lack of an anti-social mindset. Again, these are findings by the psychologist that can't be ignored. The overall assessment presents a relatively low risk for violence in the community. And there's another evaluation that hasn't been reviewed because it's been four years, well, I guess it's been seven years since Ms. Krenwinkel actually appeared before the Board. But there was another evaluation completed after her 2004 hearing at which she was denied for three years. That evaluation was done in February 2007 by Dr. Reed. This evaluation, page 3, notes insightfully, he starts off, insightfully, she observed in hindsight that whenever he wanted her to do something, it was always for his personal gain. In other words, she's looking back to see, to understand the dynamics that played there, even if she wasn't clear about them at the time. The psychologist goes on, after experiencing, on page 3, after experiencing and participating in group therapy in prison, inmate Krenwinkel has developed excellent insight into her previous cult indoctrination and no longer identifies with this group or with Manson himself. Said she has greatly increased in maturity, developed a more healthy self-identity and sense of self-worth. Moreover, she is able to identify potential problems in personal and group relationships relating to domestic violence, such as verbal and physical abuse, manipulativeness, over-controlling and intimidating behavior and drug abuse. This evaluator, like all others, concludes or observes, I guess, that all of her supervisory work reports are in the exceptional category and that she gets along very well with her peers and the staff. On page 5, this doctor is reviewing prior evaluations and noting some of the significant aspects of that, and those are prior evaluations. And this even says, apparently back in '85, there were no indications that Ms. Krenwinkel held the same beliefs, attitudes, ideas, or desires that she had at the time of the current offense, so as was discussed earlier, early on, the evaluator was saying, and even going back to the Probation Officer's Report, clearly she has a distorted view of the world. That has changed in the years that have passed, since 1985, and it's only continued since then. (Inaudible) in '88, Dr. Francis determined that her, that she is a violent criminal only by history and does not pose a threat at her present level of functioning in this setting. And he has predicted that she will not be a risk in the community at this time. Other places where they discuss the fact she's emotionally well-balanced and having gained insight. Page 10, the Dr. Reed concludes this inmate has been deprogrammed from her cult indoctrination and has adopted mainstream community values and norms. On page 12, Dr. Reed talks about her clinical acceptance of responsibility. Says she admitted responsibility for the deaths of the victims stating, "I am responsible, absolutely." Her description was consistent with the record. In other words, she didn't try to minimize anything. When asked, she candidly admitted that she stabbed Abigail Folger and Rosemary LaBianca. She also describes stabbing Leno LaBianca with a fork. She further stated, "I've never attempted to stop anything. Not doing something bears as much responsibility as the ones doing it." Talks about when she's talking about her feelings about the events, she began to cry with anguish and emotion to discuss the deep pain. She described the crimes as monstrous. She stated, "I can understand why the victims' families want me dead." On page 17, Dr. Reed says, on the one hand, she takes full personal responsibility for these crimes. On the other hand, she insightfully discussed the influence and the manipulativeness and cult indoctrination by Charles Manson. In other words, she's not blaming, but is actually explaining her insight into what brought her to commit these crimes. It says, through years of group therapy, Ms. Krenwinkel has developed excellent insight into and independence from the manipulativeness, undue influence and cult indoctrination by Charles Manson. During the clinical interview, Ms. Krenwinkel demonstrated remorse for her crimes. In recalling her crimes, she became tearful in demonstrating emotional anguish. Her level of emotional distress for these killings is severe. Ms. Krenwinkel demonstrates empathy for the families of the victims and indicates full awareness of the gravity and immensity of the damage she inflicted. Inmate Krenwinkel described her part in the crimes, characterizing them as monstrous. Ms. Krenwinkel demonstrated repentance for her crimes, including saying she wished that they could be undone, and in light of her crimes, wished a commitment to avoid violence, to hurt no one and to help others. Clinically in this evaluator's opinion, these appear to be deep-seated values from Ms. Krenwinkel. And then Dr. Reed goes on to review the older reports by Dr. Wu, learning that Dr. Wu observed that he was not able to detect any expressed emotions of remorse. But Dr. Reed observed, this is inconsistent with observations made by the majority of the evaluators and goes on to recount several of the evaluators over the years that have found something very different from what Dr. Wu reported. He makes the same observations with respect to Dr. Wu's conclusion that Ms. Krenwinkel had yet to demonstrate insight back in 2004. Dr. Reed notes, this conclusion is also inconsistent with the majority of evaluators and goes on to recount which those evaluators are and which years and where in the reports were discussed. It's also inconsistent with group therapists. Moreover, in complete contrast to Dr. Wu's observations back in 2004, in conclusion, an early doctor, Dr. (inaudible) and the current evaluator, Dr. Reed, similarly observed that inmate Krenwinkel emotionally demonstrated remorse and recognizes the loss that the victims' families suffered over the years. Dr. Reed observes that Dr. Wu's evaluation appeared to have limited meaningful reference to the other information on record. I'll note I think Dr. Wu's report was about two pages long, not quite two pages. Both of the subsequent reports are considerably longer. This one, I think, is 20 pages. The other one is probably 14 pages or so. Dr. Reed says, clinically, Ms. Krenwinkel appears to be remorseful for all the harm she has caused to the victims and their families, and this has been observed by several doctors in independent evaluations, including this evaluator in the current evaluation. As measured on the PCL-R, the Psychopathy Checklist Revised, said that those results did not support the presence of psychopathic features for this individual. She obtained a total maximum score of only one point, one point. That's at the bottom end of the low category for risk. In reviewing the HCR-20, the doctor concludes the following risk of violence items were not identified, lack of insight, negative attitudes, active symptoms of mental illness, impulsivity and unresponsiveness to treatment. He goes on to say this inmate has completed many years of group therapy, and numerous therapists and evaluators, including the current evaluator, have indicated this inmate has good insight into the cult indoctrination, self-knowledge and substance abuse problem. Therefore, lack of insight is not an indicated risk factor. Again, I emphasize that because in all these cases now, this is what the Board looks for. Does the person have insight or not? Your psychologists repeatedly say that she does in many places in the reports. You heard it today. If you want to talk about her obtaining transitional housing at Crossroads, which provides various services that they're talking about, including (inaudible) and other support. It says, this inmate has shown an ability to accept and make use of treatment and remedial programs, which further reduces her risk for violence. Again, on page 19, demonstrated good insight into the causative factors relating to the commitment offense, appreciates the damage done to the victims, has demonstrated her remorse for harm done to the victims and is penitent for her crimes. The instant offenses represent a singular period of conduct with unique circumstances unlikely to reoccur. And when you think about it and you look back, this 2-1/2 year period or so, every negative thing that's being said about Ms. Krenwinkel and also these crimes, her embracing that reality at the time, it all happened during that period. And you've heard her talk about what led her to that period. So, in other words, she has demonstrated the insight of what these doctors are all attesting to. It's also important that, you know, spent this much time for all these evaluations because when you go back to the 2004 hearing, the psychological evaluation was the reason the Board denied her parole, which is why the Deputy DA wants to rely on so heavily today. You have to rely on the current evidence of the two subsequent evaluations, both of which conclude, in no uncertain terms, that she's not a risk, that she has the insight this Board needs to see. There are really no two ways to look at it, but I know how this process goes, unfortunately. We know that these crimes represent, you know, a different scale, a different standard, and I see that the Board generally approaches this case with that in mind. But what I think you see is, you have on the one hand, someone who is age 19 and loaded on various drugs, and even though not on drugs, was committed to a lifestyle that is a long way away from somebody who is 63 and sober. And there's just no mistaking it. And I think that what this is going to come down to, we can go through this every year, every couple years, and it'll come out pretty much the same. She'll talk about all the insight. She'll talk about the factors with us that led her to become involved and stay involved. She'll remain disciplinary-free, you know. She's already been disciplinary-free for, you know, 40-plus years. But it will still come down to whether the Panel reviewing the case is willing to follow the law or not. And I know that its been tough for any other Panel to do it, and you know, frankly, any Panel member who hasn't yet been confirmed in the Legislature, if they were to grant Ms. Krenwinkel parole, they know there are people who would have their job. Let's just be clear about it. But I understand you're sworn to follow the law and do the right thing. The law says that if the evidence shows the person's currently safe to be released, you have to grant parole. Not you go in and find a reason to piece together something you think sounds like can support your decision. I'd ask you not to do that and instead to actually do the right thing and recognize the record that's in front of you, which unequivocally shows Ms. Krenwinkel is safe to be granted parole, and we ask you to grant her parole.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you. All right. Ms. Krenwinkel, it's now your opportunity to tell the Panel why you believe you're suitable for parole at this time.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: All I really have is an apology (inaudible). I'm just haunted each and every day by the unending suffering my participation in murders caused the family and hurt my victims, the enormity of the grief I have caused fills me with intense sorrow. I'm so ashamed of my actions. I am ever aware that the victims who perished had so much life yet to live and their family and friends have been forever severed from those loving relationships. (Inaudible) I'm sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: I'm sorry. I have to ask you to address your comments to the Panel.

INMATE KRENWINKEL: I am also aware that for a period of time between the murders and my arrest, there was tremendous fear in the country, the state, and more specifically in Los Angeles, and to you, the citizenry, I apologize again, for the unbearable pain I caused to so many. I know the words are totally inadequate, but I am so deeply sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you. All right. Okay. Either one of you can start. That's fine. Ms. Tate, that would be you.

MS. TATE: I've got a bum knee at the moment and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: That's all right.

MS. TATE: Don't move real well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

MS. TATE: I'm (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: This is Debra Tate. And I need to ask you and I've got to remind you to deliver your comments to the Panel, please.

MS. TATE: Yes, absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you.

MS. TATE: My name is Debra Tate. I'm a sister to Sharon Tate, one of the victims. Something that most of the people don't know in this room is I was the first person interviewed by the police department and by the FBI, because I had spent all the summer prior at that house. I knew who came and who went, what the comings and the goings were. So, with the exception of Mr. Steve Parent, each one of those people in that house, I knew very, very well. They were all extremely productive people. Abigail Folger was a social worker, and just prior to me, us moving back to Palos Verdes, I was in Sausalito at the same time the Manson family was in the San Francisco area. I remember these people approaching me in the street of the Haight Ashbury, and they were people that I, even at the age of 16, passed on as being oddballs. So, I'm going to have to question a person that would choose to soothe the hole in their heart with love by a group of people that I, myself, at that very young age, also identified as oddballs. I also believe that Mr. Sequeira addressed Mr. Larmer's reports, and for the public, I would like the public to know that these psychological evaluations occur once a year just prior to a parole hearing. I go to a psychiatrist. I've gone through more in-depth psychological evaluations than any of these people have. Since then, I have lost each and every one of my family members. For whatever reason, I'm the one that can take the stress, not well at all times, but I do take it. There are times that I have fits of temper why this had to happen to us. But I manage to control myself. Never ever would I consider stressing out at another individual and never ever if I were in any one of these people's shoes would I as -- let me clarify this. It was my own words. Each time I appear at a parole hearing, and it is a significant number, it's me that gives them the clues of what they have not done. Now I'm going to shoot a big hole in it. All 12-step programs you are required to make apologies to the family. I have heard these people say over and over again and turn red and make crying noises without a wet tear coming down, how apologetic they are, but nobody has ever picked up a pen and written a letter. I have checked with two wardens, and those wardens said that if any such letters were ever offered, that they would make sure that it went to the DA and then to the family that the inmate needed, directed their words to. None of them have ever done this. None of them have ever tried to do this. I am very, very -- I heard counsel, and your name, sir, I'm sorry, I forgot.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: Keith Wattley.

MS. TATE: Mr. Wattley said that at one point we wanted these people dead, being that my family is the family that has carried this torch the longest. That's never come out of my mother's mouth or my sister's mouth, certainly not out of mine. I actually have a lot of compassion for these people. I am so glad that they're doing good in here. In Patricia's case, I'm very proud, and I have seen, made an effort to see some of the in-service animals that she has trained, and that's a good thing. But she still holds the psychological factors by not being able to address in public to us the enormousy of the crime by not being able to write or address an apology at any other time, other than in front of these cameras and in front of a Board. I personally don't buy it. I really would like to buy it, because I do want to believe that the human condition is one that is capable of change. I have opened my home to parolees because I do believe in that, and some of them were, in fact, violent. I believe that they, I believe in the possibility of reform. However, knowing and being in both of those positions, I know what I'm looking at, and I just don't see it here, because of those two factors. A person that has gone through 12 steps emotional programs should be able to talk about the crime to anybody. I know that I forked up all the skeletons in my closets freely to anybody who asks. That's how you learn. That's how you grieve and show sorrow, true sorrow, for your mistakes. Now, putting all that emotional stuff aside, I do cry real tears. I have no one left. And I'm asking the Board to keep this person for as long as possible by law. But I do respect and give you the honor that whatever decision you make today is one that I will live with. I don't expect you or any other Board to set these people free or keep them forever. I know each time I come to the chair, that the possibility is that they're going to come out, and I have to think about that every day. What will I do when that day happens? What will society do? Because I hear from society. It's not nice, and I don't care if you can change your name. I think this is the first time that publicly it's come out that they do have programs to mask the people's true identity. That's why they don't want still cameras in and so on and so forth. It's like a witness relocation program. I know that they have released other Manson family people, and I also know that Charlie is caught with cell phones. He has been communicating with other Manson family members. I can't say about Ms. Krenwinkel, but I can definitely tell you that the monster is alive and well and growing every day. I get, on the average, four death threats a year. I have a daughter. This has affected me and mine, the others to the grave, and in my case, I swore that it wouldn't go past my generation. Hopefully, I won't have a niece or a nephew in this chair; hopefully, it stops here. If I can stay healthy enough, and with the grace of God, that's what will transpire. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you.

MS. TATE: I have a letter written, the nephew of Leno LaBianca, if I can speak with little tears now. This is a letter written by Louis Smalldino, who is Leno LaBianca's nephew, and he was unable to be here today. I have also been appointed by another LaBianca family member as an official spokesperson, so it shouldn't be objected to in any way. I'm on file in Sacramento for Angela Smalldino, if anybody needs to look. Okay. "I am the oldest nephew of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. I am writing as the representative of our family and wish to set forth the following. Our family was devastated by the monstrous acts of Ms. Krenwinkel and the Manson family. We suffered irreparable emotional, psychological and financial losses from that day in August many years ago. None of us are the same or ever will be. Ms. Krenwinkel was a primary factor in these brutal murders and was even sentenced to death for the part in the multiple murders committed by her and her terrorist clan. Due to the judicial chaos, her sentence was reduced to life instead of life in prison without parole, which would be appropriate today. We can only ask that you consider her lack of remorse. She has never contacted our family with a note of sorrow and callous degree of -- excuse me, I'm sorry -- disregard for human life. She is a sociopath and danger to all in her path. You cannot rehabilitate this type of person. Justice demands that she spend the rest of her life incarcerated, regardless of the financial cost associated to society. Her brutality is unmatched and unconceivable to normal human beings. We ask that you continue to deny her parole and extend her imprisonment to the maximum allowed. There's a place in the letter where the word wasn't, the letter wasn't being written. Thank you. Louis Smalldino."

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Tate. All right. Anthony DiMaria.

MR. DIMARIA: Hi. I'm going to give you his picture. I'd ask that the photographer, you know, don't, I'm going to refer to this later for you both to look at, but I'll mention it when you'll know what I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay.

MR. DIMARIA: Bear with me if I have trouble. My name is Anthony DiMaria. Jay Sebring was my uncle. This is a letter from my mother. "Dear Commissioners of the Board. I wish I could be there in person to speak for justice for my brother, but unfortunately, my daughter has a serious medical situation, so I have to be with her in another state. My parents were so relieved when it was discovered who had committed these crimes, that they would be brought to justice. As we all know, Patricia Krenwinkel and the others were sentenced to death. A few years later, death sentences were revoked. In California, we have reinstated the death penalty, yet, they still didn't apply the original death sentences to the so-called Manson family. My parents were reassured that those who killed their son would never be released. I'm grateful, I'm very grateful that my parents never had to endure one of these parole hearings. When it seemed that parole for these crimes was a real possibility, I promised my brother and my parents to stand before you and be sure that Jay Sebring will never be forgotten, that none of the victims will ever be forgotten. Over the years, my husband has protected me at work or in public when people knowingly say hurtful things pertaining to these murders. It's been over 40 years and it still happens. We've tried to protect our children. What we've learned is that it's forever ongoing. Our youngest daughter experienced in junior high school some of her classmates wearing T-shirts with the pictures of these murderers thinking it was cool, even worse, thinking that they were cool and someone to look up to. As a young adult, she got to a concert to see the lead singer wearing a T- shirt. On it was a picture of Patricia Krenwinkel and the other women. It was inscribed Charlie's Angels. My daughter left the concert. This is very current, and we need to be sure we don't send the wrong message to our youth. Our society must be protected and shielded from this heinous behavior. The punishment will never equal the crime, especially in this case. The punishment must suit the crime. The punishment must be firm. In my opinion, if Patricia Krenwinkel has true contrition for her crimes, I don't see how she could walk into this parole hearing. I do think it's good that she's trying to better, to do better with the remainder of her life in prison, because it is a just punishment. But I realize nothing, no one, no punishment can atone for the cold-blooded murders that were committed by her and her so-called family. All the memories of my brother, his life and many achievements, I see this good-looking, well-dressed, talented guy that lived life to the fullest and wanted to bring the best out in everyone he knew. But the last time I saw him, the nightmare in my head is my brother, Jay, in his coffin, dead, bruised, swollen, his hands clenched in a manner trying to defend himself and fighting for his life and trying to fight for Sharon's life and her unborn baby. I could see all this. He was my idol, my mentor, my inspiration and he barely resembled himself. Sincerely (inaudible)." Thank you. My Uncle Fred Kummer mentioned he had sent and faxed a letter to the Board. I don't know if you have them in your file. I would like you to read them. I know that there might be some objections, but I'd like to at least address some things that he had said if you have them. This is from Fred Kummer, Jay Sebring's brother. "With what seems an anomaly in the legal system, one hopes that justice for society and the victims will be served. It is for the victims' families and their descendants to continually oppose any parole for the perpetrators. In a society that tends to forget the past and focus on the sympathies of the present, this is a formidable task for the family members who remain. It seems relatively simple to impress people with an appeal for mercy for someone who has served 39 years for a crime. It is an even greater challenge to be able to alert them to the underlying reasons for keeping the criminal in prison for life. In addition to the loss of our loved ones, this is further pain for the victims' families. There are other things there, but that's it for now. There's no way for me to describe how these crimes have impacted my family and the void my uncle's murder left. But I'll start in telling you that these parole hearings and what is said in them is part of what haunts us today and sends us back to hell, year after year. And while these hearings reopen old but very fresh wounds, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of a man who was a profound source of love and pride for all his family. It is crucial in any matter regarding violent crimes that the victim have a voice, and we're grateful that the Board acknowledges that voice." Before I begin, I'd like to address something that Mr. Wattley had said quoting Ms. Krenwinkel as understanding why the victims' families would want her dead. I can speak for my family and I. The only thing we want is justice. Our families involvement in these hearings have nothing to do with anger, vengeance or hatred. We come here out of love, to speak for those who can't speak for themselves. I'm not here for Patricia Krenwinkel. I'm here for my family. I'm here for Jay Sebring. There was another reference here today regarding crimes that Ms. Krenwinkel didn't even do, "crimes Ms. Krenwinkel didn't even do." I can add a crime that, according to testimony, Ms. Krenwinkel did do. At one point, Jay Sebring saw that things were going bad and he rushed Watson. According to Watson's testimony, he said, "I was pacing back and forth behind the sofa when Sadie yelled out, watch out. I turned around and emptied the gun on the man who was coming after me. At that point, Jay continued to fight. When Ms. Krenwinkel and Watson both pounced on him and stabbed him on his back, his side, eventually collapsing and kicked him in the face repeatedly." That's a crime I know that Ms. Krenwinkel did do. It is devastating to listen today how a college degree or involvement in self-help groups and 12-step meetings could be weighed against my uncle's life or what memory of my family, happy and complete until this killing spree. While Patricia Krenwinkel's behavior behind bars is commendable, it is merely normal for the typical law-abiding citizen. This is noteworthy, because it is what she did abnormally that led to her original death sentence. So, as you ponder the criteria of Ms. Krenwinkel's present prison record, I ask, is your mother's, a child's life worth 30-plus years of NA/AA 12-step meetings, a college degree? Each of Ms. Krenwinkel's eight victims deserve more. There has been talk about whether Patricia Krenwinkel is still a threat to society. Sadly, the destruction of her crimes extends beyond our families and carries societal repercussions. Just a few years ago, the slaughter of my uncle and his friends was influential in the murder of a Pennsylvania teenager. Nearly 40 years after Ms. Krenwinkel's rampage, three Philadelphia teenagers were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the murder of 16 year old Jason Sweeney. Mr. Sequeira mentioned helter skelter earlier today. These teens testified that they listened to Helter Skelter for several hours straight to ready themselves before killing Jason with a hatchet, a hammer, and a large rock. For them, my uncle's murder and Patricia Krenwinkel's crimes were cool and an inspiration to kill. The threat of Patricia Krenwinkel to society, whether direct, symbolic or repercussive, is real and current. I am going to address something that Ms. Krenwinkel said earlier, and I appreciate the statement that she had said, that these are very sensitive and very painful territories for all of us, and that crimes of this magnitude has permanent consequences. I wish I had forgiveness to give, but I think first of the eight people who suffered directly at the hands of Ms. Krenwinkel. I feel they're the ones, the only ones who could grant forgiveness. And when I consider the profound nature, the magnitude of these crimes and the hundreds of family members who were devastated, I realize that any capability of granting forgiveness lies simply beyond my capability. I wish it were different. Yet another thing that haunts me about these crimes is how the identities and legacies of the victims have been stolen and slandered by the exploitation and sensationalism resulting from these murders. These were not faceless props to be packaged and sold for profit. Upon graduation, Steven Parent took on two jobs in hopes to fund his college education. Abigail Folger strove to help her friends and communities in south central LA. Leno LaBianca served in World War II, and together with Rosemary, nurtured and supported their family. Sharon believed in having a family and raising her son. Jay was an original, a dreamer who revolutionized his industry and changed the lives of those he touched. These were people who had lives ahead of them who wanted to make a difference for the good, acting on their own free will. Before Jay was killed, my grandparents saved every photo article about their son from newspapers and magazines, and we have trunks filled with them. When the lurid rumors and exploitation bubbled up in a media feeding frenzy, and after seeing Patricia Krenwinkel spit on the memory of her son as she mimicked saying and posed throughout the trial, my grandmother never again picked up a newspaper or a magazine until the day she died. Most unbearable for me was how my grandmother's eyes would go vacant from time to time, especially on Christmas Eve, which she would be doing for hours. My mom describes it as going into the black hole. I'm haunted to this day by the pain and the tears of my mother's and grandmother's eyes. I only have a few memories of Uncle Jay. We would play in the front yard. He would chase me. I would chase him. And even though as a kid, and he was an adult, he made me feel like we were friends, like we were peers, and that we were on the same plane. And before he left that afternoon, he took a picture of us, my parents and grandparents. That's the picture I gave you. If you look at the expressions of our faces, you will see the pride and love we had as a family, but in particular, by the feelings we shared towards the man taking our picture. As he drove off, I couldn't wait to see him again. That was the last time I saw him. I had no idea how profound his life and his death would impact me. I would like you all to know who Jay Sebring was. I've always, for so many years, wanted everyone to know who Jay Sebring was. But there's not enough time, and this is not a deserving forum. But because of Jay Sebring, I know if you live life passionately and with regard to excellence, you can live your dream. Because of Patricia Krenwinkel, I know that anyone, anywhere, anyone in this room, can be caught off guard in the middle of the night and butchered with our families by people with guns, forks and butcher knives. I've seen for decades what that does to those who are left behind. Before I conclude, my family and I would like to thank Patrick Sequeira and the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office for their dedication and care in providing the victims and our families a legal voice. Patricia Krenwinkel and her attorney may believe that Ms. Krenwinkel has been rehabilitated and is a changed person. But I remind the Board that there are eight people that lie in their graves who remain unchanged, unrehabilitated, unparoled. I beg the Board to consider parole for Patricia Krenwinkel only when her victims are paroled from their graves, only when each of our families recover 40 years of loss and suffering, only when, only after the interrupted destinies of each and every one of her victims are restored completely. I respectfully ask that you deny Ms. Krenwinkel parole for the longest period of time permitted by law. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Thank you. All right. At this time, we will recess for deliberations. The time is 5:31.

RECESS

--oOo--

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS DECISION

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay. We're back on record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: All right. Thank you. The time is 6:44, and all parties who were in the room prior to the recess for deliberations have returned to the room, and we are ready to read the decision at this time. The Panel has reviewed all information that was received from the public and all information that was relevant before us today in concluding that the prisoner is not suitable for parole at this time and would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison. The finding of unsuitability is based on weighing the considerations provided in California Code of Regulations, Title 15. And the area that weighed the heaviest with the Panel today is the life crime itself. And in this crime, there were seven individuals who were murdered brutally over a two-day span of time, five at one time the first night. And I'm not going to go through the entire history of the crime. I think that we know it well. We've covered it today, and it certainly is a crime that involved multiple individuals who were mutilated and disrespected in every manner. This was a depraved act by a group of individuals who today find it hard to even try and explain their acts, and the public remains in fear, as was demonstrated by the 80 letters of opposition that were in the confidential file. The public portions of those letters would be where they came from; we did not take the time to read 80 letters. And they didn't come just from California. They didn't come just from the United States. They came from around the world, and you want to cover kind of where they came from?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: They came from Glasgow, Scotland, Nevada, Arkansas, New York, New Mexico, Florida, Victoria, Australia, Massachusetts, Canada, Texas, North Carolina, Iowa, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malaysia, Southeast Asia and West Virginia.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: That's a sampling. We didn't read them, so there's no confidential tape. There's no confidential information. We're using just the fact that those letters came from around the world make this crime currently relevant and demonstrates the fear of the public because of the vicious nature of these crimes.

ATTORNEY WATTLEY: (Inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Excuse me. No, we didn't read them in their entirety. You'd be out here, you wouldn't have been back in here for a while. All right. Further, I want to note that in a writ for Ms. Van Houten some few years ago, Judge Espinoza wrote back in denying the writ and in part, he referenced In Re Lawrence, and he said, however, a commitment offense may continue to be predictive of current danger if after decades of maturation, if it was especially brutal, such as a hate crime or a crime involving torture and brutal offenses that were committed with the intent of framing a black person, inciting a race war, and the fact that the victims were allegedly tortured. They were bound and threatened and then repeatedly stabbed to death, that those are, it rises to the level. The notorious murders for which the petitioner was so heinous and atrocious or cruel that her due process rights are not violated by the denial of parole based on the gravity of the offense. And those letters that we just detailed absolutely support the Judge's decision. This crime remains relevant. The public is in fear. And that just is a fact of the crime and the consequences of the crime. Further, the Panel considered the past and present mental state, and certainly the prisoner chose not to speak about the facts of the crime today, which is absolutely her right, and that leaves the Panel with using relevant documents as far as the details of the life crime itself. This Panel found that in the current psych eval by Dr. Larmer, on page 8, where it states, she also admitted that she stabbed Leno LaBianca in the stomach with a fork, but maintains he was already deceased when she did this. We find that just minimization. That's mutilating someone that you've just murdered, and anything that sounds like minimization is of concern to this Panel, and so we have to go by the written word in this case. Further, we find that the prisoner doesn't really have a high degree of credibility about the crime because she continues to say the motivation for the murders was not her own. The motivation was to maintain the relationship she had with Charles Manson, which meant doing as he said. This Panel still finds it very hard to believe that an individual can participate in these crimes, the level of violence in these crimes and not be able to identify something besides, I wanted him to love me as the internal drive for participating, and that really continues to bother the Panel today. And we just find that there is still work to be done there. And further, she doesn't take full responsibility for her actions when she says that it was about Charles Manson, what I just read. And she's the one that went to the kitchen, obtained the knives, and took it upon herself to get the carving fork. That's thinking independently and is a very vicious act as to what happened with that fork. And so, we find that there is some lack of taking full responsibility and some credibility issues on those statements. The psychological report was peppered with these kinds of concerns, and yet, the conclusion was that she rated low in all areas, and the Panel believes there is some conflict in those two things. As for remorse, this Panel finds that there is a level of remorse, but as noted by 80 letters from around the world, we don't believe you understand the true magnitude of this crime to the public around the world. This is a crime that children grow up hearing about even now, as evidenced by the strong opposition to considering a parole date for Ms. Krenwinkel today. And although we see some level of remorse, I asked Ms. Krenwinkel when I was talking with her today, have you ever sent a letter to the victims, and her answer was, I've written some. I tear them up. And we heard Ms. Tate testify that not one of the perpetrators in the Manson clan have written a letter to the victims of this crime. And that really raises some concern with this Panel, why not. And that's a question that Ms. Krenwinkel, I'd like for you to answer to yourself and think about and ponder on, because there's got to be a reason. Okay. So, we noted responses to the 3042 Notices indicating opposition, and we really didn't receive any. The District Attorney, however, certainly was here, as represented by Mr. Sequeira today, who opposed parole. So, the Panel finds clear and convincing evidence, after considering the public and victims' safety, as well as the parole consideration criteria set forth in Title 15, that the prisoner does not require an additional ten or 15 years before your next parole hearing because you've got a lot of positive factors in your adjustment, and the Commissioner is going to detail those at this time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: Okay. The Panel would like to commend you for the gains that you've made since your incarceration, consisting of keeping your classification score down, your Medium A classification, that you've not had any gang affiliations or any negative behavior while incarcerated such as that, as well as your good work that you've done as a Chaplain's clerk since May 28th of 2010, as well as the gains that you've made in your education of completing some college, an AA degree, as well as a BS degree in human services at the University of La Verne in 1980, as well as the other various, numerous working skills that you've completed during your stay, while incarcerated. And your continued participation in AA, NA, 12-step programs, as well as Pathways to Wholeness and working through the book, Addictive Personality, as well as not having any negative behavioral instances with no 115s and only one 128. I'd like again to encourage you to at least pursue or look at the possibility of developing a written relapse prevention plan that might serve you personally, to help you in the guidance of your future decision-making and things of that nature. We would wish you the best of luck in that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER MELANSON: Okay. Thank you. Based on these circumstances, the Panel has no substantial doubt that at this time, you don't require another 15 or ten-year denial at this time. While we want to commend you for the positives, on balance, the circumstances that make you unsuitable for parole, which we've already discussed with you, heavily outweigh the positive aspects of your case. After weighing all the evidence presented today, you are unsuitable for parole because you remain a present risk of danger if released and you require at least an additional seven years of incarceration. Our recommendations to you at this time would be to remain disciplinary-free, continue with the self-help, continue with your NA/AA and EA. You're making gains in all those areas. And lastly, the Panel will advise you that Penal Code Section 3041.5(d)(1) provides that you can request the Board conduct your next hearing earlier than the denial period we issued today provided there's been a change of circumstance or new information that establishes a reasonable likelihood that you don't require additional incarceration. And that will conclude the hearing today at seven, I mean, at 6:56. Thank you.

ADJOURNMENT

PAROLE DENIED SEVEN YEARS