• Newsom Will Not Appeal Van Houten Ruling

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Newsom Will Not Appeal Van Houten Ruling

Friday, July 7th, 2023


Jul. 7 – More than 50 years after the Manson cult committed these brutal offenses, the victims’ families still feel the impact, as do all Californians. Governor Newsom reversed Ms. Van Houten’s parole grant three times since taking office and defended against her challenges of those decisions in court.

The Governor is disappointed by the Court of Appeal’s decision to release Ms. Van Houten but will not pursue further action as efforts to further appeal are unlikely to succeed. The California Supreme Court accepts appeals in very few cases, and generally does not select cases based on this type of fact-specific determination

Anthony DiMaria’s Letter to Gavin Newsom / Robert Bonta, Re:Van Houten

Thursday, June 8th, 2023

Dear Governor Gavin Newsom & California Attorney General Robert Bonta,

My name is Anthony DiMaria, nephew of Jay Sebring who was killed on the night of August 8, 1969 by the so-called Manson family. I am also a LaBianca family representative and have delivered impact statements at several Leslie Van Houten parole hearings in past years.

Just as Leslie Van Houten conspired, tortured and killed collectively with the Manson family- our families collectively suffer pain and loss caused by the crimes of Leslie Van Houten and her chosen Manson “family”.

For decades our families have been united and resolute in our fight for justice. We are bound by love to speak for our flesh & blood who lie in their graves… unable to speak for themselves.

In addition to these rare and egregious crimes, our families have been further impacted by legal twists and detours throughout the past fifty years-

First, the revocation of the original death sentences in 1972. In the aftermath of the decision, my grandparents and parents were promised by the Los Angeles District Attorneys’ Office & Los Angeles Police Department that none of the Manson killers would ever actually be paroled. The authorities emphasized that the reduced sentences of “Life with Possibility of Parole” were purely technical.

Decades later, pro-criminal legislation (Youthful & Elderly Offender Acts) was passed mandating early release consideration for all convicted criminals, including violent criminals.

Current Los Angeles District Attorney’s policy forbids all involvement and support from the LADA’s office at all Lifer – rapists’, molesters’, killers’, assassins’ – parole hearings. This directive strips victims & their families of their legal voice and representation in the parole process forcing victims of violent crime to fend for themselves.

On May 30, 2023 an appellate court trashed the executive authority of a duly elected Governor.

Governor Newsom & Attorney General Bonta, you might imagine yourselves in our skin as we are left dumbfounded, “Has the world gone mad?”

From where we stand, the justice system has been turned upside down where violent criminals are portrayed and treated as victims… while actual victims are disregarded and discarded like trash.

Victims’ rights are being swept under the rug, or more accurately, flushed down the toilet.

Governor, you’ve cited in your prudent decisions that Ms. Van Houten’s crimes meet the rare & extreme legal standards established In re Lawrence & In re Shaputis. You have provided evidence of Ms. Van Houten’s extensive pattern of minimization revealing her lack of insight into her crimes and current dangerousness.

In Ms. Van Houten’s own words:
May 28, 1998 Parole: “The autopsy report verifies that there were superficial stab wounds in the lower back of Ms. Labianca. I have consistently testified and taken responsibility for those…those wounds were post-mortem.” [p.53 ll. 14-22]

September 6, 2017 Parole: “I know it’s my responsibility that I allowed this to happen to me [p.210 ll.23-24]… I take responsibility that I allowed myself to follow him.” [p.212 ll. 1-2]

July 23, 2020 Parole: “He [Manson] put us in front of the circle and began to be critical, all geared toward dismantling our personalities and who we were [p.17 ll. 18-21]…He [Manson] was having us give up our personalities [p.18 ll.9-10]… Tex said, ‘Do something’ and handed me a knife and I stabbed Mrs. LaBianca in the lower torso, 16, 18 times [p.24 ll.1-3]…I believe that the things that made me weak and lost were ultimately used as manipulations against me in my conversations with Manson.” [p.29 ll.5-7]

November 9, 2021 Parole: “He [Manson] played every angle he could in any way he could to gain control and power over us [p.88 ll. 17-19]…[I stabbed] because Tex told me to.” [p. 45 l. 22]

Judges Helen Bendix and Victoria Gerrard Chaney’s interpretations are completely out of purview of the extreme, historic realities of Leslie Van Houten’s heinous actions and her extensive pattern of minimization, lack of insight into her crimes and the nexus of current dangerousness as defined in LAWRENCE & SHAPUTIS.

When this appellate court undermined the executive authority of a duly elected governor it set an extremely pernicious precedent for all cases involving violent crime not only in California, but throughout the United States.

The notorious nature of these crimes are additionally of grave concern should Ms. Van Houten be released. The inmate has had extensive involvement with the media throughout her incarceration on Larry King, with Diane Sawyer, a book titled THE LONG PRISON JOURNEY of LESLIE VAN HOUTEN are just a few examples.

Global interest and fascination in these matters is undeniable. It would be devastating to our families should Ms. Van Houten engage in any project generating profit for the convicted felon, not to mention the impact a Van Houten book or show would have on impressionable minds.

If Ms. Van Houten is released, it is our concern that the court’s decision will become a massive issue concerning public safety. The court is not only sending a reckless signal to at risk criminals, it also establishes a very dangerous precedent for early release of all violent offenders who might be perceived as “lesser” in their offences than the extreme bar set by Leslie Van Houten and her crimes.

This travesty of justice is a dagger in the heart of victim’s rights, especially in regards to violent crimes.

Governor Newsom, Attorney General Bonta- you are all we have left.

On behalf of Leno & Rosemary LaBianca, each Manson family victim and all victims of violent crime throughout the state of California- please do all in your power to reverse the appellate court’s catastrophic decision.

I bring to your attention a statement made by Leslie Van Houten’s longtime attorney Richard Pfeiffer on national television [INSIDE EDITION] immediately after the court’s decision: “The Governor is looking at votes, so he’s got the pressure of all these people who don’t know the facts.”

– Sadly, our families know all too well the facts of these crimes. We LIVE with the realities and facts of Leslie Van Houten’s diabolical actions.

The scales of justice and victims rights are in your hands. Your authority and leadership are the last defense which will determine between victim’s rights & justice or madness.

I thank you in advance for your care and prudence in this grave, significant matter.

Anthony DiMaria

Court Grants Van Houten Parole

Tuesday, May 30th, 2023


May 30The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. The Governor’s decision reversing the Board of Parole Hearings’ July 2020 decision finding Leslie Van Houten suitable for parole is vacated, the grant of parole is reinstated, and the Board of Parole Hearings is directed to conduct its usual proceedings for a release on parole. (See In re Lira (2014) 58 Cal.4th 573, 582.)
– Bendix & Chaney.


I conclude the record contains some evidence Van Houten lacked insight into the commitment offense. Coupled with the heinous nature of that crime, this is sufficient under Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1214, to provide some evidence of current dangerousness and support the Governor’s decision. Accordingly, I would deny Van Houten’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
– Rothschild.

According to Mary Xjimenez, from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation:

Appellate court decisions become final after 30 days, and then there are 10 days where review can be sought in the California Supreme Court. (Cal. Rules Ct., rules 8.490, subd. (b)(2); 8.500, subd. (e).) The Governor may seek review for such court decisions, or the court can review such decisions on its own motion. (Cal Rules Ct., rule 8.512.).

If an appellate court’s decision becomes final, the case will be returned to the Board of Parole Hearings to consider any recent developments that might justify rescinding the parole grant. (In re Lira (2014) 58 Cal.4th 573, 582.). If there is no such change or new information, the Board will issue a release memo and CDCR will process the person for release.

Appellate Court to Hear Van Houten Case

Thursday, January 26th, 2023

Jan. 26 –An appellate court panel has granted Leslie Van Houten a hearing regarding Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her July 2020 parole recommendation. The hearing will take place in Los Angeles on March 16, with a three-justice panel hearing arguments from Van Houten’s attorneys and the Attorney General.

The California Board of Parole Hearings found Van Houten suitable for parole on July 23, 2020. Governor Gavin Newsom reversed the decision four months later, stating:

“Given the extreme nature of the crime in which she was involved, I do not believe she has sufficiently demonstrated that she has come to terms with the totality of the factors that led her to participate in the vicious Manson Family killings.”

Van Houten’s attorneys petitioned the Superior Court to throw out Newsom’s reversal, arguing the Governor failed to prove Van Houten currently posed an unreasonable risk.

Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Coen denied Van Houten’s petition and upheld Newsom’s reversal, saying the record contained some evidence to support Newsom’s decision; the nature of the commitment offense, an unsupportive psychological evaluation, lack of insight and minimization.

Van Houten’s attorneys took the matter to the appellate court, filing a petition arguing that Newsom’s reversal violated her due process; failed to assess her overall record; relied heavily on the gravity of the commitment offense; and that it established a parole standard that Van Houten could never meet, turning her sentence into a de facto sentence of life without parole.

According to Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Heinisch, Van Houten is asking the court to discount the Governor’s conclusions while giving greater weight to the positive aspects of her record.

“The Governor’s decision is the result of his independent assessment of Van Houten’s individual public safety risk and his determination that her inconsistent responses to the Board and evaluators, even decades after the Manson Family murders and significant efforts in rehabilitation, demonstrate ‘gaps in [her] insight or candor, or both.’” wrote Heinisch, in a brief filed with the court on January 20. “The Governor’s findings are reasonably supported by some evidence in the record.”

Van Houten, was sentenced to death in 1971 for her part in the August 10, 1969 murder deaths of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. The following year, Van Houten saw her sentence commuted to life after the California supreme court outlawed the death penalty, stating it was unconstitutional. In 1976, an appeals court ruled Van Houten was denied a fair trial because her attorney, Ronald Hughes, disappeared while the trial was in progress.

Van Houten was retried in 1977, resulting in a hung jury. She was retried the following year and again convicted, this time sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Because of time served on her original sentence, Van Houten was already eligible for parole when she returned to prison in August of 1978.

Since then, she has been denied parole 19 times. She has been recommended for parole in her last five consecutive parole hearings. All five of Van Houten’s parole recommendations have been reversed by the Governor.

Last November, Van Houten elected to waive her parole hearing for one year, deciding to wait for the courts to rule on her 4th and 5th reversals.

Her next parole hearing is tentatively scheduled for May of 2024.

Updated 2/3/23 – The People’s 1/30/23 Supplemental Return: In Re Palmer
Updated 2/24/23 – Van Houten’s 2/17/23 Traverse to Respondent’s Reply to the Order to Show Cause
Updated 3/8/23 – Van Houten’s 3/2/23 Supplemental Return Reply: In Re Palmer
Updated 3/13/23 – With instructions on how you can watch the hearing.

Newsom Reverses Krenwinkel’s Parole Grant

Friday, October 14th, 2022


Oct. 14 – In 1967, 19-year-old Patricia Krenwinkel met 33-year-old Charles Manson and became his girlfriend and a member of his cult, “the Family.” The cult believed that an apocalyptic race war, which they called “Helter Skelter,” was imminent. They planned to hide in the desert until it ended, at which point they planned to seize control of the world. In 1969, Mr. Manson decided it was the cult’s responsibility to initiate Helter Skelter by killing white victims, thereby inciting retaliatory violence against Black people.

On August 9, 1969, Ms. Krenwinkel, who was then 21 years old, and three other Family members drove to the home of actress Sharon Tate where she was hosting three guests: Abigail Folger, Wojiciech Frykowski, and Jay Sebring. Ms. Krenwinkel and her crime partners broke into the home and one of Ms. Krenwinkel’s crime partners shot Mr. Sebring in the head. Ms. Folger and Mr. Frykowski tried to escape but Ms. Krenwinkel and a crime partner chased them, and Ms. Krenwinkel caught Ms. Folger and stabbed her 28 times, killing her. A crime partner then fatally shot Mr. Frykowski. Ms. Krenwinkel or one or more of her crime partners tied ropes around the necks of Mr. Sebring and Ms. Tate and her two crime partners stabbed them repeatedly, killing them. Ms. Tate was eight months pregnant when she was killed. The group wrote “pig” in blood on the front door before fleeing.

The next night, Mr. Manson, Ms. Krenwinkel, and four crime partners drove to the home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Mr. Manson entered the home, then he left. One crime partner put a pillowcase over Mrs. LaBianca’s head and attempted to strangle her with an electrical cord. Ms. Krenwinkel stabbed Mrs. LaBianca in the neck and struck her collar bone, which bent the knife’s blade. Ms. Krenwinkel’s crime partners then repeatedly and fatally stabbed Mrs. LaBianca. Ms. Krenwinkel’s crime partners also fatally stabbed Mr. LaBianca. Before leaving the crime scene, Mr. Manson had told Ms. Krenwinkel to do something “witchy,” so she stabbed Mr. LaBianca’s body with a fork and used blood to write “Death to Pigs,” “Rise,” and “Healter [sic] Skelter” on the walls. The next morning, Mrs. LaBianca’s teenaged son discovered Mr. LaBianca’s body with a knife stuck in his neck, a carving fork protruding from his stomach, and the word “war” carved into his skin.

After the murders, Ms. Krenwinkel fled to Alabama until she was extradited to California in February 1970.

The Board of Parole Hearings (The Board) has conducted 16 parole hearings for Ms. Krenwinkel since she became eligible for parole in 1977. The Board has found Ms. Krenwinkel unsuitable for parole 14 times and she stipulated to unsuitability once in 2002. The Board found her suitable for parole at her hearing on May 26, 2022. This decision follows.


The California Constitution grants me the authority to review proposed decisions of the Board. (Cal. Const. art. V, § 8, subd. (b).) I am given broad discretion to determine an inmate’s suitability for parole and may affirm, reverse, modify, or refer back to the Board any grant of parole to a person convicted of murder serving an indeterminate life sentence. (Id.; Pen. Code, § 3041.2; see In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 625-26; In re Dannenberg (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1080, 1082, 1088.) I am authorized to identify and weigh all “factors relevant to predicting ‘whether the inmate will be able to live in society without committing additional antisocial acts.’” (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1205-06, quoting In re Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 655.)

When the Board proposes that an inmate convicted of murder be released on parole, I am authorized to conduct an independent, de novo review of the entire record, including “the facts of the offense, the inmate’s progress during incarceration, and the insight he or she has achieved into past behavior,” to determine the inmate’s suitability for parole. (In re Shaputis II (2011) 53 Cal.4th 192, 221.) My review is independent of the Board’s authority, but it is guided by the same “essential” question: whether the inmate currently poses a risk to public safety. (Cal. Const. art. V, § 8, subd. (b); Pen. Code, § 3041.2; In re Shaputis II, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 220-21.)

The circumstances of the crime can provide evidence of current dangerousness when evidence in the inmate’s pre- or post-incarceration history, or the inmate’s current mental state, indicate that the crime remains probative of current dangerousness. (In re Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1214.) In rare cases, the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole, even when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness exists. (Ibid.)

I am also required to give “great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner” when determining a youthful offender’s suitability for parole. (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c).) I further must afford special consideration to whether age, the amount of time served, and diminished physical condition reduce the inmate’s risk of future violence. (See Feb. 10, 2014 order issued in Coleman v. Brown, Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK-DAD (PC) (E.D. Cal.) and Plata v. Brown, Case No. C01-01351 TEH (N.D. Cal.).)


After an independent and thorough review, the evidence establishes that Ms. Krenwinkel is not suitable for parole and cannot be safely released from prison at this time. She currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

In the cases of inmates who commit their crimes when they are under 26 years old, I am required to review the record for evidence of factors relevant to their diminished culpability as youthful offenders and any subsequent growth and increased maturity. Ms. Krenwinkel was 21 years old when she committed the life crimes. She had graduated high school and completed a semester of college. She left school, started to use drugs, and decided to follow Mr. Manson. The psychologist who evaluated her in 2022 wrote that Ms. Krenwinkel “exhibited several hallmark features of youth,” including “impulsivity, immaturity, excessive risk taking, recklessness, low self-control, an imperviousness to negative outcomes, a susceptibility to Mr. Manson’s influence, coercion, and abuse, indoctrination into a cult, and a lessened ability to extricate herself from her environment at home and in the Manson group.”

I have also examined the record for all evidence of Ms. Krenwinkel’s subsequent growth and increased maturity in prison as set forth in youth offender laws. Ms. Krenwinkel has demonstrated positive institutional conduct. She has never been disciplined while in prison and only twice cited for minor infractions, last in 2005 for violating a posted housing unit rule. Ms. Krenwinkel has also engaged in considered reflection on her crime. During her risk assessment and at her parole hearing she demonstrated effusive remorse for her leadership role in the Family that empowered Mr. Manson, and her violent criminal conduct. Ms. Krenwinkel has also made efforts to improve herself in prison. She earned an associate degree and a bachelor’s degree in prison and completed four vocations, including recently earning a certificate in dog training. She has engaged in significant self-help programming. Since her last parole denial in 2017, she has focused on programming that addresses her history of antisocial thinking.

After assessing Ms. Krenwinkel and giving great weight to the relevant youthful offender factors, I conclude that these mitigating factors are outweighed by negative factors that demonstrate she remains unsuitable for parole at this time. While Ms. Krenwinkel has matured in prison and engaged in commendable rehabilitative efforts, her efforts have not sufficiently reduced her risk for future dangerousness.

Specifically, Ms. Krenwinkel has not developed sufficient insight into the causative factors of her crime and her triggers for antisocial thinking and conduct in the context of maladaptive relationships. Ms. Krenwinkel committed her life crimes in the context of a romantic relationship with Mr. Manson, which was marked by coercive control and violence. The psychologist who evaluated Ms. Krenwinkel in 2022 wrote, “Ms. Krenwinkel had historical problems with relationships and traumatic experiences, both of which are highly relevant to mitigating risk of future violence…. Her relationship with [Mr.] Manson involved abuse and manipulation on his part as well as infidelity, all of which she permitted and tolerated.” Ms. Krenwinkel fully accepted Mr. Manson’s racist, apocalyptical ideologies, and told the psychologist, “He was a survivalist to the max…racist to the max…we all accepted that. I believed in him…. I was in it completely. I was whatever he wanted it to be, was what I wanted it to be so I could be accepted.” She told the psychologist, “I felt he had control and I let him. I was completely dependent on him. I had no idea where we were going to or what we were doing. I let him take the wheel.” She asked why she stayed involved with the Family after Mr. Manson started exhibiting violent and disturbing conduct, she said, “It was tangled up with love…. I never felt strong enough to stand up to it. He would shut down feelings I had.” Ms. Krenwinkel demonstrated inadequate insight into why she was drawn to Mr. Manson, and so willing to follow him.

Ms. Krenwinkel was not only a victim of Mr. Manson’s abuse. She was also a significant contributor to the violence and tragedy that became the Manson Family’s legacy. Beyond the brutal murders she committed, she played a leadership role in the cult, and an enforcer of Mr. Manson’s tyranny. She forced the other women in the cult to obey Mr. Manson, and prevented them from escaping when they tried to leave. As Ms. Krenwinkel told her evaluating psychologist, “No one can be a leader unless someone props them up. I’m responsible for that…propping this man up, for giving him power. By agreeing and saying yes, I created this monster. I’m responsible.”

Ms. Krenwinkel’s candor about the corrosive dynamics of her relationship with Mr. Manson is an encouraging sign of her developing insight. It also, however, reveals the extreme degree to which her distorted thinking in toxic relationships and her susceptibility to negative influences remain highly relevant risk factors. Given the close nexus between these risk factors and her violent conduct, Ms. Krenwinkel’s current gaps in insight into these risk factors, and lack of related coping skills, make her unsuitable for parole at this time.

At her parole hearing, Ms. Krenwinkel accepted responsibility for her direct crimes, yet she continued to shift disproportionate blame to Mr. Manson for decisions and conduct within her control. When the psychologist asked Ms. Krenwinkel, “Did you plan the murders? Was there any premeditation at all?,” she responded, “No. I didn’t premeditate what we were going to do. I was not taken into the conversation.” Ms. Krenwinkel’s statement that she did not premeditate these murders is inaccurate. While Ms. Krenwinkel may not have been physically present for the discussions about these particular crimes, she admitted that, in the months before the murders, she willingly participated in weapons training in order to perpetrate a race war. The night after the murders at the Tate home, Ms. Krenwinkel willingly traveled to the LaBianca home where the intent was to inflict extreme violence on innocent people. This amounts to premeditation, and her statements to the contrary demonstrate that Ms. Krenwinkel continues to minimize her role in these crimes.

Ms. Krenwinkel’s account of her time in the Family reflects a significant lack of insight into her own internal processes that led to her decision to join, support, and help execute Mr. Manson’s terror campaign. During her evaluation, the psychologist asked Ms. Krenwinkel, “Did you know what you were doing when you stabbed the victims?” She responded, “Yes, I knew I was stabbing, I just didn’t care about anyone else’s lives. I didn’t have/hold anything sacred. I was a monster. I had nothing in me.” Ms. Krenwinkel summed up her time with the Family to the Board by saying, “I just kept accepting and allowing myself to go all along for the ride.” The deputy commissioner at her hearing summed up her response by describing her as a “homicidal robot.” However, Ms. Krenwinkel was not a homicidal robot—she was an adult who catered to the will of a violent and disturbed man. She made a series of conscious decisions over several years to continue her relationship with Mr. Manson, help him consolidate his power, and carry out acts of violence, even when he was not present to enforce them. Ms. Krenwinkel cannot be safely released until she improves her understanding of the internal processes that drew her to Mr. Manson and allowed her to remain in the harmful relationship for several years.

Ms. Krenwinkel also externalizes and shifts blame to Mr. Manson for her drug and alcohol use, which is another causative factor of her crime. When asked why she used drugs and hallucinogens, Ms. Krenwinkel replied, “I had to do it. I couldn’t get away from doing it. We had to take it as a group. It was part of accepting being there…part of the cult…you would take it. It wasn’t asked if you wanted to or not.” Ms. Krenwinkel, however, has also reported that she had used drugs since she was 15 years old. She told the psychologist that she had used alcohol, Benzedrine, and marijuana in high school and discussed how a friend visiting her during her junior year of high school introduced her to LSD. Ms. Krenwinkel’s drug use is a relevant risk factor especially because she had a prior history of drug abuse separate and apart from her relationship with Mr. Manson. Ms. Krenwinkel may benefit from additional self-help programming in order to better understand her substance abuse history, a key factor in preventing relapse.

Ms. Krenwinkel’s gaps in insight also bear on her ability to manage the unique stressors and public safety challenges she will face on parole. Ms. Krenwinkel committed crimes that were among the most fear-inducing in California’s history. While the crime facts are a static factor, Ms. Krenwinkel’s ability to manage the consequences of committing a notorious crime remains a highly relevant risk factor. Ms. Krenwinkel has acknowledged the challenges of living in the community as former Manson Family member. She has indicated, for example, that she would possibly need to change her name if released on parole. She did not, however, demonstrate an adequate understanding of, and strategies for handling, the significant challenges she will have to navigate.I have concluded that she must do additional work to identify these challenges and develop the skills and parole plans to address them in a prosocial way.

I have also given special consideration to the Elderly Parole factors for inmates convicted of murder who are older than 60 and who have served more than 25 years in prison. Ms. Krenwinkel is 74 years old and has served approximately 53 years in prison. The evaluating psychologist analyzed Ms. Krenwinkel’s elderly parole factors and determined, “There is little to no evidence in the medical record suggesting Ms. Krenwinkel has experienced a significant decline in cognitive abilities with age…. She has experienced a decline in physical capacity due to comorbidities but remains mentally and physically capable of committing crimes similar to the instant offense.” While Ms. Krenwinkel’s life crime involved direct acts of brutal violence, as discussed above, her current physical condition is not the most relevant indication of her current risk level. Ms. Krenwinkel poses a risk to public safety because she lacks the insight and coping skills she will need to avoid maladaptive relationships and external influences. Any diminishment of her physical strength does not alone sufficiently mitigate her risk factors for antisocial conduct. Accordingly, the elderly parole factors in this case do not outweigh the other evidence that she remains unsuitable for parole at this time.

When I consider all of the evidence, as a whole, I find that Ms. Krenwinkel still poses an unreasonable danger to society if paroled at this time. Therefore, I reverse the decision to parole Ms. Krenwinkel.

Decision Date:
October 14, 2022
Governor, State of California