• Krenwinkel Parole Fight Goes To Court

Krenwinkel Parole Fight Goes To Court

Tuesday, April 16th, 2024

Apr. 16 – A month after Leslie Van Houten won freedom through California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal, Patricia Krenwinkel was in Los Angeles County Superior Court filing a petition of her own.

On June 30, 2023, Krenwinkel filed a writ of habeas corpus, challenging Governor Gavin Newsom’s reversal of her 2022 parole suitability finding.

Her petition argued that Gov. Newsom failed to give any weight to her experience of intimate partner battering; or adequate consideration to youth and elderly parole. Additionally, she argued that use of insight as a basis for parole denial is unconstitutional.

Krenwinkel, 76, was scheduled to have her subsequent parole hearing at the end of last year. It was postponed because she was waiting on the court to rule on her writ.

In January, Judge William C. Ryan denied Krenwinkel’s petition stating:
“This court is not entitled to reweigh the evidence before the Governor; rather, it is tasked with determining whether the record contains some evidence in support of the Governor’s decision. The court concludes that it does.”

Last week, Krenwinkel waived her right to a parole hearing for one year. It is expected that she will pursue this matter in the appellate court where Van Houten prevailed last year.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Krenwinkel Parole Fight Goes To Court

  1. Bobby Davidson says:

    Right on Katie is trying what ever she can do

    • Lee says:

      Battered Partner Syndrome? Really? Manson knocked around all those people, including the men that were there. He used to grab Juan Flynn by the hair, and hold knives to people’s throats. Every, single one of them ate sh*t from Manson, but not all of them went on to murder in the most gruesome of ways. Manson sent Pat, because he knew she would do whatever he wanted her to do, regardless. Her claiming abuse is preposterous!

      • Michael says:

        Agreed, Lee. For example,, Dianne Lake seems to have gotten more abuse than Krenwinkel but look at the difference.

  2. Matt says:

    One of the biggest differences for me, between Leslie and Pat is that Pat went out on the first night, expressed sadness after but went out again the next night with a vengeance. How do you trust that type of remorse? I am glad she has made good use of her life behind bars and should probably just go ahead and stay there.

    • Kim says:

      Agreed. It’s beyond comprehension after the first night involving torture and multiple murders that she was able to get out of bed, never mind participate in the second nights Horror- torture and multiple murders. I can’t understand the parole boards conclusion- maybe it’s her age and length of time in jail that drive them.. I don’t discount the battered person issue in the context of an undeveloped personality. I believe she has truly grown and availed herself of every opportunity to improve etc as best as that is possible

      STILL I’m stuck re the consecutive nights. I don’t know how one can fix whatever within her allowed her to go out to an innocent unsuspecting couples home and torture them- after the first night. I don’t doubt she feels deep remorse- that is separate from having her issues fixed

      I think she has to stay put and hope for the best when meeting her maker. It’s a sad waste of a life- I can feel compassion for her yet am of the opinion that life in jail is actually BETTER than what she deserves ( hence WTF is the parole board thinking)

      I can’t even begin to imagine what any of the victims families are going through. Parole for her or Tex would be more than I could bear. Even the thought of parole or having to read about all this legalese would really hurt me as a family member

  3. Sean K. says:

    Agreed. Pat and Tex were Charlie’s primary henchmen. That’s why they were both present on the two consecutive nights of horror. Manson could trust them to stick to the program and follow through. Exactly the reason why neither of them should ever be released. Still hard to conceive how a one time Sunday school teacher who was entrusted to care for the family’s children could have transformed herself into such a merciless monster.

  4. Mike says:

    Pat directly participated both nights. She stays right where she is.

  5. Wim Van Aerde says:

    gas chamber was the deal !!!!!!

  6. Pam says:

    Two consecutive nights of butchery and we’re still talking about her rights? She should stay where she’s for the rest of her life. Enough is enough.



  8. DS says:

    No parole Ever

  9. happydaysarehereagain says:

    I’m wondering just how much LVH’s parole has garnered legal precedent in not only with PK but the rest of the murderous crew. Or any of the poor old murderers who’ve served so long it’s time to open the flood gates. Any comment from any of her many attorneys? Pandora’s Box opened and not a word; but hey, at least their client has freedom.

    More than anyone can say about the victims or their families.

    • Pam says:

      Hi HDAHA,
      Great observations. LVH’s released set a precedent on how these cold blooded killers can be released. When I mentioned this to RP, LVH’s barrister, he denied it. LVH was Pandora’s box. Perpetrator’s barristers will all follow Rich P mode of operating. The system has failed the victim’s family. The 🇬🇧 where I live is worse. Short sentences and quick releases.

      • happydaysarehereagain says:

        Hi Pam,

        No matter what RP says on this board, LVH’s release and the legal path to that end has set precedent. I agree the system failed the victims and their families however, we are not the only one with legal rights. Sometimes those rights are the latest laws that are allowed to be retroactive to suit the narrative of age, abuse, addiction etc., and it only benefits the incarcerated for early release. That’s what I object to the most.

        Imagine if Ted Bundy’s sentence was reduced to life with the chance of parole and his team of lawyers used his childhood and advanced age, his good behavior in prison and the education he gained while incarcerated as reason for early release. Think the argument then would be the number of victims? Not a fair comparison to LVH? But Bundy only strangled his victim once or twice after she was dead? What’s the damn difference. Murder is murder is murder. Or is it?

        I’m so pessimistic when it comes to murderers’ release, no matter the amount of time served or circumstance leading to the crime.

        Thanks for listening Pam. Always nice to see you on the board.

  10. Stephen Craig says:


    I appreciate your point re: the “latest laws” and would like to add my own “spin”, as it were. IMO, “the law” tends to be “fad’ oriented, with laws being amended/enacted/suspended based upon prevailing societal tends. Concepts of what is “fair'” or what is “justice” appear fluid, subject to change depending on what political/social trends are popular at any given time. In the state in which I live, the death penalty has been instituted/abolished more times than I care to remember, and at times the changes to the regs. have been diametrically opposed; one cycle the penalties for serious felonies is “severe”, the next cycle, they’re “lenient”. I assume than much of this waffling is based upon some of what you have mentioned in your posts: the background of the defendant; addiction; how old they were at the time of the offense, and I do understand the need to look at a crime holistically; in its entirety in order to have a better understanding of why the crime occurred. However, having said this, IMO as we try to better understand the perpetrator, the victim becomes lost, an ancillary participant as it were, and all that they endured (in the case of murder) in their last moments is somehow mitigated, qualified, excused. In LVH”s case she and her cohorts were sentenced to death. When the death penalty was abolished and their sentences commuted to life with the opportunity for parole after 7 years. To me, this gives credence to my point that the severity of sentences can be amended from one extreme to the other. Did the powers that be really think that in the world of “fairness/justice” it was appropriate for those responsible for such atrocities to receive such a change in their sentences? I guess at the time, they did. We have seen, though, that over the years attitudes towards violent offenders has changed yet again, and consequently, there were many who opposed LVH/the others being eligible for/receiving parole. But the law had been established and they had been “grandfathered” in despite previous sentencing. So, today, after decades, in this case there is still great debate on the fairness/morality of paroling someone like LVH, but no matter what happens, no matter what precedents have/may have been set, nothing will change the horror that her victims endured, the loss of their lives, and the tragic impact on their families and society.

  11. Billy says:

    …she’s 76…would you spend the night alone with her?…

  12. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Stephen Craig: Excellent way of looking at this case and others that no doubt will use this precedent. Using the laws at the time/year, however unjust they may have been, is still used to this day. Examples are the long cold cases, suddenly finding the killer through DNA genealogy. Many times, the killer is deceased. Yet there are those that are alive and the penalty is from the time of the murder and not what it would be in today’s standard. So, the murderer has the best of both worlds: grandfathered law retroactive for early release and penalty at the time of crime after having decades of freedom.

    I love watching Forensic Files. The science used is fascinating to catch the killer. And then when you hear the penalty for the crime you see it was overturned on appeal from death to life, or life no parole to the date they were paroled in the epilogue of the show. It is maddening and I forget I’m a lady when this happens! Injustice is my Achilles.

    Billy: Even at 76 she’s a slithery one. So that’s a hard no. lol

Leave a Reply

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