• Krenwinkel Parole Hearing Postponed

Krenwinkel Parole Hearing Postponed

Friday, September 15th, 2023

Sept. 15 – Patricia Krenwinkel’s upcoming parole hearing has been postponed due to scheduling issues. Krenwinkel, 75, was slated to have a hearing in December, will not appear before the board until May of next year. Krenwinkel has been denied parole 15 times since becoming eligible in February of 1977. The Board of Parole Hearings found her suitable for parole at her last hearing, but the grant was reversed by Governor Gavin Newsom a few months later.

Updated 9/15/23 – The reason for the postponement: There is current, pending litigation challenging the Governor’s reversal of my last grant of parole in the Los Angeles County Superior Court that will not be resolved by November 2023.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Krenwinkel Parole Hearing Postponed

  1. Louise LaBianca says:

    Where can I find the news article or source for this postponement? Thank you.

    • Ashlene Kelly says:

      I am going to do some digging and if I am able to find anything I will be sure to pass it along to you. I am so sorry your family is still having to deal with these monsters all these years later. I want you to know they will NEVER be forgotten and will always live on through all of us who stand with your family, the Tates and every single family that was forever changed that weekend.

    • R says:

      My mom was on the other side of the country and she remembers being scared to go to bed at night. My dad was in Topanga.

  2. Louise LaBianca says:

    Thank you, ASHLENE! That means a lot to me. All of the victims deserve to be remembered in a very special way. I am doing my best to preserve the memory of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca as they lived their lives, dreamed of retiring to a beautiful ranch-type setting with horses and other cherished animals–yet fated only for a more horrible end than anyone could have imagined. If there is a heaven for such good people, I imagine their dreams could only come true there where no evil could befall them any longer ❤️

  3. Paul James says:

    It kills me inside to think of what this woman did on 8/9th August 1969 and the following night. She was present at all the killings at Cielo Drive and was a willing participant. She chased poor Abigail Folger out onto the front lawn as she made a desperate attempt to escape and held her down while that monster Tex Watson stabbed her to death in a frenzied attack. She watched as sick Sadie and Tex butchered my sweet, innocent Sharon. Then she goes out again on another killing spree the following night to Waverly Drive. I feel for Louise LaBianca. It must be like a recurring nightmare when these parole hearings come up. Leno and Rosemary will never be forgotten Louise.

    Thank you ASHLENE!

    • Melissa says:

      I think comments of support are sweet and mean a lot to Tge families of Tge victims but I don’t think descriptions of the carnage of those nights is necessary and frankly disrespectful to the families.

  4. Wolf’s stare says:

    It’s pretty obvious she taking the same approach Leslie did, if you remember Leslie’s parole hearing was postponed and people wondered why, Patty is going to the Appellate Court to claim Newsom overstepped his authority in denying her freedom.

  5. Lee says:

    Please tell me she isn’t trying the same legal moves as Leslie Van Houten did to try worming her way out of prison. In my opinion, the crimes these people committed warrants a true life sentence with no possibility of parole!

  6. Sundog says:

    I’m in the Manson rabbit hole listening to Alan springer interview. He saw them for what they were, degenerate dirtbags living in a fleabag filthy mess, which they created w their drug field idiocy. Then listened to van houten in dec1969 interview. She was utterly insane in the interview and hearing again over the years the creepier and sicker they all seem from the words of their own mouths. Complete batshit loons and idiots each and every one. And even though w the listening being close at hand and knowing why they sh never be relaeased I will say one thing … at least they exceedlynd. They won’t be around much long either way. Although that really is not much consolation.

  7. Louise LaBianca says:

    I would not say that mid-70s is “exceedingly old.” I know many people, especially women, who are now approaching their 90s and even beyond and living well. But, whatever, I still think they are trying to move the elderly population out of the system. This is not good.

    • Sundog says:

      I agree. They sh have gotten life wo parole. I was just listening, as mentioned, to Leslie’s interview in December 1969, and what she said is utterly macabre and depraved. I didn’t finish it bc I vaguely remember listening to it a long time ago on this website. It’s totally insane. Again, I liked listening to Alan springer who saw it for what it was, a disgusting bunch of idiots running amok, and said he wasn’t interested in $25k. He said he would have told anyway bc he knew that’s what a normal, civilized person does, even though he was riding w the motorcycle gang. I hadn’t heard that interview before. He was the one who got Danny de Carlo do go in and talk about all the confessions he’d heard.
      And I agree that mid-70s isn’t that ancient these days, but it is pretty old.

    • Kim says:

      It makes sense that one of the rationale has to do with their age . I suspect (sadly) all but Watson will be out over the next few years. It’s very difficult to justify keeping them in after 50 years but I find it impossible to justify letting them out at all . I don’t think I could cope with it as a family member . their status really changed as a fluke

  8. Sundog says:

    I hope not. Hopefully, this will stop w Leslie …
    It was all too horrifying, too weird, too freaky, too many people involved, too unbelievable … I wish and hope for the most peace for the families.
    I’m just hypothesizing. I’m just some nobody out here. This thing touched my life in 1975. I was still a kid but I read the book back then and was very affected by the story. Other than that, what do I know? I live in Los Angeles. I know all the locations, etc. firsthand.
    I try not think about this case too much bc it can become too engrossing in a way that is not good for me w all the documents available over time. At the same time, I appreciate Cielo drive and the other good sites for maintaining the information for the public in a professional, useful way.

  9. Louise LaBianca says:

    Well, KIM, as Debra Tate put it in one of her interviews–possibly several times–these were “domestic terrorists.” To me, it goes far beyond personal loss to include a whole generation of people living in L.A. and beyond at that time in total fear of who would be targeted next. I didn’t really think about that at the time, but I get it now because people have been cluing me in–how their childhood lives and innocence playing outdoors changed overnight. It wasn’t paranoia. It was reality. I know it’s all mixed in with other crazy stuff going on back then with war protests, racial tensions, Nixon, social turbulence etc. Oh and don’t forget drugs. That makes it stand out even more because MOST groups were trying to work on peaceable solutions. I can think of lots of justification for keeping them out of society for the rest of their lives.

  10. Louise LaBianca says:

    I had a psychologist once who told me to remind myself, “That was then. This is now” every time I was reminded about something in relation to this case. I guess I didn’t take his advice, lol! At least back THEN there was a kind of consensus. NOW we all are expected to be “o.k.” with the new normal. I’m trying! I think I can do it, God willing. Thank you for listening! I appreciate it very much 🙂

    • Kim says:

      LOUISE i find there is a certain condescension, even heartlessness in telling others what they should be “ok” with. For many reasons these tragedies continue to have profound effects- in individuals, on families and communities. Society’s understanding of concepts broaden over time. By today’s standards their acts were successful domestic terrorism. Life without parole is a fitting end and a bargain at that

  11. Louise LaBianca says:

    SUNDOG: It sounds like you are one of the kids I was talking about, and living in L.A. no less. My partner, who was a teenager in the early 70s and also lived in L.A. area then, said little kids were always talking about Manson as a kind of boogyman all around town. I guess the parents and/or t.v. news shows really scared children. That is terrible.

  12. Sundog says:

    I think we all have to find balance in our own lives regarding the traumas life forces on us. It’s easy to say that was then, this is now. Or like what I tried to do and what Dianne Lake tried to do, put a lead plate over it and forget it ever happened out of embarrassment. But then, why study history? Why have a history department in a college? That was then, this is now. (I read that book, too. At 13. By SE Hinton) In my humble opinion, we have to find balance and understanding about facts in a case some of which are nebulous or can change such as emotional reactions to the case. Looking back can lead to stability, imo.
    I know for myself, I’m always seeking stability.
    Even now, as I’m in what I called the Manson rabbit hole, and feeling embarrassed that I was ever a juvenile delinquent and embarrassed by my whole deal, I feel that I have learned new aspects. Like I can parallel Leslie in her 1969 pd interview w myself and know definitely there is no way -bc of my mom’s influence as crazy and neglectful and bad as she was- that I would be telling the cops about being in love w some guy who had just gotten out of prison after seven years. And I was a rube back then. But I had glamor in my mind combined w wanting to be a criminal. What? That sentence “I had glamor in my mind combined w wanting to be a criminal” is why I like to learn about the law. I just made a painting of Vincent Bugliosi and I have read all his books, and I count him as a major influence on me. What is the law? Why? And just go from there … a lot of people who read comments will probably attack me on that previous sentence. Please don’t. If you hate America or the law, comment readers. That’s fine. Just let me make a statement wo attacking me or anonymously arguing points w me. I’m just saying what I like.
    I got arrest four times at nineteen for petty shoplifting and drug possession and then for a stolen car that I didn’t steal. This guy named dash stole it and I was driving it. I called my mother from jail and she got me a ticket back to Massachusetts and that ended that. And I was hanging around w dash even though he had a gf and a baby w her. Another story I have to tell from that same period is I left the beach w some photographer and I was definitely too much of an unsophisticated rube to make it in the world of glamour after being neglected by my mom growing up in a dangerous miami ghetto. What a loss! A few years later, I was an extra on the set of a big time movie and the director invited me up to talk to him, I was still such an uneducated rube that I couldn’t talk to him on his level. Not at all. All I can do is be honest about it and articulate it now. What a loss.
    But, my life back then was such a weird mix of degeneracy w high minded topics that I couldn’t articulate at the time as a runaway high school drop out it’s still hard to understand. And I still can’t really articulate it. I think I need to take some creative writing courses as the older lady that I am now to improve that skill. And I have to study history to put it all into context. So, idk, I’m just writing about here a little and I thank you for listening and stating that for kids, Manson became the bogeyman and as Debra Tate stated they were domestic terrorists.
    Thank you for listening to me, Louise. This website is here for knowledge and clarity and I am glad to see you here. This is the fifth comment I’ve made. My usual urge when I comment anywhere online is to place the comment and then delete it bc my story is too weird but I can’t delete these. I already checked. Or maybe I can. I didn’t check that closely.
    Take care.

  13. Sundog says:

    ps. There was another long comment from me before my previous one. I don’t know where it went. But if the above comment seems a wonky or disjointed, that is why. I wrote a bunch of stuff in the previous longer one which I’m reacting to in the above one. Maybe it will post pretty soon … it was long.

  14. Sundog says:

    I guess my long post isnt going to post. Anyway, one thing I did mention there was that, yes, while I was reading the book, which if I were the parent I would not have allowed my kid to read, I was terrified the mansons would come in through the window. And we lived in florida.

  15. Bill says:

    She stabbed with gusto… both nights…

  16. Louise LaBianca says:

    SUNDOG: Glad to be here and share perspectives. You just gave me an interesting lead on a book to read–the one by S.E. Hinton. I hope I can find it–thank you!

    • Sundog says:

      Yes, I remembered the title when you mentioned in a comment that you’d been advised, I think by your therapist, to remember that was then, this is now.

    • Sundog says:

      Oh, I went and found where you said you have to remind yourself that was then and this is now.
      And yes, a lot of the new things going on, the “new normal”, as you mentioned, are challenging for me too sometimes.

  17. Louise LaBianca says:

    Oh, she is the author of the Outsiders I see. Pretty sure I read it in high school, too, but I honestly can’t remember much about it. I will definitely be reading it again soon.

  18. Louise LaBianca says:

    She also wrote a book with the title, That Was Then, This Is Now, I see. I guess I will read them both!

  19. Sundog says:

    They’re books about hard-knocks teenagers. SEHinton was said to be 17 when she wrote The Outsiders and received a lot of acclaim for it. I can’t remember all the details. I was a real hard-knocks teenager and I’ve worked a lot to overcome my circumstances … and it worked. I did overcome them.
    Maybe I’ll reread That was then, this is now again. She’s a great writer …
    I’m probably going to read Dianne Lake’s book at some point. You probably know all this, but she was there when the group came back and they confessed the murders to her.
    Her book came out in 2017, I think. I watched a couple of interviews between her and the woman who wrote the book w her. She was really a victim of circumstances and very sensitive and intelligent in her description. I think her voice is important in the overall narrative as the years go on.

  20. Mckinney says:

    If Krenwinkel is released will the men then have some kind of an equity/fairness argument? They haven’t been granted parole in part because they are viewed as being more dangerous and capable of new violence than the women….apparently. Is that fair? And what about Grogan’s very early release?

  21. Louise LaBianca says:

    SUNDOG: The teenage years are difficult in the best of circumstances! Can’t wait to read S.E. Hinton’s books, hoping they have them at my local library for starters. I haven’t read too much about Dianne Lake’s book but I have seen her in a few different interviews. She is the one whose parents lived in a commune, as I recall. She seems really kind and unassuming on the interviews I’ve seen.

  22. Louise LaBianca says:

    MCKINNEY: Yes, I was thinking that too. To quote an old movie star–I believe, Bette Davis: Fasten your seat belts… it’s going to be a bumpy ride. (and a long, drawn out one to boot)

  23. Louise LaBianca says:

    Too bad the OC Register chose not to print my article last June when I likened the LVH possible parole (now reality) to Pandora’s box–not that it would have made any difference in the outcome. They were bent on saying the Manson murders were only a “big deal” to Boomers. I get it there are many, many more immediate crises in the 21st century but still….

  24. Sean K. says:

    I too have seen some of the Dianne Lake interviews and would like to read her book. I also listened to her interview from 1970 that is on this website. I don’t know if any of you have checked out the audio archives here, but they are so hard to understand! The recording equipment they had back then, coupled with the interviewees often hushed tones, makes it a real challenge.

    She was horrified when Tex told her, at Barker Ranch, that the family had committed the murders. Today she is genuinely remorseful and tears up when she recounts the events of the second night as told to her by LVH. She helped her count the coins they stole from Leno.

    Hers is really a tragic story, given that her wildly irresponsible parents essentially handed her over to Charlie and the family, no questions asked. He, in turn, tormented and sexually abused her. She was fourteen! Other family members have stated that Charlie had it out for her and was particularly cruel to her. Thanks mom and dad!

  25. happydaysarehereagain says:

    If memory serves, on a long ago post had Mr. Pfeiffer stated he sent his information to the other attorneys or was it he hadn’t yet had a request for his legal strategy that successfully got LVH on parole. I can’t find it…anyone?

  26. Louise LaBianca says:

    That’s creepy to think of them counting some of my dad’s coins.

  27. Louise LaBianca says:

    MELISSA: Personally, when I get to the gory details I am a pro at skipping over them after many years. They do it in all the journalist’s reports, too, as you will notice. Thank you for speaking out, maybe the news reporters should take a clue, eh?!

  28. Louise LaBianca says:

    Even when I wrote my first article for the Sacramento Bee in June, the editors added the gory details for whatever reason. I approved it because I wanted to get the article published but I didn’t like it. Like I said, I’m a pro at skipping over.

  29. Sean K. says:

    I agree Louise, Melissa’s point is well taken. We’re all aware of the gruesome specifics involved in this case. It’s unnecessary to compare notes on our knowledge about those details. I myself have been guilty of it at times and have spoken in graphic terms in order to make a certain point. An example would be an earlier post I made in regards to a woman who recklessly implied that she had admiration for Susan Atkins! She spoke of the “lovely” dress Atkins wore at her grand jury testimony and concluded by adding “I like Susan Atkins. I think she’s a sweet girl”. I responded with a sense of bewilderment and anger and countered her comments by reminding her of Susan’s brutal treatment of Voytek and Sharon. Her misguided observations really irked me!

    For many of us, I think your involvement in this dialogue represents a new experience. You lived these events. You know first hand aspects of this tragedy that the rest of us can only speculate about. And personally, while I’m thrilled to have you here and revel in your recollections, I find myself trodding upon pins and needles hoping I don’t say something that will offend you. But I’ve come to believe, by listening to your thoughtful words, that you understand and can keep it all in perspective. I think you realize that we’re all still angry and doing our best to empathize with what has been done to you and all of the families involved.

    I must admit, for instance, that I felt bad about your reaction to my comment about your dad’s coins. I learned about it while listening to Dianne Lake’s interview with investigators and had assumed that you had knowledge of it. But when I think about it, why would you want to spend your time listening to such material? The information on this site is so voluminous and I have learned many new details just by exploring it’s resources. Sorry I made that assumption and hope it didn’t upset you.

    Perhaps this helps explain why I didn’t want to bother you with my response to your article. In my conversations with you I’ve come to the conclusion that you are more apt to want to discuss peripheral topics such as the movies, music and pop culture of the era, rather than the crime itself. And that’s fine with me! I have very much enjoyed the memories you’ve shared.

  30. Louise LaBianca says:

    I knew about the coins already, SEAN K. I’ve been doing alot of my own research about the case every since June when the whole LVH thing hit the news. Please don’t ever worry about saying what’s on your mind, as I do! That is what makes this forum an interesting one. I already knew about the coins (actually, they must not have gotten very many because we inherited most of them and they are still in the family–not all, many were sold to pay creditors but my mom bought some and that’s how they actually were passed down to us–something like that!). Anyway, the reason I commented was to share a feeling I already had–it just struck me as creepy because my dad really really loved being a coin collector and he went to great lengths to instill the hobby in our lives as well. It was just a very personal thing.
    Again, please don’t censor your thoughts and opinions on my account! I am a discerning, perceptive reader and I know how to filter out the bad parts which oft times may lead to some real important ideas/opinions/direction. That’s why I am here. Thank you!

  31. Louise LaBianca says:

    I don’t consider music and movies of the time period “peripheral topics” either, SEAN K, lol! Very important…um, as we all know Manson was very much involved with the music scene. I was a bit shocked/surprised to learn that one of my favorite musicians of all time, Neil Young, actually jammed with Manson and liked his music very much.

    How did it go from that to Manson being labeled “the most dangerous man alive” in only a few months. Something is not adding up. I think that is one reason why people are still even talking about it, and if you want to know my honest opinion… well, I’ll let you all know after I finish reading Chaos….

    • Paul James says:

      Louise LaBianca: You might find this Tom O’Neill interview interesting as part of your research.

      Topics of Discussion: Topanga Canyon in the 1960’s, Alan “Blind Owl” Wilson, Jane Doe #59, Marina Habe, Filippo Tenerelli, Intelligence Connection to Manson Family, Charles Manson the Songwriter, Doris Day’s Clash with Charles Manson, Terry Melcher, Victims of Cielo Drive, the Love Triangle of Jay Sebring, Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski, Roman Polanski Sexual Predator, LAPD Recovers Sex Tape from Cielo Drive, Manson Violates Parole Immediately Upon Release, Charles Manson’s Son Michael Brunner, Family Member Mary Brunner, Pattern of Catch and Release with Manson from 1967-1969, MK Ultra Program, Susan Atkins Connection with Antone LaVey, Xena LaVey, Antone LaVey and Church of Satan, Colonel Michael Aquino, Manson and Scientology, Marilyn Manson, Roman Polanski’s Failed Polygraph, Victims at Cielo Drive Knew Killers, Dennis Wilson’s Relationship with Manson Family, the Snake Pit, the Spiral Staircase Bookstore in Topanga Canyon, Family Member Bobby Beausoleil, Mondo Hollywood, Victims at Cielo Drive Targeted the Night Before Murders, Bugliosi’s Official Narrative, Helter Skelter Prophecy, Murphy Ranch in Los Angeles, the Murder of Gary Hinman, California Governors Continue to Overturn Family Members Parole, L.A.S.D. Running Surveillance on Manson Family Prior to Murders, Charles Manson: Intelligence Asset, Glomer Response, Bernard Crowe aka Lotsa Poppa, L.A.S.D. Detectives Charlie Guenther & Paul Whiteley, the Murders at Cielo Dr., Family Member Linda Kasabian, Family Member’s Squeaky Fromme and Nancy Pitman Murder in Stockton, Squeaky Fromme Attempted Assassination of President Gerald Ford, William Garretson, the Shady Crowd at Cielo Drive, the Rape of Billy Doyle, Sharon Tate’s Affiliation with Witchcraft, Rosemary’s Baby, Suzan LaBerge, the LaBianca Murders, the Raid at Spahn Ranch, the Murder of Shorty Shea, Susan Atkins Confesses to Cellmates, the Murder of Ronald Hughes, Charles Manson’s Influence Outside of Prison, the FBI’s COINTELPRO & the CIA’s Operation Chaos.


  32. Louise LaBianca says:


    Neil Young talks about Manson

  33. Louise LaBianca says:

    As far as the actual events and details of the murders, they have to bring that up at every single one of the parole hearings and in very detailed terminology. So it even affects the discourse of family members who attend them. I found that one when I recently talked to my cousin Louis Smaldino, a “regular” attendee at hearings. I was listening to him as long as I could stand it but not sorry to say “Bye-bye!” Poor Louis.

  34. Louise LaBianca says:

    PAUL JAMES: Thank you for the list of topics in Tom O’neill book and the link to interview with the author. I a going to read the book first, before I watch the podcast. I process information better reading–I end up focusing on the person’s mannerisms and body language instead of the actual thing they are trying to convey!

  35. Louise LaBianca says:

    The part about Suzan LaBerge should be interesting to me. Thank you again, don’t forget to watch Cutting to the Truth when you have time.

    • Sundog says:

      Where, if possible, can I find contact information for you? I have a colleague who would like to print your op Ed in a Los Angeles publication, if you’re interested.

  36. Paul James says:

    Louise LaBianca: I understand why you want to read the book before watching the podcast. It’s sensible to approach it that way because there are one or two things mentioned in the podcast that are subsequent to the book.

    I will watch Cutting to the Truth. Thank you for recommending it.

    I posted a video on the DiMaria’s Letter thread. It’s a couple of months old but it’s Anthony talking about how he feels about the parole of LVH. If you haven’t seen it before it’s worth watching. He’s a really nice guy and very respectful about your family.

  37. Sundog says:

    Where, if possible, can I find your contact info. I have a colleague who would like to print your op-ed in a Los Angeles publication, if you’re interested.

  38. Louise LaBianca says:

    Best way is to contact the administrator of this website. Sounds like an interesting possibility.

  39. Louise LaBianca says:

    Thank you, SUNDOG!

  40. Sean K. says:

    Okay Louise, thanks for setting my mind at ease! I appreciate you being open minded about some of our unintentionally insensitive comments. And please excuse my occasional poor choice of words (ie peripheral). In my quest to sound intellectual, I sometimes miss the mark!

    I have listened to Manson’s music as well and have been struck by the fact that he did possess a modicum of talent. I guess those years of strumming his guitar in the pen, with the likes of Alvin Karpis, helped him develop an ear. He would seek out budding musicians that he respected and indoctrinate them into the family. Brooks Poston and Paul Watkins to name a few. And of course there was the Dennis Wilson factor and the fateful introduction to Terry Melcher. Incidentally, Doris Day is one of my all time favorites. It’s hard to believe that she was inadvertently linked to this case. Attributing her image to that of Manson’s is truly a study in contrasts. The girl next door meets Satan! Apparently she had spent a weekend or two at the Cielo house.

    I’m glad you mentioned the plans that Leno and Rosemary had concerning the ranch and their retirement. Here’s yet another example of you providing an interesting tidbit of information that would have otherwise remained unknown. I was aware from one source or another that they were eager to get out of the Waverly home. It’s common knowledge that Rosemary was uncomfortable there and was sure that intruders were coming into the house while they were away. It makes me think of the “creepy crawl” missions that the family would partake in. Could it have been? I’ve also heard (from that video?) that it’s possible your dad may have confronted the family when they were next door partying on one of their group acid trips. If he was anything like me he might have. Not trying to sound like a tough guy here (cuz I’m not) but I don’t put up with that kind of BS. Did I also hear that they had previously lived in a house once owned by Walt Disney?

    Well, this one is meandering a bit (what else is new), but I did want to mention to you, Louise, that I’m happy to hear you have sons who understand you, are supportive of you and that your father would be proud of.

  41. Louise LaBianca says:

    SEAN K: Peripheral is a fine choice of word and I admittedly do meander off into personal memories, lol! I get “bored” talking about the never-ending changes in the laws of this great state of California–i.e., politics. I am interested in hearing the different theories that people have about why these horrible crimes were committed and how they fit into that era of California history. IMO, some claims have been exaggerated completely out of proportion such as the Manson murders ended the 60s. As SUNDOG explained, searching for balance is so important and this is what I aim for by asking myself, or basically just scratching my head in disbelief after all these years, what really happened and why? Not the murder details, those seem to be well-known–but the whole overall sequence of events from the time Manson and all of them got to L.A.
    More later–thanks for the response.

  42. Stephen Craig says:

    There was a previous comment that had asked about Steve Grogan’s early release. It is my understanding that Grogan was released because it was determined that he had (a) “diminished mental capacity” i.e., his IQ indicated that he was developmentally disabled, and consequently may not have fully understood the ramifications of his actions. Whether or not you/I find this an acceptable rationale for releasing him, that is clearly another issue (the fact that he help authorities locate the remains of Shorty Shea may have been a small part of his early release, but it was “main” reason”). I’d also like to comment on what Louise LaBianca (and others) have commented about the “that was then, this is now” philosophy. Although I do agree that one must live in the present, and it is best to keep looking forward instead of looking back, especially if it concerns focusing on the “negative”, being the survivor of someone who was the victim of a violent crime is a unique experience that in many ways can only be truly understood only if one has experienced it for themselves. The death of a loved one is traumatizing under the best of circumstances: when one loses a loved on to violence, it completely (at least for me) transform the loss , catapults it, if you will, into another dimension, one that is filled with a range of emotions that at times can be overwhelming. It (the experience) is clearly not something “on get move on from:. You do, but it stays with you, shapes you, molds you, and alters the perception of the world around you, and forever leaves its mark on you. Yes, again, ou do “move on”, you have to, but with a cost, a burden, if you will. And that burden is made harder to bear when there are those who critique how you process and live with this loss, or try to defend the indefensible. Murder is something you just don’t get over.

  43. Louise LaBianca says:

    SEAN K: Yes, Leno, Rosemary, Suzan and Frankie all lived in the beautiful Disney house at Woking Way for six years–1962-1968. I spent all of my Christmas vacations and various weekends over the years there, lots of memories.

    Not sure if my dad ever had words with the rowdy neighbors on Waverly Dr or not. My mom said in that interview a policeman told her that, most likely Sgt Patchett as they talked together often in the weeks after the murders but it sounds like speculation to me.

  44. Louise LaBianca says:

    Thank you, STEPHEN CRAIG. You explained it well, sounds like you may have experienced a tragic loss or two as well. Indeed, just about anyone can probably find something crazy or unbelievable in the old family tree if you look–glaring example, holocaust survivors and their families. I never even wanted people to know about what happened to my dad, they go into a weird zone that completely changes the conversation. So we have all had to deal with that as well. As you can see, I only feel comfortable talking about it in writing, for now anyway. Not getting any younger but maybe that will change. Thank you again. I appreciate knowing.

  45. Louise LaBianca says:

    SEAN K: For the record, I’ve never listened to any of Manson’s songs myself and I never plan to. I found it interesting that Neil Young wrote a song about it, Revolution Blues, and in the interview I posted he (Neil) said Crosby told him, “Don’t sing about that. It isn’t funny.” Yet the experience really seemed to have touched Neil’s life–an odd connection, but not nearly as odd as the Doris Day one. She is one of my favorites, too. Such a fun, vibrant actress and, yes, definitely the girl nextdoor type for that era!

  46. Stephen Craig says:

    Louise LaBianca: Thank you for your response. Those of us who have experienced the loss of a loved one(s) due to violence share a rather unique “bond”: it’s as if we belong to an “exclusive club” that very few belong to (thankfully) which we, of course, did not choose to join. I don’t mean to pry, and I understand if you are not comfortable answering this, but I was wondering if you’d mind sharing how you were able to cope with all of the public/private support that LVH received throughout the years? My family and I went through a similar situation, and it was very difficult for us to witness those who supported the young man who killed my cousin to testify on his behalf. For us, it seemed as if these supporters were trying to not only minimalize his actions, but make excuses for him, as if the fact that he had faced adversity in his own life excused his crime. It was as if it was almost unavoidable that he did what he did simply because of his background, as if it were almost expected, and therefore the severity of his actions should somehow be qualified. In your family’s case, I recall to LVH/ her attorney talking about divorce, an abortion, drug use, her involvement in the counterculture, etc… as an excuse/rationale as to why she aligned herself with the Manson Family, as reasons as to why she choose the path she did and that it was reasonable to think that anyone could/would have fallen into the same trap. For me, this is rationale is unreasonable: Many people have experienced much more “trauma” than LVH and not morphed into a killer. What was this like for you, listening to her attorneys/supporters essentially try to excuse the inexcusable? For me, it was one of the worst experiences of the entire tragedy. It was as if they were trying to convince us that the one who had wielded the knife was not a murderer, but a victim as well.

  47. Sean K. says:

    LOUISE: Not to quote Bob Hope, but thanks again for the memory. Not sure where Woking is in relation to Waverly. I recall seeing that address on some of Rosemary’s credit cards. I can only imagine the kind of spread that was. You mentioned at one point the stages of grief survivors have to endure. I’m sure there’s a “what if” or “if only” phase pertaining to tragedies such as this. “If only they’d stayed in that house!” for instance. I’m sure one can torture themselves imagining better outcomes for all the unfortunate souls that meet such a cruel fate.

    The idea that the Manson murders brought the decade of love to a crashing end has become a bit of a cliche, I agree. Interesting that Woodstock was a week later, an event that galvanized the free love society of that era. Members of the family themselves admitted that they shunned that ideology. Remember, they were “slippies” not hippies. The worshipped Charlie, not any tenet of the counterculture movement. When push comes to shove, they were just a bunch of sad, pathetic kids who in their wanderings had happened upon a charismatic despot who exploited their youth and naïveté to his own twisted ends.

    The sixties was a dynamic and multifaceted era. I’m not sure if there’s ever been anything like it or ever will be again. Of course, that’s a sweeping statement, but consider all the societal change that occurred in such a relatively small amount of time. The early part was a hangover from the fifties. By the time JFK was assassinated, Sinatra and Perry Como were still wielding influence in pop music and Doris Day was the top box office star. I was born in 1964 and I really believe that was the pivotal year. The three month gap between JFK and the Beatles may have been the calm before the storm, if you will. In an instant Pillow Talk was passé and stark movies like The Pawnbroker were challenging the status quo. On TV, the realities of the Vietnam battlefield were usurping popular weekly fare such as Combat. It seemed that by the time Manson came along, coinciding with the 1967 summer of love, many kids were caught in a real confused whirlwind of impending self discovery. Charlie was there to catch them, guide them, mold them and ultimately regurgitate them back at us as a kind of murderous hybrid that, according to him, we had helped create. Remember, he always claimed that he was a reflection of what society had done to him.

    Anyway, I really got carried away with that one! Sorry to bore you with my none too enlightening, nor original, theories!

  48. Sean K. says:

    STEPHEN CRAIG: You must forgive me. I sometimes get lost in my rambling diatribes, press submit, and then find more meaningful comments have since been added! I merely wanted to say that I’m sorry you lost your cousin to violence and agree with everything you so thoughtfully expressed.

  49. Louise LaBianca says:

    STEPHEN CRAIG The short answer, for me, is by the grace of God as I believe Him to be. Not going to espouse my religious beliefs here, they don’t fit into a specific category or sect anyway! Some years are calmer than others. I have had much support over the years–friends, family members–but not perfect by any means. I turn to prayer often.

    SEAN K: Great points! So weird about Woodstock being only a week distant from the Manson murders. I didn’t even realize that at the time, wasn’t watching the news.

  50. Paul James says:

    Louise LaBianca: I was doing some reading about the members of your extended family, mostly so I wouldn’t say something stupid or insensitive; I can at least try!

    Is genealogy something you are interested in? I know from personal experience it’s not always easy to find information about family members as you look back in time. My great grandfather was Irish and I have never been able to establish exactly where he was born. He left Ireland and settled in England after the famine that occurred in Ireland in 1845-49, when the potato crop failed in successive years. Sharon’s movie, ‘Eye of the Devil’, is about an ancient estate in Bordeaux whose vineyards have produced no fruit for three years. There the similarity ends though.

    Do you know if Rosemary ever had contact with her brother William after she was adopted by the Harmons?

  51. Louise LaBianca says:

    I always felt the hippie thing ended about the same time Nixon resigned from office, disco started (I never really liked disco, more of a Beatles/Crosby Stills Nash AND Young person); end of war; John Lennon dropping out of the limelight etc.

  52. Louise LaBianca says:

    The Woking Way house is only a couple of miles from Waverly Dr, SEAN K., about a 5-minute drive, if memory serves.

  53. Louise LaBianca says:

    PAUL JAMES: My sister recalled meeting him only once when he came to paint their first house married, c. 1960. Other than that, nada.

  54. Louise LaBianca says:

    He was introduced to my sister as Rosemary’s brother Bill. So yes, it does appear that they were still very much in contact at that time.

    • Sean K. says:

      It is odd isn’t it? One night she’s remorseful because they were so young, while at the same time complaining that her hands hurt because of all the frenzied stabbing she’d done. Then after the following night she confides to a Spahn groupie “Here’s a man who won’t be sending his son off to war”. No regrets about that one! Seems like she wasn’t sure at the time exactly how she felt about it.

      It appears as though she’s finally figured it out, however, after spending 54 years reflecting upon her stint as a “destroyer of life”.

  55. Paul James says:

    Thanks Louise. I was just curious as I know they were separated at a young age.

  56. Paul James says:

    Louise LaBianca: “Love and logic do not always mesh together in neat, harmonious ways.” Your dad would be proud of you and your steadfast love for him. He set a benchmark for you and he knew that no matter how high the bar was, you would reach and exceed his expectations. Love transcends time and space. He will always be there for you, in your heart and soul.

  57. Sean K. says:

    STEPHEN CRAIG: In response to your earlier post. By all accounts, Clem Grogan or “Tufts” was basically the “village idiot” of Spahn Ranch. If you watch the 1970 documentary “Manson”, you can experience him in all his bafoon-like glory. He seemed to embody the whacked out moron…but was he really? Many speculate it was all an act in order to attain leniency. Whatever the matter, I believe he was present when Manson attacked Gary Hinman with a sword. And we know for sure that he piled into the car on the second night, ready for action. But I think it was his participation in the Shorty Shea murder that actually landed him in prison. It’s been said that during the trial phase, the presiding judge commented that Grogan operated “barely above the animal level”. It’s mystifying that he walks among us while Beausoleil and Davis still rot. And since 1985 no less!

  58. Matt says:

    The problem I have always had with Patricia being paroled is the fact that after coming back from Cielo drive, she expressed remorse and sadness at what she had done and how young they were but that did not stop her from going out the next night.

  59. Stephen Craig says:

    Sean K:

    I too have had my “issues” with the release of Grogan “diminished capacity” or not. And even if I “bought” into the fact that he was developmentally disabled, I would find it hard to believe that someone in his position would have had difficulty realizing the impact of his participation in the slaughter of Mr. Shea. Serving eight years for such a hideous offense (for me) is outrageous. The pain/agony suffered by Mr. Shea in his last moments (one would think) would demand much more time served regardless if he was developmentally disabled or led police to the remains of Mr. Shea. But, it is not called the “criminal justice system” for nothing, for, imo, the jutsice seems to side in favor of the perpetrator, and not the victim. I mean, look at what is said about LVH’s participation in the LaBianca deaths. The “argument” that Mrs. LB had already died when LVH stabbed her sixteen times in the lower back in buttocks always amazed me. Firstly none knows that for sure, and secondly, does it matter? Somehow, her supporters, grasping for ways to excuse her viscous behavior, latch onto this notion that she ‘”only” stabbed a dead body. Did LVH qualify her participation by insisting that she was only prepared to use her knife if the person had succumbed to their wounds beforehand? She stabbed Mrs. LB and whether she was alive or dead did not seem to be of any relevance. The fact that she also volunteered to go on that second night after hearing what PK had recounted re: the Tate killings also shows her frame of mind. Yet, there are those who excuse her crimes, qualifying it/them by saying she was treated unfairly and that others who have committed similar acts tended to serve less time (rather than arguing that those who had served less time should have served more). Why people “rally” around the “cause” of a murderous is beyond me. I’ll bet if they could have seen LVH in “action” on that tragic night they might see her in a different light. But then again, perhaps not. I apologize for going off topic here, but I just don’t get it…

  60. Matt says:

    It doesn’t matter if Mrs. Labianca was still living when Leslie attacked her. The law is that if you go into a residence knowing a crime will be committed, whether you commit the crime or not, you are as guilty as the person that did. So Leslie is as guilty of the deaths of both Mr. and Mrs Labianca as Tex and Pat are.

  61. Louise LaBianca says:

    For some reason that issue kept coming up in the parole hearings. I 100 percent agree with you MATT. Anyone who came inside the house should have been held equally culpable. LVH was the first to get out but she won’t be the last, given current leniency. I’ll post the comment my cousin made if I can find it again.

  62. Louise LaBianca says:

    MATT: Evidently I can’t share the interview, settings are private. They were all in Sacramento bringing the signed petitions to Gov Brown’s office, 2016–my cousin Louis Smaldino, my nephew Tony LaMontagne and Debra Tate as well. While Debra spoke to the ABC interviewer the most, Louis also spoke for a minute but very quietly… something along the lines of, “one gets out, they may all get out. Slippery slope.”

    Not sure what I think, I’ve already acknowledged I am no expert in the law or politics.

  63. Louise LaBianca says:

    I guess I think/feel that anything could happen. Nothing would be a shock to me at this point. I’m numbed. My bags are packed for Alaska, or better yet a nice warm island somewhere unknown, uncharted—lol! I would need a time machine for that!

  64. Louise LaBianca says:

    Note to above: Just kidding. Not going anywhere 🌞

  65. Matt says:

    Louise, I can see Bobby and Bruce getting out. I always thought that Bruce would have gotten out before Leslie. But I can’t imagine Pat or Tex getting out. The damage they caused to so many people in unthinkable. I think about the fear and pain they caused to good innocent people can keep me up at night. I do believe that Pat is remorseful for her actions, but she was also remorseful for her actions when she went back to Spahn after Cielo. That did not stop her from going back out the next night.

  66. Louise LaBianca says:

    Not sure who is remorseful or not remorseful, that’s their problem. My problem is learning how to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change what I can etc. Serenity prayer. That helps me sleep better at night! What I can change is more or less to write about my family, with all due respect to privacy issues etc. As my sister recently told me, my dad’s legacy has been stolen from him. Maybe that sounds overdramatic and maybe he wouldn’t even care, but hopefully people will remember my dad as not just a murder victim but an amazing, complex individual with a unique worldview.

    That said, I do tend to focus on Krenwinkel and Watson (not on a first name basis with the killers, never will be) more than the other ones involved. Still have my bags packed just in case!

  67. Louise LaBianca says:

    Also, just an opinion but I feel like the women killers are being given preferential treatment by the parole board solely because they are women and for no other reason. I predict for that reason Krenwinkel is probably just going to sail through those prison doors right behind LVH, both on brooms. Sorry but that’s what I think.

  68. Louise LaBianca says:

    SEAN K: My dad and Rose were not “so young.” It occurred to me the other night, completely out of the blue, that Manson deliberately led them to Waverly Dr because he had heard there were “old people” living there. At least, according to something Harold True said. Sad.

  69. Louise LaBianca says:

    SEAN K: Now you know why I mainly stick to the peripheral subjects, lol–I go way out there when I start talking about the “real” story. Best to keep my opinions to myself sometimes.

  70. Sean K. says:

    In response to Stephen and Matt’s recent posts, you both make valid arguments. In many ways, I find the LaBianca killings to be even more nefarious than what transpired the night before. Not to minimize any of these tragic deaths, of course. The Tate murders can be characterized as more of an impromptu melee, where the killers were inexperienced and not really prepared for the chaos that was going to ensue. “It was really helter skelter!” one of them later commented. In fact, Charlie was disappointed they had returned to the ranch so early. He had given them a directive to hit as many houses as possible that night. But his hit squad had gained some on-the-job perspective: mass murder can be exhausting!

    On the second night, things were decidedly different. Unimpressed with the previous night’s execution, Manson decided he himself was needed to direct operations. This undoubtedly excited LVH, who along with select members of the family, had been watching news coverage all day, working themselves into a frenzy of anticipation. This is why Leslie cannot be dismissed as a lesser participant. She herself has admitted “I knew people were going to die”. A clear argument for total premeditation.

    Now, with all due respect to Louise and her presence in these conversations, I do have a few disturbing things I want to point out about the killings on Waverly Drive to illustrate my point that these atrocities were particularly cruel, sadistic and methodical. Leno and Rosemary were assured they would not be harmed. This gave them a false sense of security, despite the fact that they were undoubtedly terrified by their knowledge of the events of the previous night. Unlike the Tate scene, there were no defensive wounds, due to the fact that they were bound by leather thongs, hooded with pillowcases and were thus rendered completely defenseless. And as far as the wounds that LVH inflicted on Rosemary? Who truly knows if they were postmortem? It was determined in the autopsy that one of the wounds caused paralysis in the poor woman! I don’t think I need to mention what was done to Leno, suffice to say dehumanizing.

    I do not relish recounting such horrid details and I apologize to Louise if she decided to read this, which I’m sure she did. But in countering some of the earlier posts in this thread that advocate for Leslie, I felt compelled to remind some people of the nature of her actions and the utter destruction that resulted. At one time the people of California agreed, as they determined that she should go to the gas chamber for her crimes!

  71. Sean K. says:

    Hey Louise! I just read your latest comments after posting this. I think I echo everybody here that we value your presence and hope you unpack your bags!

  72. Louise LaBianca says:

    SEAN K: No need to apologize, we’re good!

  73. Louise LaBianca says:

    SEAN K: I totally agree, it must have been chilling for them to slowly realize their fate after being led to believe something different. I have thought of it many times over the years, sorry to say.

  74. Sean K. says:

    Thanks Louise. And re your earlier comments today, I don’t recall talking about them being “so young”? But they most certainly were! From my perspective, I’d love to be 39 or 44 again! They still had so much potential and many productive years ahead of them. I remember the LA Times referring to them as an “elderly couple”. And as far as Manson choosing the house for that purpose? The cowardly fiend! Probably figured they’d be easier to control.

    I’m sorry to hear that you and your sister feel the meaning of your father’s life has been diminished or marginalized by the sensationalism of his death. He was your daddy and papa, and so such feelings must weigh heavily upon you. I’m hopeful that these discussions give you some assurance that people out there still care. I know, for my part, that I intend to read your mother’s book so that I can learn more, because I am fascinated by all aspects of this. Case in point, the other night I googled the house on Woking Way and couldn’t believe the rich history of it. Designed and built by Walt Disney complete with a screening room! That must have been special for you and your siblings. Sounds like a fairytale!

    One of your posts talks about Frankie and what a “cute kid” he was. That makes me so sad considering the struggles he endured. Having been the one to discover the crime. What a cruel fate that obviously haunted him for the rest of his life. Being the two “kids” in the family, you and he must have shared a lot of the same memories of those years growing up.

    And as far as keeping your opinions to yourself…please don’t!

  75. Louise LaBianca says:

    I know, it was always a great, magical treat to stay at the Woking Way house and especially at Christmas time. Many stories there but, alas, no photos that I know of–that’s weird, I used to be a real camera buff back then but I guess I never brought it with me.

    To clarify about the “older people” comment, Harold True in one of his interviews said he had always known the house nextdoor had older people living there. This was actually true up until 1968 as my grandmother lived there all through the years up until age 70. Then she moved out. My dad and stepmother moved in.

    They were not young by 1960s standards as I can clearly recall
    there were complaints about getting on in life as soon as anyone turned 40. Everyone back then was obsessed with the youth culture, and especially in the Hollywood/L.A. area. Remember the expression “don’t trust anyone older than 30”? I do. Of course, Rosemary was a few years younger than my dad–only 38, although she was actually looking older than her years after they had to move out of Woking Way. They were middle–aged anyway, which judging by my own life experiences can be more difficult than being older and I just turned 68!
    I’m pretty sure much of Rosemary’s stress was her worries about Frankie, who didn’t adjust well to moving out of the bigger house either. Sad.

    Anyway, Krenwinkel supposedly reported back to Charlie after the Tate murders, “they were so young.” She tells that in her parole hearings and/or in interviews I have seen over and over like it is showing her remorse. All weird tie-ins. I’m reading Tom O’Neill book Chaos today–I was, but now I see my partner is looking it over while I am writing here! It’s a real page-turner!

  76. Louise LaBianca says:

    Actually it was “Don’t trust anyone OVER 30.”

  77. Louise LaBianca says:

    Which, of course, Manson WAS over 30 so too bad for all concerned they didn’t heed that advice. It was all over the place in the 60s, it was like a mantra for the whole generation during the Vietnam protests etc.

  78. Paul James says:

    SEAN K.: ” In fact, Charlie was disappointed they had returned to the ranch so early. He had given them a directive to hit as many houses as possible that night.”

    Hit as many houses as possible, where? There was only one other house at the top of Cielo Drive and one at the bottom. At this point we enter the realms of speculation.

  79. Sean K. says:

    Well Paul, there were at least two houses up near the front gate, the Kotts and the Asins, as depicted in Helter Skelter. Winfred Chapman first ran to the Kotts at 10070 Cielo on the morning of 8/9 screaming bloody murder, then went to the next house where she was met by young Jim Asin, who then called the police. As far as how many other houses were on that section of Cielo Drive in 1969, I can’t be sure, but I’m pretty sure it was more than two.

    Anyhow, my point was that Manson wanted more bloodshed that night, not specifically on Cielo Drive. They had a car. Hell, they could have killed the people on Portello Drive when they stopped to wash off the blood. But they were tired. They were tired of killing. They’d had enough for one night. This was apparent back at the Tate residence when Katie approached the guesthouse, then reported to Tex that there was nobody there. She had had her fill.

  80. Paul James says:

    SEAN K : Yes there were two houses at the top of Cielo Drive, the nearest being some 200 metres from the gate of 10050 Cielo. It’s my understanding that there were no other houses in the vicinity except (maybe) one at the bottom of the hill. It was a very secluded and lonely place, particularly at night.


    You are quoting Helter Skelter and that’s fair enough. I don’t really subscribe to the theory that Manson wanted more bloodshed on the night of 8/9 August 1969, but that’s my personal opinion. I believe the Tate residence was the sole target as was Waverly Drive on the following night. We can agree to disagree on some points but that’s fine with me.

    I wasn’t having a go at you Sean. Your posts make very interesting and insightful reading. I do confess I was irritated by your depiction of the Cielo Drive murders as an impromptu melee but I don’t really know why. Not your fault as I understood what you meant and it wasn’t an unreasonable turn of phrase. I don’t like to think about what happened to be honest.

  81. Sean K. says:

    No problem Paul! I didn’t feel like you were having a go at me. You are obviously very knowledgeable about this case and it’s a pleasure to compare notes, theories, sentiments, etc. Thanks for the link, you have been very good about providing them and I have watched them all with great interest. And yes, it does appear as though Cielo was a fairly barren stretch back then. There are some amazing aerial photographs taken around the time of the murders, many of them on this site. The ones you posted show a perspective not often seen.

    As far as Manson’s bloodlust, I’m not sure where I read or heard that about his “directives” that night, but it must have been somewhere. I wouldn’t have mentioned it otherwise. I have done so much reading about this case over the years and have watched god only knows how many YouTube videos! I wouldn’t be able to tell you what the source was. Anyway, I thought I heard once that Manson wanted to give the public, or “pigs”, the impression that marauding killers (most likely Black Panthers) were literally going house to house and slaughtering families wholesale. His twisted thinking being that maximum fear and blind panic would pervade society. Sounds like a component of the “race war” theory.

    I knew shortly after I posted that remark about the Tate murders that it might ruffle some feathers and, believe me, it was unintentional! I think you know how I feel about the horrendous nature of all these crimes. Not one killing is any more terrible than the other. It has just always galled me the way the LaBianca’s were bound, hooded and rendered completely vulnerable to their cold blooded assailants. They didn’t have the option of running out the house in hopes of seeking assistance. They were completely defenseless when they were set upon.

  82. Matt says:

    Those houses are just dangling off a cliff in that photo. Yikes!

  83. Fred Bloggs says:

    Paul James says:
    I don’t really subscribe to the theory that Manson wanted more bloodshed on the night of 8/9 August 1969, but that’s my personal opinion. I believe the Tate residence was the sole target as was Waverly Drive on the following night

    Some personal opinions that are based on nothing at all are sometimes necessary, {after all, the perp could be lying}, but for the most part, credible opinions/speculations should be based on something tangible, some evidence. Granted, the way the evidence is put forth and used also has to be looked at, as well as who it is that’s bringing the evidence.
    A very interesting happenstance back in 1969 involves all of the women in the Family that were involved in murder. Once out of Charlie Manson’s sphere of influence, every single one of them {except Mary Brunner, who nonetheless involved Watson and Beausoleil in the murders of Hinman and Shea} said that he was the one behind the murders. Linda Kasabian told Joe Sage, Jeffrey Jacobs, her husband Bob and her Mum {and sort of told James Breckenridge, who later wrote an article about his association with Linda when she left the Family}, Leslie Van Houten told Marvin Part, her court-appointed lawyer, Pat Krenwinkel told Claude Brown, a Mobile psychiatrist, and Susan Atkins told Nancy Jordon, Virginia Graham, Ronnie Howard, Paul Caruso and Richard Caballero. The thing about all of those conversations is that they were all private and were not expected to go any further. When Atkins was being interviewed in December ’69 by Caruso and Caballero, her lawyers, this exchange came up:

    PAUL CARUSO: So you’re going back to the car now. Were they all waiting for you?

    SUSAN ATKINS: We, I walked to the front gate and the rest of them were standing on the other side, just about the little platform that we stepped down, that you go down into the front lawn, and walked down around the car, Katie, Tex, Katie and Tex were standing near the car.

    PAUL CARUSO: Where’s Linda?

    SUSAN ATKINS: Linda had disappeared on us and we didn’t know where she was and we called for her. But we didn’t want to go around, didn’t want to even go anywhere near that area. We were instructed to go to the next door neighbor’s house and to do the same thing.

    PAUL CARUSO: Who instructed you to do that?

    SUSAN ATKINS: Charlie.


    SUSAN ATKINS: No, Charlie.

    So we can see that there existed a plan to hit other houses along the way. Watson later said they were supposed to go to even more houses.
    However, his words have sufficient cause for doubt because he said that they were told to go to other houses if they didn’t get enough money at 10050 Cielo. Well, $72 isn’t much, but aside from that, there’s no way anyone could have known how much to get for the bail of the arrested Brunner and Good {which is what Watson says in his first book} because it wasn’t known that they’d been arrested {they could have been in hospital}, or if any bail would be needed.
    But because Atkins said these words in private to her lawyers, I tend to believe her, even though she’s serially unreliable. That came more, later.
    As for the following night, I think Waverly only became a target once 5 of their attempts had not panned out and they’d been driving around for ages and it wasn’t the LaBianca house that was the target initially. And it is clear from the words of both Atkins and Van Houten back in ’69 that on that 2nd night, there were meant to be 2 death squads. In fact, there were 2 death squads. One succeeded and one had their command thwarted.

    • Sean K. says:

      FRED BLOGGS – Thank you for the clarification. And also for your usual expert expository. I enjoy the manner in which you cite a comment and then present a logical argument or rebuttal. You’ve studied this case extensively and it is more than apparent.

      As I stated earlier, I knew that I had previously heard about Manson’s more ambitions plans for death tolls. The second night is certainly a testament to his commitment. As you mentioned, the ‘59 Ford, with its compliment of seven seasoned and would-be killers, made quite the rounds that night. While Sadie snoozed in the back seat (or floor, as it was), Manson made several stops to size up potential crime scenes. At one residence he saw family portraits of children while creepily peering in the windows. While Manson did not sanction the offing of kids (because they had not yet developed egos), he did apparently tell some of his followers that it would inevitably be necessary. It was by all accounts a long night and, as we know, much would transpire before and after the arrival at Waverly Drive.

      The initial scoping out of the former Harold True home raises an interesting question. Was Manson only interested in it because of his prior knowledge of the environs, like the Tate residence, or was he actually targeting his old pal? Was he aware that True had since moved out?

      We’re also aware of the church visit and perhaps a few other random houses. There was also the curious walk on the beach, after dropping off the first squad and then planting Mrs. LaBianca’s wallet in the service station restroom. Apparently Manson walked hand in hand with Kasabian along the rolling surf, giving her a pep talk on the merits of vicious murder. She and Clem (not sure if Atkins accompanied) were then dispatched to end the life of some unfortunate dude who had once made the mistake of giving Linda a ride!

      But I also remember hearing about one other disturbing incident that occurred that night. Apparently, as they were cruising down Sunset or Santa Monica Boulevard, Manson had a wild impulse to get out of the car and actually kill another motorist while waiting at a traffic light! I believe he was ready to cut some guy’s throat, but the light changed and some random potential victim will never know how lucky they were!

      • mediumpatty1968 says:

        SEAN K- The whole prelude to the arrival at Waverly Drive makes little sense. Charlie had them drive in various directions, then walked up to those locations alone. He SAID there were photos of children and various other reasons for not doing anything there. Kasabian testified (or said in an interview?) that his mood eventually changed and then he drove purposefully and directly to the house on Waverly. To me it appears he was stalling for time and that Waverly was the target all along.

  84. Kim says:

    Is there one place where interviews transcripts etc can be found, thanks

  85. Fred Bloggs says:

    Yes, look all over the various headings on this site. Scroll to the very bottom of the page. Loads of good stuff there, enough to keep you going for, well, years.

  86. Paul James says:

    An interesting video taken at 10050 Cielo and provided by Kate Van Buren, the former girlfriend of James Woolley. This may be one of the last videos ever recorded at the property before it was torn down.

    In Kate’s own words …

    “In the early 1990’s James stayed at 10050 Cielo Drive in Benedict Canyon. He was the keyboard player in Nine Inch Nails and they were writing and recording their album, the Downward Spiral inside the home.

    James stayed in the maid’s quarters, which had a possible paranormal quirk. Every night, at 3:33 am, the closet door in the small bedroom would pop open. He put his suitcase and furniture in front of the door to prevent it from opening, but no matter what he did, at 3:33 am, the door opened. I didn’t really believe him until I experienced the phenomenon for myself. ”


  87. Paul James says:

    I think I already posted the above video on another thread, so have this one instead. It;s about David Oman who lives on Cielo Drive. There are a couple of interesting scenes showing how Cielo Drive has changed.


  88. Pam says:

    “was the sole target as was Waverly Drive on the following night.” This completely contradicts the eyewitness testimony of LK. She testified that they drove to the apartment of the actor and CM instructed them to kill him. Her statements were supported by Clem and SA. He clearly wanted more bloodshed that night. I think it’s important to provide a clear picture of these monsters. PK should never be released.

  89. Pam says:

    It was Paul James who said this. Sorry about that Fred. Just so used to you defending them. Hope all is well.

Leave a Reply

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