• Newsom Reverses Krenwinkel’s Parole Grant

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

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Newsom Reverses Krenwinkel’s Parole Grant

  1. Debbie says:

    Not the least bit surprised,but I’m so happy it was reversed. It’s appalling that these killers,can apply for parole anyway!

  2. Debbie says:

    Not the least bit surprised,but I’m so happy it was reversed. It’s appalling that these killers,can apply for parole anyway! She and the rest of the killers can rot in prison…

  3. happydaysarehereagain says:

    IMO, seven counts of first-degree murder should warrant at least ten served years per victim–no time off for good behavior etc. Unforgiving as I am when it comes to murder, that’s about all the leniency I can muster.
    At any rate, no CA Governor will ever allow the world known Manson murderers out on parole and expect to be re-elected…and that’s just fine with me. The state constitution grants the Governor the power, political or not, he or she will exercise it as they see fit.

  4. Michael says:

    I am glad for the Governor’s decision. I don’t see PK as a threat to society if she is released, although I can see how her release itself could be a threat by saying, in essence, “If you commit 7 unspeakable murders you still might be freed someday.” But more than that, I just can’t see the rightness in releasing someone who committed crimes like these, no matter how remorseful they may be. And yes, I realize other people who’ve committed more murders than she have been paroled, but that’s not a compelling argument. I think it only shows an error on the part of the people who released them, not on the part of those like the Gov. who object to releasing PK.

    • happydaysarehereagain says:

      Excellent points of view Michael. Completely agree with all of your post especially the false equivalence argument.

  5. Wolf's Stare says:

    The reason they get to try for parole is because it’s the law, and the only one Newsom is protecting by denying Katie her freedom is his own political career.

    • happydaysarehereagain says:

      It’s the law for PK but not for Newsom? Of course it is.

      If we’re to weigh it thus: PK guilty of seven savage murders. GN guilty of playing politics. I’ll take GN’s politics over first degree murderers every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

      • Wolf's Stare says:

        Please do you really think Newsom is doing this to protect the people of California, this is for his political aspirations, he’s running for president, God help us, and laws what other laws do you want to ignore because the don’t align with what you believe. I have a Mustang and I hate red lights but I stop for them because it’s the law, so is parole for certain prisoners.

        • happydaysarehereagain says:

          Perhaps you misunderstood. I didn’t say GN was reversing PK’s parole for anything other than political reasons and since he’s citing laws of CA and following his state constitution provided mandate in his reversal, I’m perfectly fine with it. I’m not the one with bad juju and neither is the legally pampered PK. Choices matter. She fofa, as all the Mansonites have.

          By the way, I dislike Fords- I’m more of a Chevy person.

          • Mike says:

            It’s simple expedience. Neither Newsom nor anyone else wants to be known as the governor who let one of Manson’s killers out.

            Charlie and Sadie died in prison. So will the others. It’s just facts.

      • Billy Esquire says:

        HAPPYDAYSAREHEREAGAIN said: “If we’re to weigh it thus: PK guilty of seven savage murders. GN guilty of playing politics. I’ll take GN’s politics over first degree murderers every day of the week and twice on Sunday.”

        Hmm…..you make the governor’s “political” moves sound completely harmless, even though he is technically responsible for many more deaths than Krenwinkel (as a result of him allowing drugs and gang members to pour into his state and the USA). How many people have those two things alone killed in our country because he chooses not to follow the law? Don’t forget, he opens the door to crime for California citizens and is proud to be a sanctuary state for illegals.

        As far as what the governor did with Krenwinkel, we all knew he would do exactly that. If he won’t let Leslie free, we knew he wouldn’t let Krenwinkel, nor should he. I do believe Krenwinkel is sincerely remorseful for her crimes, but even with that and more than half a century in prison, that’s still not reason enough for her to be paroled. Next to Watson, she was by far the next most responsible for what happened those two nights.

        • happydaysarehereagain says:

          Why would anyone think GN is not following the law when it’s the law he cites in his reversals? Like it or not, the CA Governor is the higher authority of the parole board recommendations when granted parole to murderers. Frankly, the false equivalence of border problems and Manson murderers is a political argument, but where’s the harm in that as long as it supports your point of view. Hmm indeed.

          I find it interesting as well that some feel LVH is less culpable than PK or TW. IMO she is one sick twist as she knew what happened the night before and wanted to go to prove her loyalty the next night. Well, she certainly earned her stripes.
          Remorse is measurable and I dare say, it’s for themselves instead of the victims. Again, just my opinion.

  6. Pam says:

    PK stands guilty of butchering 7 people who did nothing to her. She denied them their God given right to live, thrive and sentence their families to a lifetime of pain. The fact that she has the audacity to believe that she deserves to get out tell you exactly who she’s, a remorless and clueless sociopath. What is truly sad is the people who advocate for her release.

  7. Pam says:

    PK stands guilty of butchering 7 people who did nothing to her. She denied them their God given right to live, thrive and sentence their families to a lifetime of pain. The fact that she has the audacity to believe that she deserves to get out tell you exactly who she’s, a remorless and clueless sociopath. What is truly sad is the people who advocate for her release.

  8. Michael Bussey says:

    The intro is so full of factual errors ( Sebring was not shot in the head; Frykowski’s bullet wounds were not in and of themselves fatal, etc.) That I began skimming until I reached Gov. Newsome’s statement, which I barely glanced at, because, after all, it’s Gavin Newsome who excels in delusion, dishonesty, and malfeasance.
    That said, Patricia should not be paroled simply because the current National Political Climate resembles Charlie’s prophesies.
    She could relapse.
    Worse, she could be swept up in a movement such as the BLM movement and/or the KKK, and raised up as a patron saint of racial hatred.
    That’s the real risk.
    I personally believe Ms. Krenwinkle has shown remorse for her actions. She blames the times, the situation, and other influences for the crimes she did.
    To me, that’s understandable.
    It’s a soul search of ” How did I get to the point that I gave myself permission to commit such atrocities and believe it was right for me to do it?”
    I think Ms. Krenwinkle as a person. is suitable for parole.
    I don’t think America, as a nation, is ready for the release of a racist domestic terrorist.

  9. CybeleMoon says:

    Hmm, Pam, Michael, Happydays et al, I too am glad she is not paroled. PK has played the pity card at all her hearings like LVH once saying that though she acknowledged the pain of families that were destroyed by the Manson murders she still has a family that waits for her!
    I thought it was interesting some mentioned GN allowing gangs and drugs into the state etc implying that all who seek asylum in California are criminals and murderers as opposed to people genuinely seeking a better life for themselves and families.. Canada and the USA were made up of imigrants. Vancouver, Canada has problems with Asian gangs but the vast majority of Asians are hard working families and law abiding citizens. Of course you could accuse Italians of being Mafia and forget Enrico Fermi and Joe Dimaggio etc. We are made up of many cultures. The Manson clan were purely homegrown and Manson was a racist.

  10. Pam says:

    The vilifying of GN is ridiculous, he’s advocating for the rights of victims. He’s also applying the laws of California in a fair and unbiased manner. I’m from the UK. where repeat offenders like PK get out too soon and innocent people pay for it. She has her parole, her death sentence was changed to a life sentence. It’s time we give her victims justice. She should stay right where she’s for the rest of her life.

  11. Michael says:

    Right now my wife is watching “Eye of the Devil” on Turner Classic Movies, one of Sharon Tate’s earliest films. I’m listening to Sharon’s voice as I type and for the hundredth time feel the sadness of this ridiculous, evil waste. How anyone could have listened to this beautiful woman’s pleas, along with those of the other victims, then moved ahead with their brutality is so impossible to grasp that any sympathy I could have for Krenwinkel just fizzles. Score one for GN.

    • happydaysarehereagain says:

      I was flipping through channels and caught the film as well. Something compels me to pause when ST movies are aired and I think it’s as you described in your post. The loss of humanity, the horror of the crimes…the senseless butchery. What could have been had it not been for the abject evil of the Manson murderers. Perhaps there will be a day when the victims’ lives are no longer secondary to the murderers attempts at freedom.

  12. CybeleMoon says:

    Pam, Yes!!! I am originally from Ireland btw living on the west coast of Canada. I think Myra Hindley died in prison along with Ian Brady though she had hoped for parole. (The Moors Murders)
    Michael and Happydays, yes! It wil always be tragic and horrifying. Her interviews from the past are poignant.

  13. Pam says:

    Hi Cybele,
    My dad traveled all over the UK and Ireland was one of my favorite places to visit. ST was the last to die and that butcher PK showed her no mercy. How do you look at this innocent woman, almost 9 months pregnant and feel nothing?

  14. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Cybele & Pam, color me green with envy as I’ve Ireland on my bucket list. Truth be told, all of Europe, you lucky ducklings!

    The Moors Murders I’ve read about but not in depth. Butchers of innocent children; that alone sealed their incarceration. Why it does not for the Manson murderers is beyond me. Nine months pregnant…ST’s little boy would be middle aged had he lived. All that life lost. All the goodness that may have come from the victims was annihilated when those butchers honed their murderous skills against the innocents. We as a society should never let them forget the path they have chosen.

  15. Anthony Lotches says:

    Well,Newsome has done something good for the people!

  16. Lee says:

    None will ever get out, which is what they don’t seem to grasp. You kill, you forfeit your freedom and no, Leslie Van Houten shouldn’t either! I can’t stand her fans!

  17. Pam says:

    Bravo Lee!

  18. Jersey says:

    Let’s face it – they ALL would have been dead and gone for many years with that Death Penalty that they were sentenced to more than 50 years ago.
    The state of California should have done it quickly, saving them many millions over the years, and the trauma of dragging the victims’ families through all this every single time there is a parole hearing for one of them.

  19. Paul says:

    According to cielodrive.com Leslie’s next parole hearing isn’t until mid 2024? why has there a three year period between the hearings when its supposed to be annual. Pat Krenwinkel’s next hearing is closer than hers and her last hearing took place after Leslie’s.

  20. Fred Bloggs says:

    I’m not in the slightest bit surprised that she got a reversal. That is the way of things with the Manson parole grants. Bruce Davis got 7 yesses before a no. Leslie has had 5 yesses, and she’s still in. So the chances of Pat getting the thumbs up from the guv’nor were as good as me flying to the moon tomorrow.
    I was actually surprised that she got a recommendation from the board in the first place.

  21. Sean K. says:

    As MB implied earlier, Newsom should have studied the case file more carefully. Sebring was not shot in the head, although Watson did kick him in the face as he lay on the floor dying. Most of, and certainly the most lethal, wounds suffered by Abigail Folger were inflicted by Watson, who was wielding a bayonet sharpened on both sides. Also, Manson instructed the girls to leave something “witchy” at the Tate residence. His directive for the LaBianca killings was “don’t let them know you are going to kill them”. Nitpicking, I know, but if you are going to make an official legal statement, get your facts straight!
    Now that Van Houten has been released, which we all knew was going to happen eventually, we should be doubly concerned about the prospect of Krenwinkel walking as well. I’m of the feeling that all of the perpetrators, including Watson, are more than likely no longer a threat to society. But the fact remains, eight lives, including Sharon’s unborn son, were snuffed out in that rampage of so long ago. We can all only imagine the lost potential of these lives. The killers need to pay the price for the decisions they made. All of them have attempted over the years to explain away their culpability in various directions. Charlie’s influence, drugs, disaffected youth, etc. The bottom line is, if you make the personal judgment that it is okay to take a human life and then set about to give yourself permission to physically participate in the destruction of a human being, then you have crossed a human and societal barrier. When you violate someone’s rights to that degree, then you automatically forfeit your own. It takes a certain type of person to inflict fatal wounds upon a helpless person begging for their life and screaming out in agony. “It was really Helter Skelter” one of them later recalled, as they complained about their hands hurting after stabbing so much!
    One can make the argument about how long of an incarceration is really necessary. Is 50 plus years enough? It is certainly true that killers who have committed comparable or even worse atrocities have served shorter sentences, which is indeed a failure of our inconsistent justice system. The unfortunate reality for these particular killers is that they participated in such an infamous and historically well-publicized crime. Van Houten is now a moot point. Watson, Manson’s chief assassin and ringleader on the two nights of savage murder (he inflicted most of the wounds and ascertained that nobody was left breathing) should certainly never see freedom. As for Krenwinkel, she could be characterized as the female equivalent of Watson. All of the brutal intent but lacking the raw muscle. Even given the remorse she has shown over the years, shouldn’t she stay where she is?
    And FYI Michael, I totally appreciate your heartfelt feelings about Sharon’s “sweet “ voice and how horrible it must have been to hear her pleading with the killers, but she was in fact dubbed for “Eye Of The Devil” (please don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not trying to be an ass!).

Leave a Reply

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