Patricia Krenwinkel Granted Parole

Thursday, May 26th, 2022

May 26 – Patricia Krenwinkel, 74, was found suitable for parole, at a hearing held today by the California Board of Parole Hearings.

Krenwinkel is serving a life sentence for her role in the seven Tate-LaBianca murders. She was sentenced to death on March 29, 1971, but saw that sentence commuted to life when the death penalty was briefly outlawed in 1972. She has been denied parole 14 times since becoming eligible in 1977.

Today’s decision will undergo a review by the Board of Parole Hearings. Then it will be reviewed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who will either confirm, reverse, modify or take no action on the grant. The decision will be finalized no later than October 23, 2022.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to Patricia Krenwinkel Granted Parole

  1. Janet Palirano says:

    NoParoleForMansonFamily.com

  2. louis365 says:

    I had thought she would never be recommended.

  3. Mike says:

    There’s no way Newsom will sign off on a seven-time convicted murderer.

  4. Akili says:

    Me too

  5. Michael says:

    Reverse Leslie but allow Patricia? Not holding my breath.

  6. C.J. Kelly says:

    She is directly responsible for the deaths of 2 of the victims (Folger and R. LaBianca) & an accessory to five more. Can’t release her. If Van Houten was denied by Newsom, so will PK.

  7. Fred Bloggs says:

    This represents something of a dramatic sea change, even though Gav the Guv will probably knock it back and begin a new round of recommendations followed by kick backs.

  8. Lee says:

    This is very weird! I seriously doubt it’ll get passed the governor, but stranger things have been happening in that state. No sense makes sense, indeed!

  9. Michael says:

    Even though I expect Newsome to block this, it’s a milestone in that this is the first time the board has recommended parole for any of the Tate killers. Leslie, Bobby, and Bruce had parole recommended and Clem was released, but none of them participated in the most notorious Manson-related crime. Even on her deathbed, Susan couldn’t get a reprieve. So this is big.

  10. Debbie says:

    No No No. I’m sure the governor,will deny it,but that she was even recommended is disgusting!

  11. Tony C. says:

    Agreed

  12. Pam says:

    It’s beyond human comprehension how this vile murderer could ever get parole. This is a sad day for justice. PK was worse than Atkins. Manson said she was the one most like him. She was found guilty of murdering 7 people. Thank God this isn’t the last word.

  13. Pam says:

    Fred,
    I know you must be happy with this decision. This injustice can’t stand. She is worse than LVH. She was convicted of helping to butcher a pregnant woman.

  14. Fred Bloggs says:

    Pam says:
    Fred, I know you must be happy with this decision

    Well Pam, dearest, it just goes to show how little you do know.
    I will say this though; I am even more surprised than when Bobby Beausoleil was granted parole a few years back. I personally would not have paroled either of them and I believe in forgiveness and second chances. I also believe Pat has undergone some real deep seated changes.
    If she carried on in light of those changes and is still alive, I’d parole her when she hits 79 or 80.

  15. Wolf's Stare says:

    Awesome, now let her and Van Houten out, it’s past time.

  16. Fred Bloggs says:

    Pam says:
    It’s beyond human comprehension how this vile murderer could ever get parole

    Actually, it’s not at all. She’s been inside jail since 1969. She’s been serving a sentence that carries at least the possibility of parole. Parole is a recognized and bona fide part of the California, nay, American, justice system. It’s very easy to understand, if not agree with.

    This is a sad day for justice

    I don’t think it’s that either. You make it seem like she was only in prison for 5 months with time served. There are some that may well argue that her fate was actually a worse one than if she had had her original sentence carried out. After all, You want her to suffer intolerably, don’t you ? Haven’t you just felt great over all these years when she has had her crimes and soul and patheticness paraded, faced all the hate and opposition, made awful mistakes in hearings that have netted her a 5 year kickback, then after girding her loins to face the whole shebang again 5 years later, get yet another kickback and 5 more years to think about her crimes until there is nothing left to think about ? I thought you wanted her to suffer.

    PK was worse than Atkins

    In what sense ? I can think of a sense in which arguably, she was worse, but in what sense do you mean it ? Because in the bigger picture, you can’t really compare the two.

    Manson said she was the one most like him

    Stephen Kay said this in some parole hearings, but do we have Manson actually saying this ? Is it from any interview anywhere ? And if so, where can we read this ? You see, if he did say such a thing, I’d like to know when it was said, pre or post murders. I’d also like to know the context in which it was said. It’s easy to repeat it and expect there to be horror and consternation because it is supposed to have come from naughty Charles Manson, but what does it even mean ? Like him how ? I could easily argue that you are a bit like Charles Manson or even a lot like him in your unwillingness to grasp a point that is made to you. 😹
    So what do you understand him to mean ? Did he mean that she could see certain things that he could see in ways that the others couldn’t quite ? That she was child-like ? That she had been given a raw deal in life and no one bothered to try and understand her ? If you’re going to use that statement as a pejorative against Pat, the least you could do is actually give us your understanding of what it actually means and why you’re using it as a pejorative.
    I’m actually looking forward to gleaning your understanding of what this means.
    Over to you, Pammy !

  17. Cybele Moon says:

    did anyone see Olivia Kraus’ documentary about Pat Krenwinkel? Life After Manson. Although it was a compelling story Pat still came off as poor me, I’m a victim too. However, what else can she do. There will probably never be a reasonable explanation as to why. “I just wanted to be loved” ( from the film) and I didn’t feel loved etc are good reasons to do unthinkable things? I think we can all say those things at some point in our lives. Joan Didion wrote that those murders were the end of the era of peace and love. However, in today’s world where disturbed and angry young people can go into a school with firearms and kill random children and teachers makes me think things have even got worse.

    I do think the law is a bit messed up though. They should have all been given life without parole in my thinking.

  18. Pam says:

    Great point Cybelle. PK has a long history of deflecting, minimization and portraying herself has a victim. Primetime 2017-“I learned choice at the most horrific costs.” Life in prison.She also claimed to be a victim of “intimate partner” violence with Manson. Abuse excuse. Anthony DiMaria-“A sociopath positioning herself in the role of victim. In this recent hearing she repeatedly used the word allowed as in I allowed this to happen.” PK was physically active in the murder of 2 people. So where is the change, growth and owning her active role in these crimes? God bless the true victims.

  19. Pam says:

    *Cybele

  20. Pam says:

    Cybele,
    I saw the documentary, it was all poor me. It reminded me of when she tried to dehumanize her victim. PK on Abigail F, “She could’ve been more than a drug addict.” She’s not to blame, it’s her victim’s fault for using drug.

  21. Cybele Moon says:

    Pam I get that and read about it in one of her interviews.
    For someone who helped murder 8 people PK was very judgmental as though those who died had put themselves at risk for grisly murder. Nikki Meredith is a journalist who wrote an interesting perspective about her interviews over the years with Atkins, Van Houten and Krenwinkel in a book called “The Manson Women and Me: Monsters, Morality, and Murder” around the same time Olivia Kraus did the documentary. PK asked Meredith to petition for her freedom at her 2017 parole Hearing and when Meredith refused due to keeping her book and position as objective, Krenwinkel refused to have anything to do with her afterwards.

  22. Pam says:

    Right Cybele,
    At one of her later parole hearings, she said this: “No matter what I did I could never stop him.” Deflecting! Manson wasn’t present at the time she was stabbing AF or RL. I think she exaggerated the control he exercised over her. Cybele, We’re you surprised they granted parole to someone who was at the Tate murders? I was. Frightening.

  23. Pam says:

    Hi Fred,
    I believe Stephen Kay’s statement on what CM said about PK. What did he mean by it? I believe he meant she was more like him than any of his followers. His mirror image. CM was excellent at findings sociopaths and his words labeled her as one of the most dangerous he discovered.
    Fred, when you have murdered 7 people you can never serve enough time. When does the pain of her victims end? Please read Anthony DiMaria’s statements on what this did to his family before supporting her release in a few years.

  24. Cybele Moon says:

    Yes Pam, I was very surprised and yes PK seemed to have more violence in her than the other two. In her book, Nikki Meredith found Pat to be somewhat disturbing even though she herself was not against eventual parole for them.
    I wonder how many were on the parole board this time.

  25. Michael says:

    Just talking the law here – does Pat need to feel appropriate remorse for her crime in order to be released, or does she simply need to be deemed “not a danger to society?” I see a difference. Her interviews have always left me feeling she was detached from the severity of what she had done, but does that alone necessitate her staying in prison?

    Honest question and I ask it as someone who does not believe any of them should be released but who also wonders what the law says about the difference between “not fully aware” and “not a danger.”

  26. Billy Esquire says:

    We can talk about how right or wrong PK’s parole is, but in the end, it really doesn’t matter. Everyone knows Newsom is going to nix it and she will never be released. Even the parole board members know the chances of PK ever being released (or any of the rest of them) are 0%.

    Since he’s intellectually lazy and doesn’t take his job duties seriously, Newsom will simply cite the same reasons PK can’t be paroled as he did for Leslie. His reasons? She is still too dangerous to society, hasn’t fully accepted what she did, needs to take more classes on self-introspection, blah, blah, blah. You know…..all the usual reasons that are simply HIS opinion, since HIS opinion is the only one that matters.

    Lol….imagine being a member of the parole board and the Governor essentially cites how incompetent you are at your job EVERY time you try to take your job seriously and follow the rules. If you dare to INCORRECTLY find prisoners from the Manson gang suitable for parole after 50+ years, he’ll simply use his Governor’s Trump Card and say, “No!” What a waste of time….and money. 🙄

    The parole hearings themselves are especially a colossal waste of time. Think of all the trouble they put people to. I’m surprised family members of the murdered still show up to them, when they know (even if the board recommends parole for one of them) the Governor will just use his Trump Card. Nothing to worry about! 😉

  27. Cybele Moon says:

    Billy, I would dare say I never understood their original sentences and how justice was served by “life with the chance of parole after 7 years!” More recently I hear of murderers being given 100 years or life without parole in other states. The laws or guidelines keep changing. I think the big one here was the youthful offender and elderly parole consideration. It’s also part of the law that a Governor of California can overturn a parole.

  28. Billy Esquire says:

    Cybele, when you say, “It’s also part of the law that a Governor of California can overturn a parole,” of course that’s true.

    But when that little arrangement was made, I feel sure it wasn’t made to allow the Governor(s) to continually and routinely skirt legitimate parole criteria, based on nothing but their personal political motivations. It wasn’t done to allow the Governor(s) to completely ignore the advice and recommendations of the Parole Board of the State of California. If a Governor DOES do such a thing (especially over and over and over again), it should open the door for them to personally be considered for dereliction of duty, IMO.

    I have no way of knowing exactly why governors across the country are given the absolute last say. Maybe someone who knows can tell us. But if I had to guess, that arrangement was most likely INTENDED to be used SELDOM…..more in cases of emergency, etc. For instance, there might be a situation when only a governor might know of important, last minute information involving the case and parole, so in that situation, they might be justified in going AGAINST the judgment of the Parole Board.

    But for Governor(s) to ROUTINELY go against the advice and recommendations of their State’s own Parole Board…..such a thing doesn’t even make sense. Why even HAVE a Parole Board if their determinations are always wrong? Any Governor that would routinely do such a thing, year after year, is obviously not following parole criteria, and that should be against the law.

  29. Fred Bloggs says:

    Pam says:
    Hi Fred

    Hi Pam !

    what CM said about PK. What did he mean by it? I believe he meant she was more like him than any of his followers. His mirror image

    This is what I question.
    She wasn’t his mirror image at all. In most ways, she was his polar opposite. She wasn’t streetwise, she wasn’t violent, she wasn’t brash, she wasn’t manipulative, she wasn’t devious, she wasn’t a cheat, she didn’t string people along, she didn’t make people do things they wouldn’t ordinarily do, she wasn’t a criminal {I’m talking pre~murders of course !}, she wasn’t confident, she wasn’t original, she wasn’t a rebel…
    I have to also say that Stephen Kay isn’t exactly someone that I put a great deal of stock by. I thought even less of him when he allowed Tom O’Neill to sway him so easily with some of the things in his book. And Kay, in some of those early parole hearings, made inaccurate statements that sometimes made me wonder. So I’d like to know what he meant and the context he heard what he claims to have heard because he was rather adept at making statements that bore little relation to any recognizable context.

    CM was excellent at findings sociopaths and his words labeled her as one of the most dangerous he discovered

    In a sense, there’s some truth to that, in the sense that, as I’ve sometimes described Pat, she was dangerously in love with Charles Manson. He was possibly the first person she’d met that she felt genuinely cared about her. Many women in that situation become dangerous.
    But Manson never acknowledged any of his people as being dangerous.

    Fred, when you have murdered 7 people you can never serve enough time

    If it was 7 people directly murdered at her hand, I’d have a lot of sympatico with that view. As we’ve discussed before, I see life as a continuum and while I definitely think there are some people who should never leave prison, that doesn’t apply to everyone. I do take into account the length of time she’s been incarcerated and what she did. Like I said earlier, I wouldn’t have granted her parole, not at this time.

    When does the pain of her victims end?

    I don’t know. I don’t know if it ever does. But without sounding trite, that applies in so many different scenarios. And a victim of someone that has been murdered or violated in some way, at least has some power to change how they approach life in the aftermath. They have some choice. Life doesn’t have to be a continual horror story. It feels like one is not allowed to make that observation, but I am going to make it.

    Please read Anthony DiMaria’s statements on what this did to his family before supporting her release in a few years

    I have read what he said. And the other family members. And it’s kind of hard to comment on them because if I do, I am going to be critical of their inaccuracies and wild statements and I’d rather not go into that here. If I’m going to be fair, I have to gauge the good as well as what is not good and there’s quite a bit there that is not good.
    As for supporting Pat Krenwinkel’s release in a few years, bear two things in mind. Firstly, she’d be 80. Secondly, there are a number of “ifs”.
    I’m not one of those people that thinks “oh, she’s served her time, just let her out.” But neither am I going to ignore strides she may have made. I don’t happen to think that 50+ years in prison is some small thing, or that a release would mean “she’s gotten away with it”. I don’t think parole is something that any murderer “deserves” by right, but it is something that the state grants.
    I think most people can see that if the life without parole sentence had existed in 1972, when the death penalty was rescinded, she would have got that. As it happens, it wasn’t around at the time. That it wasn’t around therefore makes this case a particularly difficult one to call, when it comes to parole. And I have to say, I’m not persuaded by arguments I hear for release and I’m not persuaded by arguments I hear for continued incarceration once parole has been recommended.

  30. Mary says:

    Fred, you speak about Pat as if you know her personally, “…She wasn’t streetwise, she wasn’t violent, she wasn’t brash, she wasn’t manipulative, she wasn’t devious, she wasn’t a cheat, she didn’t string people along, she didn’t make people do things they wouldn’t ordinarily do, she wasn’t a criminal {I’m talking pre~murders of course !}, she wasn’t confident, she wasn’t original, she wasn’t a rebel…” So, did you know her or any of her family? And if not, how can you speak to what she was like before her involvement with Manson and the others? From reading all of the transcripts, she does not come across as one who fully comprehends the vicious nature of the crimes she committed. And whether or not she placed hands on all 8 victims (and yes, I do count unborn baby Tate), she was still complicit in the crime. I think it is unfortunate, no it is cruel, for the family members of the victims to have to deal with this year after year. And you may not understand why they bother to come, but I can assure you that if something like this happened to a member of my family, God willing, I would be there every time. It is obvious from the transcripts that the Parole Board members need to hear from the families of the victims to be reminded who the true victims are in this narrative. Pat may be many things, but she is not a victim. The fact that she even puts herself in the same category is extremely disturbing. I do not see anything anywhere in the transcripts that would lead me to believe that she is truly remorseful for her crimes…for the pain and suffering of the victims and their families, for the cloud of fear and horror that she perpetrated on society…not only in 1969, but every time these crimes are mentioned or relived through these hearings. I do believe in forgiveness…however, different sins bear different consequences and my personal opinion is that the crimes/sins of the Manson “family” have terrible and long-lasting consequences. Not a single one should be free from those consequences.

  31. Stephen Craig says:

    Mary:

    Well said. I do think that whatever PK may have been in the past/could have been if she hadn’t aligned herself with Manson is (at best best) a moot point; a discussion that exists purely in the realm of the hypothetical. The sad fact is that PK is a murderess and willingly participated in two nights of human slaughter, and in many people’s opinions no amount of therapy/support group participation that she maybe have availed herself to while incarcerated will/can every make up for the unimaginable grief/horror/pain her crimes have caused (an opinion I whole-heartedly share). I do understand the positions of those who feel that she should be paroled after so much time, etc…, who compare her crimes to similar cases where the perpetrators have been paroled after serving less time, but will respectively have to disagree with their positions. The murder of a loved one is a “unique” experience, one that I would wish only on my worse enemy. Having attended parole hearings, I can only say that although I willingly went and would do so again, they are a brutal process, and I can only applaud the efforts by the victims family to do all they can to keep those who killed their loved one’s incarcerated. Nothing can undo what has been done, and the laws have see-sawed/changed over the years, but like you, I feel that PK’s crimes are “unforgiveable’ and the only true justice in this case is for her to remain incarcerated for the rest of her life. The victims, and all they went through in their final, horrific moments, (because of her actions) deserve no less.

  32. Cybele Moon says:

    Well said Mary. Every interview I’ve seen with PK she always paints herself a victim and at one time ( or more?) tarnished the characters of the real victims as drug users etc as though they almost deserved what they got as a sort of karma. Her thinking is still a bit twisted.

    I can’t say for sure whether she is physically dangerous today or whether she doesn’t fit the youthful offender and elderly parole consideration. I suppose it’s just that I have felt a revulsion for the crimes and perpetrators. Thisis a forum and that’s my opinion.

  33. Cybele Moon says:

    PS: besides the Manson murderers has Governor Newsom nixed any other parole board recommendations?

  34. Michael says:

    Cybele, according to an LA Times article on the subject of Newsome and parole blocking, he has blocked 46 paroles for murderers. Here is the link: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-pardon-sex-offender-20190326-story.html

  35. Wolf's Stare says:

    Not trying to be flippant here but some of the newer books about Manson and the girls have mentioned brain washing, mind control, any opinion on this. Sorry if this subject has already been discussed but I’m kinda new.

  36. Michael says:

    Wolf, I have heard about that but what I have read so far from these theorist is not convincing. All four of the participants in the Tate la Bianca killings either disobeyed direct orders that they were given by Madsen or they showed extreme reluctance when following them. Charles Watson was ordered to go to more than one house the night of the Tate killings but he refused because he was too exhausted. Susan Atkins was ordered to do whatever Charles Watson told her to do, by no less than Charles Manson himself. But Susan directly disobeyed Tex twice, first when she refused to Stab Frykowski, second when she refused to stab Sharon Tate. Patricia Krenwinkel defied a direct order from text me when he told her to go to the guest house and kill whoever was in there, but she simply went to the door and decided not to do it. Lesley‘s reluctantly obeyed text when he told her to stay up this is lobby OK, but Tex said he had to basically drag her over there to do it.

    To my thinking these were not the actions of brainwashed people who were simply moving at command. I see them as the actions of people who showed ambivalence about what they were doing, knew better, but did it anyway. So for me the brainwashing theory just doesn’t work.

  37. Pam says:

    Well said Mary. Thank you speaking up for victims. Fred, your empathy for PK is truly amazing. Your digs at Anthony DiMaria were unfortunate.

  38. Michael says:

    Memo to Myself – never again trust the stupid “verbal texting” device you used for that last message you posted. What I had there was a failure to communicate.

  39. Pam says:

    *for victims.

  40. Pam says:

    Michael,
    Great post. There was no brainwashing. They did what they wanted to do. Remember how angry Manson was because they didn’t follow his orders.

  41. Cybele Moon says:

    Michael, lol I figured such as it happens to me frequently too but your message was understood.

  42. Roger Wayne Adams says:

    Well guys, I must say this really surprised me. You know the governor will deny it though.

  43. Michael says:

    On the “brainwashing” question, I guess it comes down to what we think “brainwashing” does to a person.

    From what little I’ve read on the topic, it doesn’t look like it leaves a person in a robotic state, but in a highly indoctrinated state. That’s why I feel that even if Pat and the others were “brainwashed,” that did not leave them unable to discern that their victims were humans. Pat admits, for example, that she said to Charlie after the Tate killings “Charlie, they were so young!”

    So while they all may have been indoctrinated by Charlie’s philosophy, I think they could still have chosen to say no to it. Yes, they were vulnerable, but no, they were not helpless.

  44. Fred Bloggs says:

    Mary says:
    you speak about Pat as if you know her personally…So, did you know her or any of her family? And if not, how can you speak to what she was like before her involvement with Manson and the others?

    No offence Mary, but that’s not the wisest thing you could have said. No, I do not know Patricia Krenwinkel personally, nor any of her family.
    However, you have reached certain conclusions to which you clearly hold dear ~ dear enough to articulate them on a public forum and be prepared to back them up and defend them. And by what means have you reached the conclusions, personal conclusions, about Pat, that you have ? You even call her “Pat”, just like I and many others do.
    Do you know Pat personally ? Have you sat down and spent time with her ? Talked to her ? Assessed her body language ? Watched how her eyes move when she’s uncomfortable ? Noticed how she stammers and pfuffs and pfaffs when she’s nervous ?
    No, of course you haven’t. Yet, you are able to declare to the world how she comes across and what she does and doesn’t fully comprehend like you know her. And of course, by implication of that view, you more than heavily imply that you understand the gravity of what she did, in a way and to a depth that she couldn’t.
    Think about that for a moment.
    Yours was a question that contained its own reply. You see, I’m just like you. An intelligent human being that is able to take in a lot of data from disparate sources, assess that data/info and think it through, then reach a conclusion via my own thought process.
    By casting aspersions on what I said about Pat, at a stroke, you more or less condemn every single opinion of every human being, including your own, and every historian, on every single subject that they are not personally and directly involved in. Which is ridiculous, as you well know.
    I have opinions and thoughts on the slave trade and African colonization, the American civil war, world war 2, even though I wasn’t even alive at the time. I have views on Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, JFK, Genghis Khan, the Beatles, Fela Kuti, the Queen and a whole slew of people I never met, could never meet ~ nor would want to meet.
    And I’m just like you, Mary. I read. Interviews, books, transcripts, articles. I watch documentaries, videos, chat shows, films, programmes. I’ve been following this case since 1978 when I was 15 and I’ve read tons of stuff regarding it, as I have read tons of stuff regarding lots of other subjects. I’ve been involved in debates, discussions, blogs etc. I would have to be a very ignorant person to not be able to hold an opinion that I could back up. And yes, I have paid much attention to what Pat has said down the years and have formed a view of her. I stand by everything I said ~ she was not a mirror image of Charles Manson as we are trying to understand it. Which is precisely why I tried to get some clarity from Pam as to how she understood the supposed statement of Pat being the best reflection of him, and if that statement was said, in what context it was said and what the meaning was.
    I’ll tell you something else ~ it’s quite interesting that some of the contributors to these pages have thoughts and opinions about me but they’ve never met me. How are they able to reach any sort of conclusion ? The same way we all do. It’s part of the gift of being human. You don’t need to have met someone to have solid views about them ~ however would anyone be able to vote if that were the case ?

  45. Fred Bloggs says:

    Mary says:
    From reading all of the transcripts, she does not come across as one who fully comprehends the vicious nature of the crimes she committed

    It’s tempting to ask you how you know that.
    In any case, I disagree with you. I think she comprehended the vicious nature of her crime from the very night it happened. Back in 1969, Leslie Van Houten told her lawyer of Pat’s reaction to the murders, within a few hours of them happening. The way she described them to Leslie told me she was well aware of the gravity of what she had done. She lived in fear of being caught before she was caught and she has spent much time since being incarcerated trying to deflect from the nature of the crimes. Some of the things she said about Abigail Folger, for example, tell me this. Why say something disparaging about one of your victims unless you’re deflecting from what you’ve done ?

    And whether or not she placed hands on all 8 victims (and yes, I do count unborn baby Tate), she was still complicit in the crime

    I totally agree.
    For me, as soon as an egg is fertilized and begins growing, it’s a human being. I look at it as ¬> if the process is uninterrupted, that egg will become a fully fledged human being, the same way that once born, if a human baby’s process and growth is uninterrupted by illness, fatal accident or murder, that baby will grow to old age.
    But you bringing up the unborn baby sort of highlights the point I was making about the deaths that were directly by her hand. Legally, she’s responsible for the 7 murders that weekend, even though she clearly didn’t kill all 7 by her direct hand. Baby Paul is not legally or officially listed as one of the victims ~ even though many of us think of him that way.
    That aside however, no one is arguing that she was not complicit in all 7 deaths. She definitely was. But whether we like it or not, aside from the legality of the matter {and let’s face it, the legality is not always why we have these debates}, there are differences in the mindsets of the different murderers.

    it is cruel, for the family members of the victims to have to deal with this year after year

    It is their choice to do so. They didn’t always.

    And you may not understand why they bother to come

    I understand why they come. They are not forced to do so. Incidentally, I’ve never once cast aspersions on their decisions to attend. Sometimes, the content is a different matter, but not the choice to do so. But if you choose to listen to horror, do not complain about what is essentially your choice.

    but I can assure you that if something like this happened to a member of my family, God willing, I would be there every time

    I’m not going to argue with that. But I can’t say what I’d do. There are so many variables and life is not predictable. Well, mine hasn’t been !

    It is obvious from the transcripts that the Parole Board members need to hear from the families of the victims to be reminded who the true victims are in this narrative

    I’m not so sure I’d go along with that. After all, before the family members started coming to these hearings, parole board members were pretty adept at keeping the perps incarcerated. They are well aware of who the victims are in this case ~ as are we all.

    Pat may be many things, but she is not a victim. The fact that she even puts herself in the same category is extremely disturbing

    She is not in the same category as the murder victims, this is true. But I wouldn’t dismiss the notion of her being a victim {in some ways} quite so easily. But equally, even if she was a victim, that doesn’t justify what she did, and it doesn’t equate with parole.
    My opinion is that some of you need to lose the fear you have that explanations = justification. They do not. Explanations give one some idea how a situation came to arise. Two seemingly opposing notions can both be true at the same time. That’s what a paradox is.

    I do not see anything anywhere in the transcripts that would lead me to believe that she is truly remorseful for her crimes

    Maybe you need to read them free of the bias you bring to them.
    That said, remorse on its own isn’t enough. A person may be truly remorseful, yet may still have dangerous impulses that they can’t guarantee control of. Or they may become remorseful, but their crimes were so heinous, that it would be 95 years before release would even be considered.

    for the pain and suffering of the victims and their families, for the cloud of fear and horror that she perpetrated on society…not only in 1969, but every time these crimes are mentioned or relived through these hearings

    I don’t know how true that is. But let’s face it, it’s kind of difficult to be completely aware of a lot of things when you’re incarcerated from society, have really limited access to the outside world and only meet with and hear the families speak once every 5 years and not be allowed to address any of them.
    Without being confrontational about this, when we hear of some of the atrocities that we hear of in the world, I wonder how much we genuinely feel for various victims. And we have the benefit of 24 hour news. It’s a reality that many human beings {myself included} simply are not aware of the suffering of many others, all the or even most of the time. I mention this, only because when things are levelled at people personally, I have to ask myself if it is fair and whether or not the same might apply to me.

    however, different sins bear different consequences and my personal opinion is that the crimes/sins of the Manson “family” have terrible and long-lasting consequences

    I actually agree with both parts of that statement.
    But as ever, with caveats and nuance.

    Not a single one should be free from those consequences

    Not a single one of them has ever been free of the consequences of those crimes. And whether any of them ever walks the streets again or not, none of them can be.

  46. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    did anyone see Olivia Kraus’ documentary about Pat Krenwinkel? Life After Manson. Although it was a compelling story Pat still came off as poor me, I’m a victim too

    Are you utterly dismissing any possibility that there might be something in that ? I’m not saying there is, just asking whether {regardless of the parole question} or not it is possible that may be a possibility.
    But she doesn’t really say that in the documentary. She acknowledges that she was manipulated ~ as many people are in life. The thing about being manipulated is that most of the time, the person being manipulated is not in the slightest bit aware of it. It’s often not until way down the line that they realize what was going on. Sometimes years way down the line.
    Now, that does not justify murder. And it’s not really grounds for releasing someone on parole. But I’m putting parole aside here. Independent of any parole questions, do you not give anything Pat says any credence at all ?

    There will probably never be a reasonable explanation as to why

    That depends on whether people want to actually take on board the explanations that have been advanced for 50+ years. The general consensus on these pages is that nothing can explain anything, these are just a bunch of murderers that should die in jail or, on the other side, they’ve served long enough, just let them out already ! They were brainwashed and/or mentally ill.
    I personally find both sides unsatisfactory.

    Joan Didion wrote that those murders were the end of the era of peace and love

    I think Joan was writing out of her pants, frankly. It made good copy, but was light on facts and reality.
    On one side of the equation, those murders weren’t the end of peace and love. Lots of people all over the world carried on the notion of peace and love and it has touched many countries and people for over 50 years.
    On the other hand, the mecca of peace and love, Haight-Ashbury, had already descended into violence, crime and chaos before 1967 was even out. Many cities and regions in America followed suit. And as I’ve pointed out many times here, one only has to look at 1968 to see where Joan’s ideals were faulty. Martin Luther King, anyone ? Bobby Kennedy, anyone ? Bobby Hutton, anyone ?
    Not many Black Americans experienced peace and love in the peace and love era. If anything, it was J.Edgar Hoover and friends that went out of their way to dismantle anything resembling a peace movement, that signalled its end.

  47. Fred Bloggs says:

    Stephen Craig says:
    I do think that whatever PK may have been in the past/could have been if she hadn’t aligned herself with Manson is (at best best) a moot point; a discussion that exists purely in the realm of the hypothetical someone will bring something up and try to use it as their evidence to bolster their point. I will reply in my own inimitable fashion and then someone else will then go on about it being irrelevant, as though I’d brought it up in the first place.

    The murder of a loved one is a “unique” experience, one that I would wish only on my worse enemy

    Interestingly, I wouldn’t. Because while someone might be my worst enemy, they’re not the one that would be killed. They might not even care !

    I can only applaud the efforts by the victims family to do all they can to keep those who killed their loved one’s incarcerated

    “All” they can ? Even if it involves statements that are demonstrably untrue ? Two wrongs really do not make a right.
    Or maybe they are beginning to.

    Cybele Moon says:
    I can’t say for sure whether she is physically dangerous today

    I can’t say I know any physically dangerous 74 year old women !

    or whether she doesn’t fit the youthful offender and elderly parole consideration

    Personally, I think both the youthful offender and elderly parole thingy are a red herring and distraction. If someone can get married, buy a house, join the army and kill in war, drive, borrow money to pay for their college/university fees and a whole host of other things that people between the ages of 18 and 25 do, then they are old enough to take the consequences of murderous action. The brain development argument is a poor one in my view. Think of how many parents and drivers aged 25 and under there are !

    it’s just that I have felt a revulsion for the crimes and perpetrators

    You know I respect you Cybele, so please take this in the way I mean it, which is without malice, but that reads almost as though anyone not espousing your wing of the viewpoint doesn’t feel revulsion for the crimes.
    As I have often said, life is a continuum and life did not stop in August of 1969. The perps were rightly punished for their crimes and continue to be so, until the state decides otherwise. But arguing from a balanced perspective as opposed to taking a side doesn’t make one soft on crime, criminals or what is to be done with them.

  48. Billy Esquire says:

    Fascinating to read your responses, Fred. It’s obvious you possess higher levels of thinking (than most), and the way you’re then able to write out your detailed thoughts is really impressive, and rather rare. Two different gifts, I think.

  49. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred,
    Billy Esquire is right, you are a brilliant analyst and I think Billy shares that talent with rational and articulate responses.

    As to PK being dangerous, actually, there have been a few little old ladies who have murdered!! lol. Do I give PK any credence? I am pretty sure she is sorry for what she did. She’s had a lifetime to contemplate it. Do I trust her thinking? No, I have to say I would find it hard to trust anyone who was capable of that kind of viciousness no matter how long ago. I also find it almost incomprehensible to think of having to carry that on your conscience for your whole life . I remember the line in “Dead Man Walking”- ‘there are places in the heart only God can touch.”

    I certainly did not mean that no one else feels revulsion even if they support her parole. Expanding on that for whatever reason, females who commit grisly murders seem to bring about more shock and revulsion than male murderers as males ‘have been” considered to be the more violent sex. However, that theory has proved to be untrue in todays’ society.

    Apparently “Life After Manson” was also part of the parole bid for PK as Olivia Kraus was very sympathetic to her story. I believe the documentary came out just before her last parole hearing which was denied.
    I am not very sympathetic though I try to look at all sides respectfully, which is why these forums can be very interesting, Even the style of expressing opinions here is fascinating.

  50. Michael says:

    I would not assume that just because someone is elderly, they pose no threat. But I don’t see Krenwinkle as a threat, based on what I have read in her reports, and what I’ve seen in her interviews.

    That said, I also do not think she has a full grasp on what she did, but maybe she never will, and that alone does not, to my thinking, make her dangerous. Clueless, possibly, but not dangerous.

    But I get stuck on the terror of her victims when they realized what was about to happen to them, the physical agony she and her cohorts put them through, the lifelong misery she inflicted on their families, and the immeasurable damage these people did to society, and I can’t muster up too much sympathy for any of them. I can muster enough to realize Pat is in pain over what she did, and lives with daily regret, but that’s about as far as I can go.

    None of which matters too much, the Gov will decide. I think it’s a no-brainer to assume he will veto this one.

  51. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    besides the Manson murderers has Governor Newsom nixed any other parole board recommendations?

    Quite a few.
    But for me, it’s largely irrelevant, because each case has to be taken on its own merits.
    I’ve never had a problem with a guv’nor overturning a parole board recommendation if their reasons for doing so are solid and demonstrably true. It’s important to have checks and balances. In the case of Guv Brown and Guv Newson, regarding Bruce Davis and Leslie Van Houten, I think the main reasons given were demonstrably untrue, not even poor.

    Wolf’s Stare says:
    some of the newer books about Manson and the girls have mentioned brain washing, mind control, any opinion on this

    Yeah. It is paradoxical. I can’t say any of them were brainwashed. Brainwashing is a rather specific action. But there are far easier ways of having someone under control. And we see it almost every day of our lives. We don’t even think about it most of the time. We see it from parents, teachers, medical staff, the way we engage with social media and law enforcement, in sports etc. So in a way, a measure of mind control is part of the natural flow of life. Cars on roads would be an impossibility if we didn’t all voluntarily give our minds over to an authority.
    Well, think of that principle in other spheres, particularly with the counterculture in mind and add in the stew psychedelic drugs and a forceful and charismatic personality of an older experienced individual. It then becomes easier {as opposed to easy} to see how minds and thoughts can be shaped. I’ve seen it happen way too many times in life over more than half a century to dismiss it. I’ve seen it happen in churches. I’ve seen it happen politically. I’ve seen it happen culturally. Right now, in the UK, I’ve been struck this week by how some people have given themselves completely to monarchism and Queen worship. That’s not a criticism, just an observation. I could say the same thing about the way supporters of Donald Trump or Vlad Putin conducted themselves. None of them were forced to do anything….yet……
    Getting someone to go along with you is nowhere near as outlandish or ridiculous as opponents of it would have you believe. Just observe a group of young children for long enough and you’ll witness control’a plenty.

  52. Fred Bloggs says:

    Michael says:
    All four of the participants in the Tate la Bianca killings either disobeyed direct orders that they were given by Manson or they showed extreme reluctance when following them. Charles Watson was ordered to go to more than one house the night of the Tate killings but he refused because he was too exhausted. Susan Atkins was ordered to do whatever Charles Watson told her to do, by no less than Charles Manson himself. But Susan directly disobeyed Tex twice, first when she refused to Stab Frykowski, second when she refused to stab Sharon Tate. Patricia Krenwinkel defied a direct order from text me when he told her to go to the guest house and kill whoever was in there, but she simply went to the door and decided not to do it. Lesley‘s reluctantly obeyed text when he told her to stay up this is lobby OK, but Tex said he had to basically drag her over there to do it

    What this all demonstrates is how control isn’t as hard and fast and straight down the middle as it is often made out to be. Being controlled by the whims of another doesn’t mean that the person being controlled is devoid of making choices, just that more often than not, they sublimate their wills. Sometimes, they might even go along with things they have misgivings about. How many times has a politician supported something openly, only for them to condemn it years later ~ stating that they always had misgivings</i..
    I’ve found that constant rigidity in human behaviour simply isn’t real life. However stuck in a particular way of being one may be, there’s always a certain fluidity and room for unpredictability.

    never again trust the stupid “verbal texting”

    It was pretty funny though. For some reason it always makes me laugh when Charles Watson is referred to as ‘Text’.

    Pam says:
    Fred, your empathy for PK is truly amazing

    That could be read as ‘amazing’ good or ‘amazing’ bad. I don’t think you mean it the former way ! I make no apologies for empathy because I love God and part of being a Christian is being transformed, bit by bit, by God and being like him. It takes a lifetime, it’s not easy because I have a will of my own, but being like him means following God’s example, in real life, not in theory. It means applying God’s love in the most trying and difficult of situations {specifically: people}, not just the easy ones. I’m hugely influenced by two statements Christ made, when it comes to everyday life ¬> one was that those that give themselves over to him must love their enemies. The other is that God brings rain {metaphorically meaning good things} to the just and the unjust. Putting those two together spells empathy.
    So yes, I have empathy.
    Sometimes it would make life easier not to. But it’s almost a reflex action for me to look at things from someone else’s point of view.

    Your digs at Anthony DiMaria were unfortunate

    I didn’t take any digs at him. I have read what he has to say at the last few hearings and I don’t really want to go into what I think in its entirety, except to say that he takes certain things out of context and crosses legal lines, stating as fact, people being responsible for crimes for which they haven’t ever been questioned, let alone charged. If you are comfortable with someone stating falsehoods simply because they are members of the victim’s family, that is for you to live with. I wouldn’t want someone to do it for me and I don’t excuse it just because the persons they are talking about committed vile acts.
    I get where he’s coming from. Mind you, I got where Charles Manson was coming from and why he tended to respond to society the way he did.
    And I don’t agree with either.

  53. BirdieNumNum says:

    Fred Bloggs: You say: “I didn’t take any digs at him. I have read what he has to say at the last few hearings and I don’t really want to go into what I think in its entirety, except to say that he takes certain things out of context and crosses legal lines, stating as fact, people being responsible for crimes for which they haven’t ever been questioned, let alone charged. If you are comfortable with someone stating falsehoods simply because they are members of the victim’s family, that is for you to live with.”

    -Why don’t you “really want to go into what I think in its entirety, except to say that he takes certain things out of context and crosses legal lines, stating as fact, people being responsible for crimes for which they haven’t ever been questioned, let alone charged.”

    Perhaps you should state Anthony DiMaria’s “falsehoods” and how he crossed “legal lines”.
    But you “don’t really want to go into” it. You can’t have it both ways.

    You say to Pam: “If you are comfortable with someone stating falsehoods simply because they are members of the victim’s family, that is for you to live with”…
    “That is for you to live with” is a phrase specific to profound implication or consequence. Pam was simply expressing an opinion.

  54. Fred Bloggs says:

    BirdieNumNum says:
    Pam was simply expressing an opinion

    As was I.
    That’s what we all do on this forum, express opinions. However, just because one has the freedom to express an opinion does not mean that every opinion is automatically correct {factually or otherwise} or unchallengeable. My thoughts and opinions frequently get challenged ~ and I’m glad that they do.
    It’s no good saying “I think the sky is really on the ground and that’s my opinion” and somehow imagining that no one will, or should be allowed to question that or at the very least comment on it. Discussions are 2 way traffic and involve sharing of opinions and sometimes calling out those opinions.
    I don’t want to get into Anthony’s statement ~ unless people are prepared to come to the discussion with balance, because otherwise, they become pointless exercises in nothingness. If you want proof of that, look in some of these past debates over the last 3 years, when it was brought up things that Debra Tate said that were demonstrably untrue, yet much of the consensus was “so what ? Anything that keeps these vile murderers in jail is OK.”
    I don’t make the points I do because I think any of the perps should be paroled. Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever held the view that someone should be paroled. But everyone should be given a fair shake under whatever law they happen to be under. Even if they’ve done vile things. In the same way that the Guv’nors, if they’re going to nix a parole board recommendation, should not base their decisions on things that are demonstrably untrue {and interestingly enough, they keep going on to state these things that are untrue}, neither should family members of victims try to utilize things that have nothing to do directly with those they are trying to keep in jail, or use wrong information in such a way as to provoke an extreme emotional reaction.

  55. BirdieNumNum says:

    Fred, I guess in a nutshell it seems for you to state DiMaria’s alleged “falsehoods” and crossing “legal lines” without any proof or example is exactly what you profess to be adamantly against- “saying ‘I think the sky is really on the ground and that’s my opinion’ and somehow imagining that no one will, or should be allowed to question that or at the very least comment on it”. Accusation void of proof is exactly the one way conversation you denounce.
    Just an interesting observation…

    Certainly Debra Tate has said things that were “demonstrably untrue” over the years, but that has nothing to do with DiMaria statements. Anthony DiMaria and Debra are completely, and vastly, different people.

  56. Michael says:

    Hey, BirdieNumNum, this is completely off topic, but did you take your name from the Peter Sellers film “The Party?” I remember the “Birdie Num-Num” scene very well as I laughed myself silly as a kid when I saw it.

  57. BirdieNumNum says:

    You are correct Michael. Brilliant film in its own way…one of my favorites. “Howdy Pardner. Howdy Pardner. Howdy Pardner. Hooooowdeeeeee PARDNER!!”

  58. Fred Bloggs says:

    BirdieNumNum says:
    “That is for you to live with” is a phrase specific to profound implication or consequence

    All it meant was that if Pam was comfortable with anything being said by the family member of a victim, whether it was true or not, that was for her to live with.
    Pam and I have history that goes back a few years on these pages. I don’t agree with much of what she says and we do tend to trade blows from time to time {although we’ve both been most civil in this thread}, but though it may surprise some people, I actually do respect her and I think her views are pretty important to most of the debates we find ourselves in.
    Anyway, I’m not comfortable when someone that has the moral high ground has to leave that high ground in order to get what they want. I think that has been a part of some of these last few parole hearings.

    Perhaps you should state Anthony DiMaria’s “falsehoods” and how he crossed “legal lines”. But you “don’t really want to go into” it. You can’t have it both ways

    I’m not having anything both ways. The transcripts are there for any and everyone to read.

  59. BirdieNumNum says:

    Agreed- regarding the transcripts.

  60. Fred Bloggs says:

    BirdieNumNum says:
    Fred, I guess in a nutshell it seems for you to state DiMaria’s alleged “falsehoods” and crossing “legal lines” without any proof or example is exactly what you profess to be adamantly against….Accusation void of proof is exactly the one way conversation you denounce.
    Just an interesting observation…

    If you go to the thread on Charles Watson being denied parole and scroll down to what I said on November 10th, the final 3 paragraphs, you will hopefully note that I do not speak or accuse without evidence or proof.

    Certainly Debra Tate has said things that were “demonstrably untrue” over the years, but that has nothing to do with DiMaria statements. Anthony DiMaria and Debra are completely, and vastly, different people

    In the Watson parole hearing last October, Anthony stated, “For the record I feel compelled to add Mr. Watson’s third night of violence when he murdered his victim, Donald Shea.” and later on in the hearing he stated “I remind you that as you consider the transformation of Charles Tex Watson convicted killer of nine, I include his victims, Donald Shea and….

    In the same hearing, Debra Tate stated, quote, “Even though Shorty Shea was not part of his – – his, uh, charges, other crime partners testified in their hearings that he was there and personally responsible for the murder of Shorty Shea. I’m not gonna deliberate or go into why the, uh -– uh, LA DA’s office did not include all of these other murders at the time, perhaps they figured they had enough, but indeed Tex Watson was present, Tex Watson had an active hand …. I don’t have the crystal ball to say who dealt the death blow, but it’s very concerning for me that he doesn’t even have this in his recollection.

    Yes, they are very different people. But they trod the same line. They used the same methodology. You can’t go accusing people of murders for which they haven’t ever been charged. On the internet, one can speculate all through the night about Watson’s involvement in various crimes, but in a legal setting like a parole hearing, should you go adding your own opinion and throwing accusations around in order to lend weight to your case ?”

    That is plain and simply wrong and the tragedy is that it weakens their overall points. Why ? Because this is one of the things that is noticed and now, we’re talking about it. And it causes one to have to ask, why the need to do that ? Do they not think their case is strong enough ? Do they not think that what these perps did and how it has affected their lives is sufficient ? Debra Tate does not believe that Steve Grogan should have been paroled after only 14 years for Shorty Shea’s murder. And she turns up at all of Bruce Davis’ hearings to declare what a scumbucket he is. Yet she’s prepared to quote their words as gospel truth in regards to Watson’s involvement in Shorty’s murder.
    Hmmmm…..
    What’s even worse here is that both Davis and Grogan utterly contradict one another regarding that crime, Grogan stating in effect that Davis wasn’t even there ! But never mind the bollocks, never mind the contradictions that would dismiss the case, even if “Aranda” {the law that says fellow accomplices cannot testify against one another without independent corroboration ~ their individual word is not enough} wasn’t in play, hey, Debbie is happy to take on board the words of people she considers as scummy murderers. And Anthony follows in that stride by bringing Shea into proceedings.
    That, my friend, crosses legal lines and legally is a falsehood.
    Now, for the record, I happen to think Watson was involved in Shea’s murder and I have reasons for believing that. But nothing that could ever stand up legally. And until he is charged by California for that murder, legally, he cannot be associated with it.
    One can’t pick and choose which parts of the law we want to uphold and then abandon the bits we don’t like.

    I’m not and never was having a dig at Anthony DiMaria. There is a lot that I could say about some of what he {and other family members} have shared at some of the hearings over the years that does not sit well with me and it is not because I think any of the perps should be paroled or that any of them deserves parole.
    But on this particular subject, I don’t want to go any further. My above example should demonstrate that I’m not not just talking because I want to be controversial.

  61. BirdieNumNum says:

    Fred, I certainly don’t think you want to be “controversial”.

    You said, “You can’t go accusing people of murders for which they haven’t ever been charged…That, my friend, crosses legal lines and legally is a falsehood.”
    -As far as I know, Charles Watson was never indicted for, or convicted of, theft of a massive amount of marijuana from Bernard Crowe. In the last Watson hearing DiMaria said, “Crucial to this note, Mr. Watson’s drug burn of Bernard Crowe was the exact catalyst that set off all Manson family violent crimes in the days ahead -– in the days ahead and throughout the years.”
    From your thinking, some might feel this “crosses legal lines and legally is a falsehood.” Others might think the drug burn provides context of Manson family motives and crimes-particularly in the of case Charles Watson’s criminal behavior.

    As you said, “For the record, I happen to think Watson was involved in Shea’s murder”- indeed.

    You provided two quotes from DiMaria and Tate addressing Donald Shea’s murder which you believe to be “plain and simply wrong and the tragedy is that it weakens their overall points.”

    Well, others might find the quotes you shared (from Anthony and Debra) and inclusion of Donald Shea’s murder in Watson’s parole hearing to be thorough, contextually relevant and respectful to the memory of all Charles Watson’s victims.

  62. BirdieNumNum says:

    As you said Fred, “But on this particular subject, I don’t want to go any further.”

    -I agree! No more to be said.

  63. happydaysarehereagain says:

    The Gov. will never let her or any other Manson family member out on parole. Not just due to politics, which is probably the main reason, but also, he can simply cite the heinousness of the crime as his reversal of parole recommendation. A win-win for him politically. I just feel bad for the families of the victims who go to these hearings year after year. That’s got to be horrible for them. I know if it were me and mine, I’d be fighting their release too. Just seems at times, the only fairness left for the truly innocent victims is the gov’s ability to reverse the parole recommendation.

  64. Fred Bloggs says:

    BirdieNumNum says:
    As far as I know, Charles Watson was never indicted for, or convicted of, theft of a massive amount of marijuana from Bernard Crowe

    That’s because he never stole any marijuana from Crowe ! He cheated Crowe out of $2700 on the pretext of using it to buy a load of marijuana, which would then be given to Crowe. He ran off with the money.
    So your point is in error.
    What could he be indicted for, let alone convicted for ? Stealing money from a drug dealer that was earmarked to buy illegal drugs that would have landed Crowe in jail if he’d been caught with it ?

    In the last Watson hearing DiMaria said, “Crucial to this note, Mr. Watson’s drug burn of Bernard Crowe was the exact catalyst that set off all Manson family violent crimes in the days ahead -– in the days ahead and throughout the years.”
    From your thinking, some might feel this “crosses legal lines and legally is a falsehood.” Others might think the drug burn provides context of Manson family motives and crimes-particularly in the of case Charles Watson’s criminal behavior

    What DiMaria said there is pretty close to the mark. It’s an opinion but it isn’t crossing any legal lines, it isn’t a falsehood at all. One could perhaps argue whether or not it was a catalyst, but I wouldn’t. And I’ll tell you exactly why.
    Watson himself has spoken of the drug burn which is not actually a drug burn, even though so many people over the past 53 years have called it that. He tells the tale in his 1978 book. He speaks of it in some parole hearings. He admits that he wolfed the $2700 from Lotsapoppa.
    On top of that, it is in Bugliosi’s “Helter Skelter.” A number of times. When Al Springer was interviewed by the police back in November ’69, he mentioned it. When Danny DeCarlo was interviewed by LAPD in November ’69, he mentioned it. Manson, who ended up shooting Crowe, partly because of it, confirmed it to Bugliosi in 1970 and has spoken about it many times since. Crowe was questioned extensively during the penalty phase of the Tate/LaBianca trial. It is no secret, it has never been a secret and frankly, where Watson is concerned it is actually debatable if he even committed a crime there ! OK, theft is theft, but one could make a case for stealing drug dealer’s money not exactly being bona fide crime that the police, let alone the law courts, are going to do anything about……

    You provided two quotes from DiMaria and Tate addressing Donald Shea’s murder which you believe to be “plain and simply wrong and the tragedy is that it weakens their overall points.”
    Well, others might find the quotes you shared (from Anthony and Debra) and inclusion of Donald Shea’s murder in Watson’s parole hearing to be thorough, contextually relevant and respectful to the memory of all Charles Watson’s victims

    Yeah, and they’d be wrong.
    Look at where you’re going. You’re attempting to justify accusations of murder where none have ever existed. Debra and Anthony took this one a bridge too far, I’m afraid.
    The interesting thing is that they could have achieved a similar result by just sticking to what you quoted Anthony saying above. I’ve said it numerous times and I’ll say it again ¬> when you have ‘right’ on your side, but you sidestep it, you ultimately force some people to look at why and they just might uncover layers that reveal something that leaves one feeling more than uncomfortable.
    Vengeance rarely gets you even.

    happydaysarehereagain says:
    he can simply cite the heinousness of the crime as his reversal of parole recommendation. A win-win for him politically

    Yeah, but he doesn’t. I’ve been making this point for years now. Both Guv’nors could end all debate and speculation of their motives in one fell swoop by simply citing the heinousness of the crimes. But they do not. They bring in other, main reasons that are demonstrably untrue. And why did they do this ? Because they have to justify current dangerousness. Which they can’t with the reasons they’ve been using since Bruce Davis was first granted parole.

  65. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Hi Fred,

    What you call ‘motive’ I call political preference but yeah, all the gov. legally has to do is cite the heinousness of the crimes. That’s politics for you, never saying what you really think.

    I’m surprised the Gov. hasn’t cited the current rise of white supremacy comparative to the Helter Skelter motive (as proven in court, but I have doubts as to that being the sole motive) and how it may affect their release. That would be more believable than the current dangerousness reasoning. Or would they go hand in hand?

    Either way, the legal system will keep working the Manson rubik cube until the killers are dead, the politicians are free of it and will run for office as ‘hard on crime’ by pointing out the parole reversals.

  66. Cybele Moon says:

    Thank you Birdie and Fred, Wow good points, intereesting to read bth responses.

    Now we could get into Machiavellian philosophies and consequentialism? 😀
    i.e. Could it be true, that the end justifies the means – and are the governors or supreme court (in case of appeals) representing the will of the people by denying parole?
    But truly, how can we ever know the extent of the Manson family crimes. We can only read various accounts at this time, the main story of which has almost achieved a mania and horror story status in some circles.
    They were all “somewhat” drug addled and nihilistic, and memories of events are not always reliable and can change (especially if those involved are trying to put themselves in a better light)- and- a lot of time has passed. What is the truth?

  67. Michael says:

    Cybele, in answer to your first question, I think the will of most people would be a viscerally-induced “Yes! Keep them locked up!” The advent of the internet hasn’t helped these folks. Photos of the victim’s corpses weren’t available to the general public before, and the crimes have been rehashed and discussed on so many platforms like this. Not to mention the many film and tv movie re-tellings produced over the years, none of which help their chances at parole and all of which, I would guess, feed into public opinion and education of new generations about these crimes.

    But should the judges, or the parole board, or the Governor make their decisions based on popular opinion? Honest question.

  68. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Sorry to jump in Michael since your response was to Cybele, but judges, parole boards and/or the Gov should always abide by the law and never popular opinion. If by opinion only, say bye to democracy and hello to authoritarianism.

  69. BirdieNumNum says:

    Fred says: “Vengeance rarely gets you even.”

    From Anthony DiMaria’s impact statement: “To be clear, our family’s involvement in today’s hearing has nothing to do with anger, revenge or hatred towards Ms. Krenwinkel, rather we are present out of love to speak for eight people who remain voiceless in their graves.”

  70. BirdieNumNum says:

    HappyDays said: “Sorry to jump in Michael since your response was to Cybele, but judges, parole boards and/or the Gov should always abide by the law and never popular opinion. If by opinion only, say bye to democracy and hello to authoritarianism.”

    From Sebring’s nephew: “As the attorney today invokes the law, you see blood relatives, Lou, Debra, Kay & myself, seeking justice. We implore you to indeed follow the law, particularly as defined in LAWRENCE.
    For the rare, egregious, severe nature of Patricia Krenwinkel’s crimes: LAWRENCE. For how horribly her victims suffered: LAWRENCE. For her crimes against civilized society as she terrorized the nation with her blood-spattered threats and cruel, perverse behavior during her trial: LAWRENCE. For the permanent cultural, historical scars Ms. Krenwinkel has dealt with destructive consequences even today: LAWRENCE.”

  71. Cybele Moon says:

    Michael, agreed- good question.

    Happydays, “abide by the law?” Why is a governor allowed to veto a parole and what must his reasoning be according to law for that, e.g. heinousness? current dangerousness?

    Birdie, Can you or someone further explain to me the actual law or precedent as defined in LAWRENCE. Can a Governor use that as his reason. I’m having trouble finding much online.

  72. BirdieNumNum says:

    Cybele,

    In Re Lawrence. From what I just looked up Lawrence is California law that provides criteria for inmate parole release specific to current dangerousness. The law also includes criteria, in particularly heinous crimes, to deny release regardless of rehabilitation or current dangerousness.

    I’m not sure if the Gov can reference the law to form his final decision.

    It’s hard to navigate legal jargon. Search “In re Lawrence”

  73. cielodrive.com says:

    In Re Lawrence is not a law. It’s a published opinion. The Governor will reference it. He’s required to support his decision with case law

  74. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Hi Cybele,

    Abide by the law, yes. In other words, do not legislate from the bench or rule from a personal perspective or heed to popular opinion. Precedence or established law is my gist. Being a nation of laws, whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant to the law itself.

    Thanks cielodrive, that’s exactly what I was getting at. Politically, the Gov. will cite everything to protect his position. By law all he has to do is cite the heinousness to reverse parole recommendation. Is it fair? Not to some, but it is the law the Gov. can abide by.

    Hope that makes sense. I’m not an attorney but that’s how I understand how it’s supposed to work.

  75. BirdieNumNum says:

    Yes, thank you Cielo! Good point Happy.

    Certainly, a compelling argument can be made from a variety of perspectives…authorities will do with them what they will

  76. Pam says:

    BirdieNumNum,
    Thank you for your great posts, I read them twice. It’s time to speak up for the victims. These vile butchers should remain in prison for the rest of their lives. And people who support them(Fred) should be challenged. Well done.

  77. BirdieNumNum says:

    Pam, to your point “It’s time to speak up for the victims”, I couldn’t agree more. Not because the argument here is mutually exclusive, but because the victim’s reality is often marginalized or disregarded particularly in notorious crimes. Such has been the case for generations.

    What’s interesting, is this kind of sentiment that the victim’s family members who speak at these these hearings are perpetuating falsehoods, crossing lines- essentially abusing the system and victimizing the killers of their kin.

    Everyone has an opinion but ultimately-
    a compelling argument can be made from a variety of perspectives…authorities will do with them what they will

  78. Fred Bloggs says:

    Pam says:
    And people who support them(Fred) should be challenged

    Oh Pam !
    All I’m going to say is this: if we were the main songwriters of the band we played in, the band would basically appeal to everybody but not everybody would like all the songs !!
    Once again, I ask you, produce one statement I have made in real time that supports parole for any of the murderers. Just one will do.
    You won’t find any. Because I don’t operate in those terms. I see life as a continuum, with plenty of ‘ifs’ and conditions.
    But you will, doubtless, continue to read a sentence and then convert it into ‘Pamalese.”
    I wonder if they’re offering Pamalese courses in university these days ? 👩‍🎓

    BirdieNumNum says:
    What’s interesting, is this kind of sentiment that the victim’s family members who speak at these these hearings are perpetuating falsehoods, crossing lines- essentially abusing the system and victimizing the killers of their kin

    Well, in some instances, they are. I don’t know about victimizing the killers of their kin {that’s too ironic a direction for me !}, but as I have demonstrated, there have been lines crossed. Lines that you would not like if used in the same way against you.
    I don’t think any of the family members need to go down that road, but they have chosen to do so. If I see it, I’ll comment on it. It’s an interesting aspect of the parole debate.

  79. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    Birdie and Fred

    They sound like an old couple from a bygone age !! 😁

  80. Fred Bloggs says:

    Pam says:
    BirdieNumNum, Thank you for your great posts, I read them twice

    Wonders will never cease ! 😱 🤯

    It’s time to speak up for the victims

    OK, the wonders have ceased !
    California’s justice system has been speaking up for the victims since 1969. The killers were caught, arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and have been incarcerated more than half a century, two of them dying in jail.
    To even imply that the victims are not spoken up for is pretty ignorant.

  81. Pam says:

    “California’s justice system has been speaking up for victim’s since 1969.” Fred, this isn’t accurate. The victim’s Rights Bill, which allowed for victim impact statement, passed in California in 1982. Doris Tate helped to get it passed. There was nothing in place from 1969-1982. Debra Tate: “There’s still more to be done.” I agree. Fred, you asked me to provide one example of your support for these brutal killers.Please read your own statements that is PK continued to improve.you would support release in a “few tear.”

  82. Pam says:

    *if
    *few year
    *improved you
    Sorry on the typos.

  83. Pam says:

    Fred,
    I also remember a conversation(years ago) in which we were discussing CW’s religious conversion. You spoke about God’s forgiveness and that Watson might be genuine. Doris Tate- “He’s just using religion to get parole.” Fred, faith has nothing to do with release. He should have found God when ST begged for the life of her baby. His finding God is absurd and self-serving.

  84. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Hi Fred,

    I like reading Pamalese, as you put it. No wonder she feels the way she does about you. Take a look at your own line:

    “California’s justice system has been speaking up for the victims since 1969. The killers were caught, arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and have been incarcerated more than half a century, two of them dying in jail. To even imply that the victims are not spoken up for is pretty ignorant.”

    You’ve neglected to show the flip side of that statement. The killers received a lifetime of free legal representation, housing, medical, food, education, counseling and avoided the death penalty and have lived their lives, unlike their victims.

    So in your world of “ifs and continuums” the killers become the victims. The People of California are the voice of the victims because the victims have no voice-they are dead. Are you intimating without saying specifically and unequivocally the victims are now the killers?

    Just wondering how your ‘ifs’ work.

  85. BirdieNumNum says:

    To Happy, Pam and Fred RE victim/killer role reversal:

    DiMaria:”For the 6 killed by Patricia Krenwinkel at Cielo Drive, there is no Youthful or Elderly Victim Programs. For the couple she butchered at Waverly Drive, there is no Next Step Program. There are no ‘Special Considerations’.
    Under the current leadership of LA DA George Gascon, our loved ones have been stripped of their legal voice after Gascon’s sweeping mandates forbidding all representation from his office and/or any involvement with our families with regard to all Manson parole hearings. Violent killers are coddled, as the victims and our families are discarded like trash.

    I remind the Commissioners that Patricia Krenwinkel is one of the most deplorable killers of the entire Manson family. She dealt more direct and fatal blows than Charles Manson.

    Under California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation supervision, Patricia Krenwinkel and her cohorts have benefitted from doing numerous interviews with Diane Sawyer, Larry King, Rolling Stone magazine, writing books, etc., etc. In 2014, Patricia Krenwinkel produced her own documentary titled LIFE AFTER MANSON: THE UNTOLD STORY OF PATRICIA KRENWINKEL, available for purchase on Amazon and on its own website. The petitioner’s role as producer is irrefutable as the film’s director Olivia Klaus states Patricia Krenwinkel “approached me to capture her story.” Commissioners, I wonder if you might understand that, from the victim’s perspective, the world has been perversely twisted upside down.”

    The parole board, after an internal investigation, found PK and LVH to be battery victims. Years earlier LVH filed something with the court that she was a “political prisoner”. The PK documentary refers to Krenwinkel as being “demonized by the public”.

    Regardless of what Fred thinks, one thing is for sure, other people- some of the convicted killers themselves (PK, LVH & SA [in the past]), their representatives, even some from the CDCR- indeed propose these murderers to be victims.

    Add Fred’s contention that the killers are being further victimized by blood relatives of the their victims by speaking out of turn or from a “bridge” too far.

    Looking froward to the transcript

  86. Cybele Moon says:

    First of all, thank you Birdie, Happy Days, Cielo Drive, for your responses to my questions.

    Secondly, I see Fred as a kind of “Devil’s Advocate” in his analysis and presentation of both sides of the argument, often from a spiritual view point.
    We all have a point of view and most of it makes for good reading though I may not agree with all arguments presented either.

    Pam! Pamalese has made perfect sense to me!

  87. Cybele Moon says:

    PS:
    Pam, I too thought in my own cynical way, that finding God and advertising it so vocally as did S.A. and C.W. distasteful, even exploitive at their parole hearings, considering their crimes, – not that I don’t believe conversion is possible. I do not think of them as victims any more than most of us who have suffered any trauma in life.

    Fred, I am thinking of Paul of Tarsus as an example of a divine and miraculous conversion. However, in Paul’s day, persecution ( and/or execution) of Christians was acceptable I believe, according to the laws of that time. The Manson family went against all the laws of our time and operated only at the murderous whims of a dissolute, embittered, criminal, called Manson.

  88. Cybele Moon says:

    * exploitative

  89. Michael says:

    Cybele, the spiritual conversion issue has always stuck in my craw. I have no problem believing CW and SA had a genuine conversion to Christianity, but the only relevance I see it having to a parole hearing is if they framed their conversions as influences that now guide their new way of thinking and being.

    For example, if Susan had said, “I am now a Christian, which has changed my way of viewing and living my life,” I’m good with that. (And by the way, I really do appreciate many of the good works both she and Watson have done in the aftermath of their conversions) But if she were to have said, “I am now a Christian, therefore you should view my conversion as a reason to release me” I would say forget it.

    If I owe the IRS $2000.00 dollars, they certainly will not forgive that debt if I write them and tell them I just found Jesus, so my debt should be forgiven. If I understand Christianity correctly, a conversion experience is about having your sins forgiven by God, not the government or society, and I think no matter how much an individual may regret what he’s done, he still has to face the consequences of his actions, forgiven or not.

  90. Cybele Moon says:

    Michael.
    Exactly!! great analogy!

  91. Fred Bloggs says:

    The last few comments go a long way towards explaining why I really enjoy discussions and aren’t too hot when it comes to echo chambers. Echo chambers do have their place because it can be fruitful and fun to discuss issues with people who have seen some of the things you have {and they can point out lots you haven’t seen, which will enhance what you have seen}, but a variety of views {with much opposition} makes for a much better conversation in my opinion. Firstly, I learn things, and secondly, I’m forced to appropriate matters from a totally differing point of view to the one I may hold.
    I’m very much about nuance and paradox. Taking on board different points of view and incorporating them into my understanding is actually my way of showing different people the ultimate respect.
    Whether it’s Pat Krenwinkel or Pam.

    Cybele Moon says:
    Secondly, I see Fred as a kind of “Devil’s Advocate” in his analysis and presentation of both sides of the argument, often from a spiritual view point

    Hallelujah !
    Cybele and Billy Esquire get where I’m coming from much of the time. I was going to object to the phrase “Devil’s advocate” because I would never advocate for Satan, but then I got to thinking how, to advocate for Satan and his ways would actually bring a heap of hot coals on one’s head and if one is going to make uncomfortable points, one is going to run the risk of being misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented.
    The sad and simple truth is that by not listening with both ears, you’re unlikely to truly understand the point that you’re reacting against. And it takes an uncomfortable amount of effort to place oneself into the argument of someone you may fundamentally disagree with.
    But I can also attest that it really does pay dividends. It means you are in a stronger position to refute that argument. I no longer fear taking on board an opposing argument and really getting to grips with it as though it were my own. I’m one of those people that wants to know why someone thinks as they do, rather than just assume or conclude they’re a load of crap for doing so.

  92. Billy Esquire says:

    Michael said: For example, if Susan had said, “I am now a Christian, which has changed my way of viewing and living my life,” I’m good with that. (And by the way, I really do appreciate many of the good works both she and Watson have done in the aftermath of their conversions) But if she were to have said, “I am now a Christian, therefore you should view my conversion as a reason to release me” I would say forget it.

    Michael, did someone on this board advocate releasing Atkins or Watson because they became Christians? I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone here say that. I’m a Christian, and I know many Christians, but I would be quite surprised to hear any fellow Christian suggest releasing a murderer based on them becoming a Christian. Yes, even Christians believe, “If you do the crime, you gotta do the time!” Just wondering why you posted that if it’s really not applicable.

    On the other side of things, we have Van Houten and Krenwinkel, who have not been as vocal about their beliefs. But even with that, there are Christians who are advocating for Leslie’s parole, even though they don’t know exactly what what her religious beliefs are. They read the law and decide for themselves if she has met the criteria for parole. Whether she’s a Christian, or not, has nothing to do with it.

    So, it seems to me that Christians are quite capable of punishing lawbreakers, and doing so very fairly.

  93. Cybele Moon says:

    Billy
    I think the topic was brought up in an earlier post as we often digress in different directions.
    I don’t think PK or LVH have used Christianity as a get out of jail card. Correct me if I”m wrong.
    There are Christians who still believe an eye for an eye and who can be quite harsh, but there are others that oppose the death penalty and advocate for mercy. I agree that Christians are quite capable of punishing lawbreakers fairly.

  94. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Fred
    Either stand by your statements and all they imply or hide behind your reason for saying them. You cannot have it both ways, and if that makes me ignorant and fluent in Pamalese, so be it. For a Christian you certainly like to toss judgement upon the “echo” chamber. I don’t need to know ‘where you’re coming from’ to understand what you post. And by the way, you never answered the question I posed to you. Or Birdie, or Pam.

    Cybele, Michael, Billy
    Christianity is not under attack here. Being a Christian has not one whit to do with parole, the law or whether you believe in Santa Claus. Some believe organized religion is nothing more than a long-standing cult, much like the Manson Family. While trying to explain Fred’s behavior, Cybele said his view is often from a spiritual one, which Fred gladly hid behind. Hence the very point no murderer should have the ability to claim religion changed them in order to be released.

    Birdie
    LADA Gascon is a bridge too far for me. So was the DA in San Fran, who was recently recalled due to high crime, lawlessness, etc. It seems no one bothers to think of the victims or their families until they themselves become the victim. Only then does a victim have a voice. Only then does the victim realize they have less rights than the criminal. Didn’t LVH’s lawyer make the statement that Leslie killed no one–on this very board? Yes, he did. Again, the killer is the victim is the narrative.

  95. Michael says:

    Billie, no, I don’t think anyone on this board has advocated for anyone’s parole based on religious conversion alone. Nor am I sure that Watson or Atkins have, which is why I said “IF they said (such and such)”; not “they DID say (such and such.)” I made the comment in response to Cybele pointing out that she sometimes thinks it’s exploitive when conversion is brought up at parole hearings. I was qualifying under which circumstances I would find it exploitive, and under which circumstances I would not.

    Just to reiterate, I do believe both CW and SA (and Bruce Davis) have had life changing spiritual experiences. I have read Watkins and Atkins books and have followed their parole hearings and listened to their interviews and read their writings over the years, and I believe they are/were true believers who grew into a more mature understanding of their crimes and their impact over the years. I do not believe conversion qualifies someone for parole; I do believe conversion happens and is life changing.

  96. BirdieNumNum says:

    HappyDays,

    To your point, the Manson killers are constantly propped up as victims- by their attorneys, the media (“Manson Follower Denied Parole” vs “Convicted killer of Two Determined Unsuitable for Release”), and in their own words.

    DA Gascon- People are wising up to these dangerous DAs in LA, SF, Chicago, NYC, Philly…

    And to your point with Fred re criminal privileges- add several marriages, books, children, PK’s documentary, music & art promotion, endless interviews and television exposes.

    There’s a long list of questionable statements made by the inmate’s attorneys- and as you pointed out Happy Days- particularly LVH’s representative.

  97. Stephen Craig says:

    HDAHA:

    Re: Your response to Birdie above, I couldn’t agree with you more. Having lost a family member to murder, I have witnessed first hand how the system works, and because of my experiences (which I do not feel are unique for someone in my position), have come to the conclusion that the “Criminal Justice System” is designed to make sure that there is justice for the criminal and not the victim(s)/society. Not only are victims victimized by their killers, but they are “victimized” in the courts as well: For although the court proceedings/trials are constructed to determine guilt/innocence; to bring “justice” to/for these victims, the process, in attempts to ensure the rights of the accused are met, has become skewed. In defending their clients, defense attorneys are giving great latitude; literally coming up with every excuse, both real and imagined, to try to defend the indefensible. I have to say here that I believe every defendant has the right to due process, but this process allows attorneys to create (IMO) “false narratives”, designed to distract juries from the crime itself and portray their client as someone they are not. And in many cases, these “false narratives” detract from the severity of the crime and the experiences of the victims. While the powers that be claim they are looking for justice for the victim, it becomes evident as you sit and watch the proceedings unfold, that what is taking place is more about protecting the rights of the perpetrator and not finding justice for the victim. As you mentioned, I too find it interesting how rigid/vested certain people’s opinions are concerning the crimes focused on in this blog; how “supportive” they are for these killers, support their parole, claim they’ve been in jail long enough, etc…without, and I mean this respectfully, (perhaps) fully understanding the magnitude of these crimes. There always seems to be a qualifier: “I know these murders were horrible, but…They were so young…etc..,” things of that nature. For me, what happened to the victim’s in this case is unforgiveable, and I encourage the governor to use whatever is at his disposal to keep them incarcerated. *Please forgive any grammatical/spelling errors.

  98. Jo-Ann Watson says:

    Yes, its true that a prisoner on death row should never be released….but the problem I see is that the “new” people in legislature have no connection with the Tate/LaBianca murders. Since it occurred over 50 years ago, they see Krenwinkle as just a “lifer” that should be released. Unfortunely, she might be released….I feel very sorry for Doris and Debra Tate who have spent most of thier lives making sure that the killers stay in jail.

  99. BirdieNumNum says:

    Stephen Craig, your point -“For although the court proceedings/trials are constructed to determine guilt/innocence; to bring “justice” to/for these victims, the process, in attempts to ensure the rights of the accused are met, has become skewed. In defending their clients, defense attorneys are giving great latitude; literally coming up with every excuse, both real and imagined, to try to defend the indefensible.”- is sadly spot on and is further abused by the political agendas- of LADA’s office, CDCR and most of the parole board- to empty all prisons void of any consideration for victims, justice or public safety. This has been brewing for years. But now we are rapidly approaching the cliff.

    Stephen Craig, so sorry for your loss… and the system’s perpetual impact on you and your family.

  100. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Stephen Craig

    I am truly sorry for your loss and the continued pain the justice system puts families of violent crime through. I’ve no answers on how to perfect the justice system, only my observations of its current state. It’s admirable and a little sad that during parole hearings, I have read how Tate and DiMaria commend the personal growth of the murderer who killed their loved one and I suspect it’s done for appearances sake lest the defense lawyer twist it into a revenge pretzel to pity the murderer. There’s that latitude you discussed; let’s just call it what it is: dishonesty.

    Granting parole to a seven-time first degree murderer is outrageous. What does that average out to? Bit over seven years a murder. Is that justice? Maybe to some but not to me. My loved one’s lives are worth more than that.

  101. Michael says:

    Happy Days, you may be right about the victim’s families commending the personal growth of these people just for appearance sake. But they might also be seeing some genuine progress made by them, then explaining that progress alone does not justify letting them out. That’s exactly how I feel – I am against parole for any of them, and at the same time, I do feel they have made huge strides from the monstrosities they were in 1969, into what seem to be rationale, decent adults. Their behavioral reports would back that up.

    But I still see the severity of their crimes as being way too great for them to ever be released, and my sympathy wlll always go first and foremost to the victims, dead and living.

  102. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Michael
    You’ve made a good point about inmate progress alone does not justify parole, from the viewpoint of the victims and their statements. Strides in becoming a responsible human being, something we all do as we mature. Yet these particular inmates and their attorneys use these criteria as their way out. I’m wondering where the repentance is in that what we do every day goes unnoticed, yet the murderer is to be rewarded with freedom after destroying so much and in the horrific manner they did so. The victim becomes secondary in the process.

    I agree with your thoughts on the severity of the crimes. I think sometimes certain crimes cannot be forgiven or forgotten, and these murders are one of those rare occurrences.

  103. BirdieNumNum says:

    Happy Days says:

    “I have read how Tate and DiMaria commend the personal growth of the murderer who killed their loved one and I suspect it’s done for appearances sake lest the defense lawyer twist it into a revenge pretzel to pity the murderer. There’s that latitude you discussed; let’s just call it what it is: dishonesty.”

    Interesting, if we review the transcripts I don’t think Tate or DiMaria are too concerned about “appearances sake” or revenge “pretzels” of a defense attorney.
    They don’t mince or candy coat words.

    As Michael says, ” they might also be seeing some genuine progress made by them, then explaining that progress alone does not justify letting them out.”

    Happy, you say “let’s just call it what it is: dishonesty.” —Who is being dishonest?

  104. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Birdie

    Topic was defense attorneys’ dishonesty to twist a pretzel defense of revenge if the victim’s family doesn’t recognize the murderers’ achievements while incarcerated. That’s who is being dishonest; the system allows the defense to throw shit to the wall and see what sticks. That’s dishonest.

    As for Tate and DiMaria, having to say whatever they have to, to keep the murderers of their loved ones in prison is the point I’m making. The very idea the victim is compelled to sing the praises of the killer of their loved one is the point. That our justice system reduces their worth as a victim. What we do as human beings every day without slaps on the back, these killers are coddled and rewarded with parole for it. Pathetic. Weigh it against the lives they took, as DiMaria so eloquently puts it.

    That’s the point.

  105. BirdieNumNum says:

    Happy Days,

    Your points are well made and taken!

  106. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Birdie
    Thanks, I should have been clearer in my response to Michael.
    Apologies for cursing which is likely not permitted.

  107. Gary.CMH says:

    Something that has not been mentioned above is: in California, the rules are that the victim/survivor impact statements are always delivered last in a parole hearing and cannot be interrupted, censored or objected to. The board may apply things like time limits, but otherwise the surviving relatives can say whatever they want to without regard to legality or accuracy. These survivors are not offering a legal argument and they are not held to that standard. Rather, they speak as impacted civilians and their statements are taken as such.

    How much impact do these statements actually have? Obviously that’s pretty hard to quantify, though one can assume that the impact is “appropriate”, as these paroles are being granted.

    I imagine most have read Bobby B’s last hearing transcript. That one was quite entertaining for many reasons, but I mention it here because Beausoleil DID interrupt these statements multiple times. It got to the point that the commissioner threatened to mute his mic if he did not stop.

    As for Lawrence, that opinion can easily be applied forevermore to the Manson people if one wants to. Lawrence states essentially that some crimes are so heinous that no amount of future rehabilitation can outweigh. At the time they were convicted, the judge indicated that he could think of few other crimes more worthy of the death penalty, after all. Personally, I find myself empathizing with all sides in these parole situations. If these people ever got out, I would understand and accept it (not that anyone particularly cares about my opinion, lol). But I am also just fine with their remaining behind bars, as I suspect they will until death.

  108. Michael says:

    I’ve never fully understood Lawrence. If it says that a judge or the Governor or the parole board can deny parole based only on the extreme nature of a crime, no matter how rehabilitated the offender seems to be, then why does the Gov keep going through all the other lengthy explanations for denying parole? Couldn’t he just say “Lawrence” and be done with it?

  109. Michael says:

    I’ve never fully understood Lawrence. If it says that a judge or the Governor or the parole board can deny parole based only on the extreme nature of a crime, no matter how rehabilitated the offender seems to be, then why does the Gov keep going through all the other lengthy explanations for denying parole? Couldn’t he just say “Lawrence” and be done with it?

  110. BirdieNumNum says:

    GaryCMH, Beausoleil’s hearing was “entertaining” indeed although I think it was Beausoleil’s attorney who interrupted the victim impact statement twice (while Anthony DiMaria was speaking as a Hinman family representative). What’s even more interesting is when Beausoleil interrupted and contradicted DiMaria somewhere in the middle of the victim statement. 3 interruptions.

    I don’t recall seeing anything like that in any of these transcripts over the years.

  111. BirdieNumNum says:

    GaryCMH,
    You make a great point- victim’s impact statements are not testimony. A fair number of people incorrectly assume that they are.

  112. GarysCMH says:

    “I don’t recall seeing anything like that in any of these transcripts over the years.”

    Yes, the one interruption that stuck in my head came when DiMaria was stating that Bobby’s music was posted for sale on iTunes & other outlets – to which Bobby interrupted “that’s not true!”

    One wonders why the two were so combative this last time around. Parole for him is always going to be an uphill battle and they didn’t do themselves any favors during that last one.

  113. Fred Bloggs says:

    Michael says:
    But should the judges, or the parole board, or the Governor make their decisions based on popular opinion? Honest question

    That’s actually quite an interesting question and I can see legit reasons to say both yes and no to it. I think that there can be cases where the opinion of the people in a city or county or state can weigh sufficiently heavily for the people making the decisions to ignore that opinion at their peril.
    Similarly, there’s always the danger of mob rule which will count against “what the people purport to want.”
    It is very easy in thanking the Guv’nor for blocking paroles, to parade them as being for the people. But people that serve on parole boards are also for the people, not just a particular demographic of the people.

    happydaysarehereagain says:
    but judges, parole boards and/or the Gov should always abide by the law and never popular opinion. If by opinion only, say bye to democracy and hello to authoritarianism

    Yeah, part of my point. It may not be very comfortable to do so, but it is always worth looking back in time and considering the kinds of things that “the people” {of whatever place you happen to name} were once in agreement with.

    BirdieNumNum says:
    From Anthony DiMaria’s impact statement: “To be clear, our family’s involvement in today’s hearing has nothing to do with anger, revenge or hatred towards Ms. Krenwinkel, rather we are present out of love to speak for eight people who remain voiceless in their graves.”

    Of course it is about vengeance. And why shouldn’t it be ? Justice is the nice face of vengeance.
    We’re all human beings here and I suspect that deep down within us, if we could wreak havoc on someone that did us wrong or killed one of our loved ones, and get away with it, or have no one say anything untoward about us ~ we would.
    That’s why the law tempers vengeance.

    Cybele Moon says:
    Why is a governor allowed to veto a parole and what must his reasoning be according to law

    The Guv’nor is allowed to because in 1988, that legislation went through in California.
    I’ve long said it, in principle, I don’t think that’s intrinsically a bad thing. I think checks and balances are important and the state guv’nor has a certain responsibility for the safety of the people of their state.
    The guv of California is going to run into this problem again and again. They could simply cite the heinousness of the crime, as I would do with someone like Ed Kemper. But the perps in this case weren’t driven by something like deviant sexual pleasure fused with hatred of their mom. And as each guv’nor acknowledges, these perps {well, most of them} have almost spotless records over almost half a century, as well as well over 40 years of telling us about their regret and remorse, apologizing to the families numerous times, getting kicked back lots of times etc and they often commend the perps on the changes they’ve made in their lives. And that’s part of their problem. The only thing they have to stand on is their power to rescind.
    I’ll tell you what would be a really interesting conundrum; if none of the families of the victims came to any of the hearings of Beausoleil, Watson, Krenwinkel, Van Houten or Davis and there were no petitions of protest and the boards voted the way they have done for 4 of those 5, what would the Gav the guv do ? Would he block ?
    Incidentally, I don’t think it would be a good thing if the families didn’t lodge their objections, that was just for the purposes of my question.

  114. Fred Bloggs says:

    BirdieNumNum says:
    Certainly, a compelling argument can be made from a variety of perspectives

    I agree. I’ve never said that mine is the only argument in town. I just happen to argue my corner vociferously. For anyone that could be bothered to read ‘em, I’ve had big ones on these pages with those on the pro and anti brigade ~ and a whole lot more besides.

    Pam says:
    “California’s justice system has been speaking up for victim’s since 1969.”Fred, this isn’t accurate. The victim’s Rights Bill, which allowed for victim impact statement, passed in California in 1982. Doris Tate helped to get it passed. There was nothing in place from 1969-1982

    Dearest Pam, 😍 🥰 please try to understand a point I make before trying to tear it to shreds.
    So let me say this again for you. California has been speaking up for the victims of the Tate/LaBianca murders since 1969. Not one of the perps got away with the murders. You mention the victim’s rights bill and how there was nothing in place for the years 1969~1982. And how many of the killers walked free from jail prior to 1982 ?
    That’s right, none of them. Even though there was no victims rights bill. Why ? Because law enforcement made a point of coming out in opposition against any of the perps that were up for parole. And it’s a good thing too.
    Do you think that magically, it was the presence of the victim’s families that began to ensure these people weren’t released ? You really should take some time out to read the parole hearing transcripts that are on this site and pay close attention to what the representatives from the DA’s office have been saying all these years, going back to 1978. Parole isn’t only about the people applying for it and it never has been.
    There’s more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to stand up for victims of crime. Whatever I might think of Stephen Kay’s or Patrick Sequeira’s or Commissioner Anderson ‘s {he of the infamous 2010 Beausoleil hearing} specific performances in parole hearings, one thing is undeniable ¬> their actions stood up for the victims of these crimes ~ and a lot more besides.

    you asked me to provide one example of your support for these brutal killers. Please read your own statements that if PK continued to improve. you would support release in a “few years.”

    That is not saying “I support her parole.” I knew you’d take that as me being a Pat supporter, even though I’ve stated ad nauseum over many years that I am not, not in the slightest particular. I also knew you wouldn’t even bother with putting what I said into any kind of context. And believe me, “I am even more surprised than when Bobby Beausoleil was granted parole a few years back. I personally would not have paroled either of them and I believe in forgiveness and second chances. I also believe Pat has undergone some real deep seated changes.
    If she carried on in light of those changes and is still alive, I’d parole her when she hits 79 or 80”
    is packed to the gills with context.
    Incidentally, Stephen Kay was in broad support of LVH’s parole for a while, back there. He publicly stated that she’d be out by the time she was 40 ~ and he supported that.

  115. Fred Bloggs says:

    Pam says:
    I also remember a conversation(years ago) in which we were discussing CW’s religious conversion. You spoke about God’s forgiveness and that Watson might be genuine. Doris Tate- “He’s just using religion to get parole.” Fred, faith has nothing to do with release

    I remember the conversation well. You more or less called me a fool. 🤪
    Now, you tell me, when have I ever stated that faith has something to do with release ? I would never make such a statement because I don’t believe such a thing. In point of fact, I’ve frequently stated the very opposite. That if a person in prison becomes a Christian, they still have to take their lumps and that if they are serious about Christ, they are in fact freer than most people on the outside that aren’t interested in following Christ. Therefore, if they spend the rest of their earthly days in jail, so be it. It’s not the end of the story.
    Doris Tate was wrong about Watson just using religion to get parole ~ if she really did say that. As I have explained so many times in these debates ~ it simply does not work like that. It might have done in the 17 or 1800s ~ but not in the latter part of the 20th century or the 21st. Watson’s been in prison for almost 53 years and he’s been a Christian for 47 of those years. Again, it is largely ignorance of the wilful kind, to suppose that it is just a ruse to get parole. That line of thinking may have had some application in the 80s and 90s, closer to the time of his conversion. But not half a century later. Not least because, it has not worked if that was the intent and it isn’t working now.
    And furthermore, there is the fact that Watson is seen as someone that doesn’t think for himself and spends his life relying on some crutch or another. It has been pointed out by commentators and LE alike, that Charles Manson was his God, that he’s intrinsically religious and the clear implication there is that he’s just substituted one ‘god’ for another. So when he speaks of Christ and being saved, there’s this shadow of Charles Manson hanging over his words. It’s ironic in a way, and I daresay, God might feel some amusement at being conflated with Charlie, but the idea of using God as some sort of con to gain a passport out of jail is idiotic when one considers what has been happening since Watson’s first parole hearing in 1978. Even if that was Watson’s initial motivation.

    He should have found God when ST begged for the life of her baby

    I personally do not believe you are a Christian and therefore don’t really have the kind of God framed depth that would prevent you from making such a statement. So I’m not going to reply to that one. But know for a surety, I could.

    His finding God is absurd and self-serving

    One of the things I find most interesting about you in particular, is that you have a real issue with God and accepting God as God. You just can’t help yourself, few things get you riled up like the issue of God accepting someone penitent, regardless of what they’ve done prior to then.
    When a person is at the bottom of their life and have gone just about as low as it is possible to go, to say that finding God is absurd is in itself absurd. It’s also seriously minimizing and undermining God, for the almighty is the one that makes the first moves.
    As for it being self-serving, well, initially and at various points along the way, there’s something in that. But always be aware of, and keep in mind, the flip side of that ~ God is the one that makes the offer. Christ came for what he called “the lost.” The price for remaining lost is more terrible than any human being can imagine. So if someone decided that they no longer wanted to be lost and accepted the offer, whether there is an element of self-serving there initially, so what ? One soon discovers that actually, if you’re going to live your life with God in it, you’re going to be serving everyone else in one way or another, whether through thoughts, words or actions. Self service is the last thing you should be worrying about when it comes to Charles Watson and his relationship with God !

  116. Fred Bloggs says:

    happydaysarehereagain says:
    I like reading Pamalese, as you put it

    I don’t think you’ve grasped what I mean by ‘Pamalese’. Pamalese is not Pam stating her point of view. I welcome that, whether I happen to agree with the view or not. I don’t have a problem with someone having a different view to mine. That’s one of the main reasons for taking part in a public forum ~ you get lots of different views and ∴ some good discussions. I enjoy that.
    No, that’s not what Pamalese is. Pamalese is not cute, it’s a wilful ignoring and misrepresenting of a point that someone has made, in order to make your own point. It’s deliberately not making any attempt to understand a particular point being made.
    I personally don’t ask anyone to agree with what I say. It’s actually not for me to ask and it’s not for me to achieve. I have no power in someone else’s thought process.
    It’s quite significant that Pam addressed me personally {not for the first time, I might add}, to declare my happiness at the parole board’s decision. Even though I have none.

    No wonder she feels the way she does about you

    You’ll have to break that one down for me hdaha; I don’t know what you mean. 🤹🏿
    That said, she’s one of my favourite people in Cyberspace.

    Take a look at your own line: You’ve neglected to show the flip side of that statement. The killers received a lifetime of free legal representation, housing, medical, food, education, counseling and avoided the death penalty and have lived their lives, unlike their victims

    What are you talking about ?

    Maybe you should look at your own lines. Actually, let’s do that. Are you saying that it was preferable that they remained in the state they were in when they entered jail ? Better that they stayed as people with a penchant for killing, people who felt that Black people should be on the bottom rung of society, people who believed that a] it doesn’t matter who a child’s father is and b] parents shouldn’t raise their own children ? People that believed a woman’s place was merely to serve males and be available for sex every and any time the guy wanted it ? People that were totally unrepentant of their crimes ? These and a lot more besides were part of the mindset the perps entered prison with, not to mention an undying loyalty to Charles Manson and his visions. Would you prefer them to have been like Sandy Good, who purportedly referred to Sharon Tate’s unborn child as someone that would be just another effing burger muncher that would go on to pollute the planet ? Imagine being in prison for half a century and more, with that kind of attitude stewing and brewing….
    Counselling went a long way towards getting rid of that. When it happened, that is, because as we know, few things are consistent in jail. Courses start then stop. Programmes gain traction then disappear….

    Free housing ? If that wasn’t so ridiculous, it would actually be funny. Actually, to be fair to you, I do find that kind of funny ! Free housing ! Don’t forget to mention the free toilet facilities either !! No penny in the slot to open the door there ! What luxury ! You don’t even need to get up and walk a distance to a toilet and wait for someone else to use it like you would at home. Hey, your shit bucket is right next to you ! Stretch out an arm, grab it to you and be done ! At no extra cost !!

    Thank you California !

    Lived their lives ? Yeah, they’ve lived their lives and it has been so wonderful that every opportunity to get out of it, they’re taking it. It was not their doing that the death penalty was ruled at the time to be cruel and unusual punishment. Interestingly, Watson, Atkins, Van Houten and Krenwinkel were all either ready to die or acknowledged that they deserved to die. Leslie more or less says that her problems really began when it was ruled that she wouldn’t die because now she had to spend the rest of her life coming to terms with what she did. Pat said that she was happy to lie profusely in the trial because she genuinely believed the world was coming to an end anyway. Watson says that if anyone deserved the death penalty, it was him {“I don’t know why the death penalty was abolished in 1972. It doesn’t seem too cruel or unusual for what I did….if anyone deserved the death penalty, it was me”}. And Susan said something similar, that she knew in her heart that the death penalty was the right and proper sentence for her.

    Free food ? You really ought to speak to people that have been in prison and ask them about the slop and swill that regularly passes for ‘food’. Sometimes, it’s actually quite funny, though it isn’t. One guy I heard speak once, was telling of how in, I think it was the late 90s, they were eating “meat” that was part of the first gulf war issue ! That war was from 1991 !!

    Free education ? Well, they could hardly pay for it now, could they ? And let’s face it, if they were to take your brand of advice and stay in prison and be useful there, then that free education turns out to be quite a good investment. And if any of them should ever find themselves out of jail, it would be an even better investment that society has made.
    That they may be too old for it to do any good now doesn’t take away the reality that a perp with a possibility of parole somewhere down the line {especially if they went into jail in their 20s} is better educated than not, should they ever come out.
    Given that you seem to have issues with them receiving a free education, I take it, that to be consistent, you’re quite happy that Charles Manson kept refusing any education or chance to improve himself.

    You know, Stephen Kay didn’t respect any of the perps for the changes they went through. But he respected Charles Manson for remaining “just Charlie” as he put it.
    I’m glad he’s not God.

  117. Fred Bloggs says:

    happydaysarehereagain says:

    The People of California are the voice of the victims because the victims have no voice-they are dead

    Not entirely true. The victims being dead hasn’t prevented the perps from not walking free. And the reasons given when they were being denied parole took into account a number of things, including the victims.

    So in your world of “ifs and continuums” the killers become the victims…Are you intimating without saying specifically and unequivocally the victims are now the killers?….Just wondering how your ‘ifs’ work

    Well, it’s nuanced.
    There are many kinds of ‘victims’. It is easily possible for there to be a number of victims in a particular scenario, despite being on completely different sides of the conundrum. I don’t think Pat has been a victim as far as law enforcement goes. I don’t think she has been a victim where any of the families of the victims are concerned. It’s even debatable whether or not she was actually a victim where Charles Manson was concerned. I think she was something of a victim long before she met Manson and that goes back to her household.
    But if a parole board, whose job it is to determine suitability for release, grants a person parole 7 times or 4 times and the Guv’nor blocks it each time, then whether or not you like this, a case can justifiably be made that that perp is being victimized, especially, if the main reasons being given for the blockage can be shown to be demonstrably untrue.
    When it comes down to it, it’s actually those that perch themselves on the side of ‘right’ that are the ones that don’t make any distinction between ‘victims’ and use that word indiscriminately. Whatever someone like Leslie Van Houten or Bruce Davis might be victims of, if they are, it is not the same kind of victimhood that would apply to Shorty Shea or Rosemary LaBianca.
    Unless of course, they happen to get murdered.

    BirdieNumNum says:
    To Happy, Pam and Fred RE victim/killer role reversal

    Role reversal ? Who is talking about role reversal ?
    “Not I !” said the hen. 🐔

    DiMaria:“Under the current leadership of LA DA George Gascon, our loved ones have been stripped of their legal voice after Gascon’s sweeping mandates forbidding all representation from his office and/or any involvement with our families with regard to all Manson parole hearings”

    For the record, I’m totally against George Gascon in this. I think it is ludicrous to not have LE representation in the parole hearing of a murderer or a rapist or a child sexual abuser or a serial burglar. Now, in the case of the Family parole applicants, over the years I’ve found many of their {ie, LE}performances to be weak and embarrassing. But that’s another story for another time and has no bearing on whether or not they should be there. They most definitely should be there. Donna Lebowitz showed the value of having a deputy DA at these hearings in the few she did. She seemed to be someone that did their homework, and knew how to drop her bombs with devastating effect. She was skilled in tying the perps in their own knots and making sure the big, big questions as to their parole suitability were demonstrated for for the record.
    I don’t know what Anthony means there about forbidding involvement with the families of the victims regarding these parole hearings.

    “Violent killers are coddled, as the victims and our families are discarded like trash”

    It probably feels that way and it’s important to get all sides of the argument, so I can dig what he’s saying here. I’m not so sure I’d say violent killers were being coddled, though that may well be the case in some instances.
    But like many points that will be made about Pat or any of the murderers, this issue comes down to one point ¬> is she a violent killer now ? We know about then, but the issue is about now. Now, this doesn’t at all mean that because someone is no longer a violent killer, that they should be paroled. But it is an important question to answer and get around. Can a human being change ? I think so. It may not happen as often as we’d like with the criminal fraternity, but a human being is a human being. There are a number of ways we can go.

    “I remind the Commissioners that Patricia Krenwinkel is one of the most deplorable killers of the entire Manson family. She dealt more direct and fatal blows than Charles Manson”

    Ironically, we don’t actually know that. The ME in the Hinman case said that Manson’s blow there was potentially fatal and we don’t know which blows to Shorty were fatal or who struck the ones that were fatal. And then of course, there was Lotsapoppa……
    The worrying aspect of this particular line of reasoning is that it actually minimizes Charlie’s role in murders that quite simply would never have happened were it not for his input. It’s a bit like saying that Osama Bin Laden, because he didn’t actively kill anyone, shouldn’t really have been held as responsible for the deaths of the 911 victims as the hi-jackers.
    Life and criminality are a lot more complicated than that.
    Pat is a deplorable murderer, but again, throwing in numbers games and bringing in Charles Manson in, in the way he is brought in here, is that thing of trying to make someone look worse than they are.

    “Under California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation supervision, Patricia Krenwinkel and her cohorts have benefitted from doing numerous interviews with Diane Sawyer, Larry King, Rolling Stone magazine, writing books, etc, etc”

    Under California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation supervision, yes.
    But society in general has benefitted too. It may not be very pretty, but life often isn’t very pretty and if anything good can come of horror, then it should.

    “Patricia Krenwinkel produced her own documentary titled LIFE AFTER MANSON: THE UNTOLD STORY OF PATRICIA KRENWINKEL, available for purchase on Amazon and on its own website”

    It actually wasn’t a very good documentary. But its purpose was important for those to whom it was aimed. It’s ironic ~ it seems that there a quite a few people here and elsewhere that resent the fact that there was and is life after Manson for those that came into his orbit. Almost like there’s a reluctance to allow someone to escape the very thing that the person is constantly being held to and kicked and denigrated because of.

    ”The petitioner’s role as producer is irrefutable as the film’s director Olivia Klaus states Patricia Krenwinkel ‘approached me to capture her story.’”

    And ?
    If I was trying to make amends in some small way to the society I had so wronged, and I had genuinely gone through some deep seated changes, I might ask someone to write my story or do a documentary on me if they were interested.
    And without being churlish about it, let’s face it, a Pat Krenwinkel DVD is hardly going to be a global million seller.

    Years earlier LVH filed something with the court that she was a “political prisoner”

    Again, ironically, when LVH haters come out congratulating the Guv’nor on their blocking the recommendations, and a significant number of that ilk come out and state that no guv’nor will ever release a Manson killer, and that it’s OK with them, well, then you have strayed into the arena of political prisoners, especially when it can be shown that the reasoning behind the blockages is demonstrably untrue.
    One doesn’t have to be a supporter of the perp’s release to see that.

  118. Fred Bloggs says:

    happydaysarehereagain says:
    Regardless of what Fred thinks, one thing is for sure, other people- some of the convicted killers themselves (PK, LVH & SA [in the past]), their representatives, even some from the CDCR- indeed propose these murderers to be victims

    I’m not denying that.
    Many criminals have shown a penchant over the centuries to view themselves as victims of the LE systems that they are under.
    It doesn’t mean they are and neither does it mean every claim should be dismissed with a scoff and a cough.
    It’s hard to take things case by case. It’s time consuming. And one often is swimming against a much stronger opposing tide.
    However, it builds one’s judicial and intellectual muscles and brings a surprising clarity of vision and appreciation of nuance.

    Add Fred’s contention that the killers are being further victimized by blood relatives of their victims by speaking out of turn or from a “bridge” too far

    I wouldn’t describe it as victimization, not at all. I do not expect any of the victims’ relatives to speak in favour of the murderers of their kith and kin. I expect them to go and put forth their objections to the parole of the said perp. And I support them in that. Under the law, it is their right. I also support the right of the perp to apply for parole and to provide evidence of the changes they’ve gone through. Doesn’t mean they deserve it at that time or that they should get it.
    Suzan LaBerge {Rosemary LaBianca’s daughter} and Steve Grogan are forever feted to be the elephants in the room whenever this discussion happens, Suzan because she forgave a murderer of her Mum {and not only didn’t oppose his parole but actually spoke in favour of him being paroled ~ though I think she was wrong there} and Steve, because as a convicted Manson murderer that was paroled in ‘85 {much too soon, in my opinion}, he’s shown no criminal inclination in 37 years, and kept his nose clean.
    I’d actually go as far as saying that I don’t think it is intrinsically a bad thing if a parole recommendation is blocked by the guv’nor a couple of times, as long as their reasoning supports it. It’s a way of sorting out the sheep from the goats, so to speak. For example, we’ve seen in the Bobby Beausoleil case how someone can be recommended for parole, but because his underlying attitude was still faulty, it came back to haunt him and was exposed and subsequently the recommendation was followed by two denials. For me, that’s the checks and balances working.
    The interesting thing is that I never felt comfortable about Bobby Beausoleil and I was really surprised back in 2019 when he got a ‘yes’. I saw no particular changes from him in 2020 or last year’s hearings and yet, I still maintain that Debra Tate and Anthony DiMaria crossed lines that they shouldn’t have. You know, they didn’t need to. Call me an idealist if you will, but I want across the board fairness in matters. I’ve even stopped watching and getting into premier league football because it has become a slanted affair with the same money spinning clubs winning everything, rather than there being a level playing field.
    So yes, I think Debra and Anthony travelled a bridge too far ~ but victimizing the perps ? Naw.

    Looking froward to the transcript

    We also agree on that.
    I am curious as to what she said that has caused such a volte face from the board.

  119. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:

    not that I don’t believe conversion is possible

    A lot of people say that. But I challenge them as to whether they really believe that. You see, one thing that is front and centre for me as a Christian, is that all of these matters are real. It goes beyond any mental assent that I might give when it’s comfortable to do so. So I tend to argue on behalf of inmates that have become Christians because my life experience over the last 37 years has shown me that God can touch anyone, no matter how awful they are or have been. My life experience has also shown me that it’s a lifetime journey, with tons of errors {both wilful and unwitting} along the way. And that any believer has to give themselves wholeheartedly to God and trust where they’re being led. I also know that anyone can walk away from Christ at any point if they so desire. It’s daft to do it, but possible.

    I am thinking of Paul of Tarsus as an example of a divine and miraculous conversion

    I don’t think Saul’s conversion was any more miraculous than anyone else’s. It certainly wasn’t any more divine than anyone else’s. Though I wouldn’t, one could argue that it was actually less so than Charles Watson’s.
    Truth be told, the human heart per se is hard for God to penetrate and to bring about lifelong change that one consents to takes the kind of resourcefulness and skill that God possesses in droves.

    in Paul’s day, persecution (and/or execution) of Christians was acceptable I believe, according to the laws of that time. The Manson family went against all the laws of our time and operated only at the murderous whims of a dissolute, embittered, criminal, called Manson

    In Paul’s day, there was, believe it or not, a lot of Pamalese 🤩 going on, both verbal and mental. It may have been justified by certain quarters to kill those that found the truth and life answers and direction in Christ, but it certainly wasn’t part of the laws that Israel had been given.
    Paul, interestingly enough, describes ‘Pamalese’ as a veil that shuts down around the understanding of the people in Israel that were rejecting Christ at the time. A bit like with this case, some people could see that the law of Israel pointed to Christ {that is, pointed one particular way} while another set refused to see it.
    Sure, the Family went against the laws that were around at the time, but so did every criminal. So did many of the heroes of the period in the arts and other disciplines like medicine and business, and as it turns out, so did the president of the USA.

  120. Fred Bloggs says:

    Michael says:
    the spiritual conversion issue has always stuck in my craw. I have no problem believing CW and SA had a genuine conversion to Christianity, but the only relevance I see it having to a parole hearing is if they framed their conversions as influences that now guide their new way of thinking and being

    But Michael, that’s what they did and do. Even though it doesn’t get Watson anywhere {and did nothing for Susan Atkins}. In fact, I’d say it lessens his chances rather than increases them, because faith in Christ is intangible to a parole board that wants to see you’ve attended counselling, been part of AA or NA and other tangible things they can see, feel, understand, grasp and have valid opinions on.

    For example, if Susan had said, “I am now a Christian, which has changed my way of viewing and living my life,” I’m good with that. (And by the way, I really do appreciate many of the good works both she and Watson have done in the aftermath of their conversions)

    She did say that. She didn’t always put it very well, but she consistently said words to that effect.

    But if she were to have said, “I am now a Christian, therefore you should view my conversion as a reason to release me” I would say forget it

    And so you should. I would too.
    Being a Christian, in and of itself is no reason to release a murderer back into society. What it acts as is an indication of a wider change. But as I keep on stating, in relation to something like parole, it is but one of many factors, over a large number of years. Some murderers or rapists or paedophiles that become Christians are going to die in jail. That doesn’t invalidate their lives or God’s work in them.
    If I owe the IRS $2000.00 dollars, they certainly will not forgive that debt if I write them and tell them I just found Jesus, so my debt should be forgiven

    True. Being in Christ brings forgiveness from God, not society.

    If I understand Christianity correctly, a conversion experience is about having your sins forgiven by God, not the government or society, and I think no matter how much an individual may regret what he’s done, he still has to face the consequences of his actions, forgiven or not

    Absolutely to the latter part.
    I will add though, that a conversion experience is a heck of a lot more than just having one’s sins forgiven. That’s part of the process, the 2nd part, actually, and it’s important for the person up to a point, but there’s more to it than that. Once those sins are forgiven, what then ?
    It’s about a transformed life and that life is a continuum. Without God’s direct and constant action, it ain’t happening. That’s what most people completely overlook when they rag on Charles Watson in regard to his faith in God. Faith is essentially trust, but the follower of Christ has their part to play, too. And if you’re in jail for murder or unemployed or have had 5 kids with 4 different women or men or are bringing up children or are a schoolteacher or have had your house repossessed or whatever situation one finds oneself in, you still have to live out your life, knowing that your relationship with God gets stronger, more intimate, more honest and real etc and when you eventually pop your clogs and head to the great beyond, that life with God that began here, merely continues.

  121. Fred Bloggs says:

    Billy Esquire says:
    you possess higher levels of thinking (than most), and the way you’re then able to write out your detailed thoughts is really impressive, and rather rare

    Thanks Billy. In truth though, I don’t think I do possess higher levels of thinking. It’s just that, I try to take into account all sides of an argument. It’s not easy but sometimes it’s beneficial to see someone else’s view and try to understand it and represent it as though it were my own and I truly believe it.

  122. Fred Bloggs says:

    happydaysarehereagain says:
    Either stand by your statements and all they imply or hide behind your reason for saying them

    I don’t hide.
    I stand by my statements. If I’ve changed my mind about any of them or modified them, I say so.
    What they imply is something you’ll have to point out because I know what they might imply from my point of view, but I can’t from yours because I am not your thought process. So please specify.

    You cannot have it both ways

    If I knew the two ways you were saying I want it, I might be able to tell you if I can have it those two ways. Please specify.

    For a Christian you certainly like to toss judgement upon the “echo” chamber

    There is no conflict between being a Christian and making judgements.
    The echo chamber; I don’t know what you’re going on about here. I said I like the echo chamber sometimes, but I prefer the chamber with a diversity of views and opinions. You seem to see a problem in this. I can’t work out what. Please specify.

    I don’t need to know ‘where you’re coming from’ to understand what you post

    In some instances, that’s true. But in many other instances, you absolutely do, otherwise you can’t understand what’s being said and therefore have no recourse to respond to it.
    You might have noticed that I’ve asked you to specify something for me three times. That’s because I don’t know what you mean and I want to, so that I can decide whether to respond.

    And by the way, you never answered the question I posed to you. Or Birdie, or Pam

    You mean I didn’t answer it straight away !
    I do have a life you know. I don’t spend my existence sitting at the computer waiting for someone to say something so I can say something back.
    What did Birdie and Pam ask me that I didn’t answer ? Please specify.

    the Helter Skelter motive (as proven in court, but I have doubts as to that being the sole motive)

    It was never presented as the sole motive. The prosecution presented 3 motives for Manson and one for the women. And it’s important to understand that the prosecution did not have to provide any motive.

  123. Fred Bloggs says:

    happydaysarehereagain says:
    Didn’t LVH’s lawyer make the statement that Leslie killed no one–on this very board? Yes, he did

    And didn’t I point out to him that that was not true and that I disagreed with him and pointed out why ?
    I have been pointing out since around 2016 why her guilt is not merely legal.

    the system allows the defense to throw shit to the wall and see what sticks. That’s dishonest

    It works both ways, mate. The DA’s office has had more than their share of fun at parole hearings in stating stuff that is factually and demonstrably untrue. And never getting censured for it. That doesn’t make what the defence lawyers do right, but let’s not pretend it is one way traffic. The justice system is an adverserial one and both sides abandon the Queensberry rules and go bare knuckle, eyeball to eyeball, toe to toe.
    That means bruises.
    I’ve just recently done jury service. It was better than television !

  124. happydaysarehereagain says:

    Fred
    You certainly like to apply lengthy, selective psychoanalysis techniques, and when prompted, you can be quite reflective in a passive aggressive way. Not that I’m judging you, just calling it as I see it. You know, those ‘ifs’ can be appealing to someone who enjoys hearing themselves talk. I bet you’re a great poker player. 99% bull crap and 1% luck.

    I simply do not feel the need to explain my posts as they are clear cut. Yours could use specific clarity, 140 characters or less would be lovely! For someone who has a life, you’ve spent quite a bit of yours on this board, since 2016 was it? One would think you’ve nothing left to say on the Manson subject since you’ve no doubt said it all, even reference it to others as a sort of board cred. Sorta sad I must say.

    Anyway Fred, you do you. I’ll be me.

  125. BirdieNumNum says:

    HappyDays,

    Probably the most articulate and exacting response to Fred we’ve seen RE this chain…

    I don’t know much about his posts, and I certainly respect all opinions on this site-

    but what baffles, is why do these murders generate so much involvement and interest when there’s there’s little or no direct connection amongst us in the general public?

  126. Cybele Moon says:

    Fred, I respect your opinions but “Pamalese” does sound a bit belittling. We can all agree or disagree on certain points and put our opinions forth eloquent or harsh.

    Some posts are a bit insulting.

    It doesn’t matter if we are Christians or Buddhists or Sikhs or Wiccans. Justice is a concept and not perfect, but guided by the laws of the time. I think Roman law was in effect at the time of Paul of Tarsus. Subversives were severly punished. At one time homosexuality was a crime and carried a severe penalty. Punishments and laws also change. The youngest person ever hung in England was nine years old- horrifying to us today and yet we can try children as adults.
    No matter what the worst of murderers do to rehabilitate, much of society will still not forgive and forget and/or revile them on some level. Humans are not angels. Heaven, redemption, God, are beyond and above this world.
    Not sure if any of this makes sense. I might regret it but oh well, I’m pressing the post button.

    Michael did you get an answer on Lawrence?

  127. GarysCMH says:

    Many people, LVH included, are misusing the notion of political imprisonment. A political prisoner is one who is detained because of their political beliefs or activities.

    LVH is living in confinement because she killed people, not because of whatever she happens to believe in a political sense.

    It is true that a politician is primarily responsible for the continued incarceration of these Manson people. This is also true for many other prisoners out there – lots of paroles are reversed each year in CA & the many other states with similar laws in place. This does not make her a political prisoner though. In a representative governmental system like the U.S., the politicians are representing the people they serve as they make decisions such as this.

  128. GarysCMH says:

    For those seeking a bit more information on Lawrence, this Sanford Law page provides a very brief summary and the text of the full opinion itself: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-lawrence-33123

    If that is a bit more detail than you are seeking, this summary overview from the CA Law Review should serve as a good layman-level grounding. This summary also offers an idea of just how many parole grantings tend to be reversed (it’s pretty surprising): https://www.californialawreview.org/print/b-in-re-lawrence-preserving-the-possibility-of-parole-for-california-prisoners/

    If links are not allowed here, please delete or let me know and I will do so myself.

  129. Gary.CMH says:

    Apologies for the second post on Lawrence, but the question reading this material leaves me with is: has someone like LVH sought judicial review of the recent series of reversals (or one of them) and, if so, what was the judicial call? Thinking someone here might have insight on this, so it seemed worth the extra post.

    If you have not checked out either of the above links, while the Guv has the power of reversal, these decisions are subject to judicial review – meaning that there is an additional level of “checks & balances” here that I have not seen discussed much in the past. One would imagine that someone like LVH would have taken advantage of this opportunity at least once – very possibly after her very first reversal. If so, there must be some kind of documentation or reporting on this effort, I’d think. The only recent LVH-related judicial challenge I can recall from the past handful of years was from her efforts to have the “Tex Tapes” vetted and considered as part of one of her parole bids. This effort fell to defeat.

    If anyone has an idea on this, or knows of how one might research, this might be interesting.

  130. Cybele Moon says:

    Gary, thanks for that info re Lawrence.
    Yes I think the supreme court upheld LVH’s petition challenging the Governor’s decision 2-1, one time. The transcript is on this site somewhere.

  131. Pam says:

    Thanks Cybele,
    First, I don’t oppose parole in some murders. But the Manson murders were so heinous, brutal and senseless that they cry out for greater punishment: life without parole. This should have been the sentence. The parole hearings are painful to the families and expensive. I agree with Patti Tate when she said they got their parole when they we’re spared the death penalty. We have fed them, housed them, educated them and met all their needs. We don’t owe them anything.

  132. Matthew says:

    I guess the problem that I have always had with Pat is that she slaughtered Abigail and when she got back to the ranch, she expressed sadness for what they had done and how young they were. Nonetheless, she suited up and did it again the next night with a vengeance. stabbing, carving and writing on the walls. She showed remorse but did it again anyway, so she may still be a danger. Not sure what kind of danger an old lady can get into but who knows?

  133. Joseph Racioppi says:

    She chased Abigal Folger across the lawn to her death; the next day, apparently unfazed by the horror or the Tate massacres, she decided it was a good idea to go along AGAIN, the very next day, and took an active role in stabbing the Labiancas to death. No effin way she should be released. The fact that the death penalty did not convert to life without parole shows you how fucked up California is!
    This is not difficult.

  134. GarysCMH says:

    “the Manson murders were so heinous . . . that they cry out for greater punishment: life without parole. This should have been the sentence.”

    This would have almost certainly been the sentence, had it been an option back when the death penalty was rescinded. But it was not, so they got the most harsh punishment available at the time – life “with”.

    But we get the pretty regular entertainment of these hearings and discussions, so there is that;)

  135. GarysCMH says:

    I wish there were an “edit comment” option possible here; I’d have added this response to my post above. At any rate . . .

    “she expressed sadness for what they had done and how young they were”

    We’ve not been told that Krenwinkel expressed sadness that next day when speaking to LVH. All Leslie shared is that Pat indicated the victims were “so young” and that “it felt wrong”.

    In fairness, I think we must add to this comment of hers the second comment she shared with LVH after the LaBianca slaughter. At some point, Pat found herself looking over family portraits of the LaBianca family that were hanging on one of the walls, and she noted that there were kids involved in this family unit. This, she told Leslie, is why she carved “war” in Leno’s stomach – “at least you’ll never send your kids off to war” she described her thinking in that moment, or words to that effect.

    Much later, Watson claimed responsibility for the “war” message but I do not believe him. He also stated that he alone stabbed & killed Tate, when the physical evidence reveals that two knives were involved in that murder. Tex was taking credit for most everything by the time he got around to helping to create that first book.

    The Krenwinkel “war” comment was issued to a co-murderer hours after the crime and there is no reason to doubt this. Part of the “witchy” role these girls were asked to take in this whole mess. Balance “war” with the “young” comments, toss in what we do know about how many years it took Krenwinkel to truly break from Manson, and I think we have a decent enough outsider picture of who this woman was/is. No doubt she is one thousand times sorry now as an old woman, but honestly she can rot.

  136. Terry says:

    The rumor that has recently been making the rounds on some other Manson-related websites is that Patricia has cancer. As far as I can tell, this rumor has no basis in cited fact re: any specific information provided as to how this speculation is being made. Has anyone else heard anything along these lines? It may well be just baseless conjecture spun up out of nothing.

  137. Michael says:

    Haven’t heard that one, Terry. I would think that would have come up in her recent hearing, if for no other reason than to try for the “compassionate release” concept, as Susan did.

  138. Lauren G says:

    I read half of the posted blogs here, will continue with them tonight.
    In August of 1969, I turned 15 years old. Everyday, I followed the Manson La Bianca cases daily since up to today. Now I will 68 in a couple of weeks.
    Those murders impacted me a great deal! Led me to read Helter Skelter by prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi and The Family by Ed Sanders. Later magazine articles, blogs, TV special and on and on. Socially I felt impacted by it all. A beautiful young actress, Sharon Tate, brutally murdered and her 8 month old baby as well. Steven Parent, a victim of circumstance, being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Attempting to sell a radio. Abigail Folger, coffee heiress, Jay Sebring, up and coming hairstylist to the stars. Jay Frykowski, chase and killed in the yard. What is my point?
    Laws are becoming too lax on murderers. Killers under the age of eighteen are getting breaks because of juvenile status. Many homocide perpetrators are getting off in 20 years. I realize overcrowding in prisons are a factor. Time off for good behavior. Opportunity to receive a law degree that the general population cannot afford to finance.
    I will get straight to the point, NONE OF THE MANSON MURDERERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED BACK INTO SOCIETY. NOT ATKINS OR PATRICIA K. It gives a message that murder is no big deal. Our society is becoming numb to crime. It is rampant! Everyone else is giving their opinion, SO HERE’s MINE. KEEP THEM LOCKED UP.

  139. GarysCMH says:

    “The rumor that has recently been making the rounds on some other Manson-related websites is that Patricia has cancer.”

    Yeah, I saw this back when it was first posted. It was one random dude claiming that she was cancerous and in rapidly-declining health, and it made the rounds. This was a couple of years ago, and literally that ONE comment is the only “source” of any such thing.

    If something is up, it will be mentioned in the parole hearing transcript but yeah – this one does fall into that “don’t believe everything you read on the internet” bucket.

  140. Matthew says:

    Atkins will definitely not get out since she is dead.

  141. Terry says:

    Thanks, GarysCMH re: cancer rumor. I was hesitant to even bring it up, because I didn’t want to perpetuate anything even by merely asking about it in an open forum. I had suspected it WAS something sprung up out of nothing by someone who wasn’t anyone in terms of being someone who actually knew something. I feel silly now for even having mentioned it, but you read something and wonder “well, maybe it IS true and not just baseless baloney”. And I figured, based on the comments I read specifically on this site, that in general terms those who comment here take a serious-minded approach to all the tangents of the Tate murders, so if there WAS any truth to the cancer rumor someone here might know about it. Thanks,
    again.

  142. Fred Bloggs says:

    happydaysarehereagain says:
    You certainly like to apply lengthy, selective psychoanalysis techniques

    A friend of mine used to have an interesting saying, namely, “speech is self-revealing.” I agree with him. It is often what we say that reveals who we are and what’s going on within us and what we might be thinking. There are other things too, such as what we do, but if one is in the situation where you can’t really meet the people one is communicating with, then all you have is what they say and the cumulative build up of your interaction with them. It’s not rocket science. It’s something that all human beings do at some level.

    and when prompted, you can be quite reflective

    I think before I speak and before I write something, I like to chew it over in my mind. It’s nothing unique.

    in a passive aggressive way

    I don’t need to be passive aggressive. If I don’t agree with you, I’ll tell you and I’ll tell you why. I openly admit to being sarcastic at times {it’s a form of humour, in my view}. I do notice though, that many people in cyberspace simply can’t deal with someone that is not aggressive or insulting and so they come out with the old “you are passive~aggressive” chestnut.
    I’m afraid it simply doesn’t work with me.

    Not that I’m judging you, just calling it as I see it

    Er, yes you are judging me.
    However, I don’t have a problem with you judging me because as one human being to another, I see nothing wrong in making judgements. We’re called on to make judgements all the time. Sometimes we get them wrong and sometimes we get them right. Judging with condemnation, that’s where things go wrong, not making judgements per se.

    You know, those ‘ifs’ can be appealing to someone who enjoys hearing themselves talk

    I have no reason to not enjoy hearing myself talk. You throw that in in the hope that I’ll get all defensive. Don’t be too disappointed ~ I enjoy what I write. I enjoy much of what others write too, whether I agree with particular statements or not.

  143. Fred Bloggs says:

    happydaysarehereagain says:
    I bet you’re a great poker player. 99% bull crap and 1% luck

    I haven’t played poker since early 1977 when I was 13.
    And by the way, 99% bullcrap is actually a show of great nerve, courage and skill and says a lot about the folks that are taken in by it. I don’t believe in luck.
    Nice try, but…..

    I simply do not feel the need to explain my posts as they are clear cut

    Of all the things you have ever said on these pages, nothing sums you up better than that.
    You don’t feel the need to explain your posts. Fair enough, but what if someone would like you to explain them ? You say they are clear-cut. Well, you wrote them, so they would be to you. But what if they are not clear-cut to someone else that would like clarification ?
    You like to throw about the old “passive aggressive” bit, but in reality, you hide between wanting it all ways. On the one hand, you chuck out jibes about how I psychoanalyse, yet in the same breath state how you won’t clarify statements that you were asked to clarify….the very thing that just might stop what you refer to as the psychoanalysis.
    And for the record, when I said I didn’t know what you meant, in those areas I asked for clarification, I meant it. To say you won’t explain when asked for an explanation is pretty weak sauce, as an old adversary of mine used to say.

    Yours could use specific clarity, 140 characters or less would be lovely!

    Well, fire away. If you need clarification on anything, I’m not opposed to giving it.
    140 characters, by the way, is a mechanism for many people that don’t like depth in discussion, that just want to drop bombs.
    Those 2 sentences are more than 140 characters !

    For someone who has a life, you’ve spent quite a bit of yours on this board, since 2016 was it?

    Not the wisest thing you’ve ever written, I’m afraid.
    I enjoy discussions. I enjoy writing. These discussions on this board come up a few times per year. Are you really going to try and be clever about the fact that I’ve contributed to it from time to time and that that contribution obviously takes time ? I mean, are you really ?

    One would think you’ve nothing left to say on the Manson subject since you’ve no doubt said it all

    That depends on who the “one” is, that you refer to. It’s a far and wide ranging subject and life is a continuum, not fixed permanently in a time and space 50+ years ago.

    even reference it to others as a sort of board cred

    Wow, you were sharp on this day. Hope you didn’t cut yourself.
    Board cred ? Actually, it’s consistency. Different people come into the conversation at different points and sometimes, I’ll point to where I’ve already made a point, especially when someone is saying I’m saying something that I’m not.

    Sorta sad I must say.

    Even if it were the case, it wouldn’t be sad.

    Anyway Fred, you do you. I’ll be me

    At least neither of us is going to do Napoleon !!
    There again….

  144. Fred Bloggs says:

    BirdieNumNum says:
    what baffles, is why do these murders generate so much involvement and interest when there’s there’s little or no direct connection amongst us in the general public?

    That’s a question that contains its own reply. I mean, why do you get involved and why do you have an interest ? And come to think of it, how many things that are of interest in a person’s life have a direct connection to that person ?
    That said, the overall Manson saga touches on so many different areas that, while they may not have any kind of direct connection, certainly do have connections. The saga threads through violence, redemption, education, upbringing, racism, law enforcement, entertainment, class, sex, societal change, environmentalism, sexism, prison, runaways, the music industry, freedom, nature vs nurture, murder, drugs, mental illness, religion, deception, politics and so much more. And because of the myriad areas that these touch, they inflame passion and run pretty deep and bring out in many of us many thoughts and feelings that won’t necessarily find their expression in the same way in general life.

    Cybele Moon says:

    I respect your opinions but “Pamalese” does sound a bit belittling

    It’s not everyone that gets a language or concept named after them !
    But is it really belittling ?
    I have frequently found that because what I write is not a verbatim parroting of her views, Pam has tendency to not pay attention to what I am saying. And she goes on to make statements based on this, hence, Pamalese. It’s not belittling at all. In fact, it’s not something I’d even think of if it didn’t rear its head so frequently.
    The reality here, Cybele, is that all I have done is given a name to something that happens. Go here and watch how Pam accuses me of making excuses for LVH. If you can find one excuse I make for her, I’ll retract everything I’ve said.
    But what will actually happen is that you will see Pamalese in action and if it is belittling, perhaps you should be asking which is worse ~ the action that gives rise to the name or the name itself ?

    Some posts are a bit insulting

    Such as ?
    We went through this in the thread about LVH being granted parole back in November of last year.
    As I’ve said often enough, insulting is not my style. That doesn’t mean that I won’t point some things out to some people and it doesn’t mean that people won’t feel insulted. But that’s got nothing to do with me because anyone can feel insulted by anything.
    If I gave the name “Cybeleine” to posters that I thought were fair and balanced, or said that you speak Cybeleine, that wouldn’t be an insult or belittling. Yet it would be no different in principle, to the notion of “Pamalese.”

  145. Fred Bloggs says:

    Cybele Moon says:
    It doesn’t matter if we are Christians or Buddhists or Sikhs or Wiccans. Justice is a concept and not perfect, but guided by the laws of the time

    If you were a woman in certain countries and you made love with a married guy that was someone else’s husband, justice to the majority would be your stoning to death.
    If you were in certain parts of the world and you were starving and you stole a loaf of bread that was past its “best before” date, justice to many of those people would be your hand[s] being cut off.
    There were times when black men were lynched for talking to white women. That was the justice of the people in that place at that time.
    If justice is a concept that is not perfect and is merely guided by the laws of the time, then ultimately, what you’re saying is that everything is pretty much up for grabs by those prepared to shout the loudest. Even when they are wrong. I’m not going to speak for Buddhists, Sikhs or Wiccans, but as a Christian, I cannot say it doesn’t matter because the way I have to operate carries with it an implicit belief that God is going to hold me accountable for the way I’ve operated during my life. Therefore, it’s God that I’m going to get my concept of justice from, not the swaying vagaries of myself and the rest of the human race.

    I think Roman law was in effect at the time of Paul of Tarsus. Subversives were severly punished

    Yes, but as the Acts of the Apostles tells us, in Rome, there were certain things that the Romans saw as being Jewish matters that they didn’t want to get involved in. That’s partly how Paul ended up in Rome.

    No matter what the worst of murderers do to rehabilitate, much of society will still not forgive and forget and/or revile them on some level

    I made a similar point earlier.
    I suspect that much of society doesn’t really care when prisoners truly change their minds and their ways, even over 50 years or or mean it when they commend the prisoners for doing such.

    Humans are not angels.

    It wouldn’t matter if we were. Satan was an angel ! ⅓ of the angels rebelled against God ~ and we’re told they were without number !
    Angels ain’t that great.

    Heaven, redemption, God, are beyond and above this world

    Actually, they are not. They are very much part of this world for those that wish to tailor their lives accordingly. Heaven, and in particular, redemption and God aren’t just abstract thoughts or private things to millions of people. They are the wheels upon which their lives turn, the reason they act the way they do and the single most important factor in providing hope, as well as dealing rigorously with one’s own shortcomings. It’s easy to keep God at a distance and then say “where is God ?”, but God couldn’t be closer to this world.

  146. Fred Bloggs says:

    GarysCMH says:
    Many people, LVH included, are misusing the notion of political imprisonment. A political prisoner is one who is detained because of their political beliefs or activities

    Actually, that’s only partly true. There is no one definition of ‘political prisoner’ to which all parts of the world ascribe. There are actually a number of definitions that are accepted by various governments and bodies, one of which is ”if, for political motives, he or she is detained in a discriminatory manner as compared to other persons”………a case could be made that this applies to LVH. I could easily, robustly and persuasively argue it either way.

    LVH is living in confinement because she killed people, not because of whatever she happens to believe in a political sense

    Well yeah. But you’re conflating two separate issues here. No one is saying she shouldn’t be living in confinement or that she’s there because Gav the guv {and Jerry B before him} has become Vladimir Putin.

    In a representative governmental system like the U.S., the politicians are representing the people they serve as they make decisions such as this

    Agreed, that they’re supposed to be.
    Would you say the same thing if Gav the guv actually shocked us all and rubber stamped the board’s decision ?

    Pam says:
    First, I don’t oppose parole in some murders

    This is interesting.
    Genuine question to you {as all my questions usually are}; what qualifies a murderer for parole in your eyes ?

    But the Manson murders were so heinous, brutal and senseless that they cry out for greater punishment

    What, for you, is the worst aspect of a murder, then ? Is it the methodology of the murder, or is it the fact of taking away someone’s life ? Because in either instance, the net result is exactly the same ~ a life is taken and the victim is not coming back.
    I’m genuinely curious as to how you process this and your reasons for being in favour of parole for some murderers.

    life without parole. This should have been the sentence

    I absolutely agree with you on this. It probably would have been that in 1972 when the Cali supreme court ruled the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment ~ had such an option existed at the time. I reckon it would be the sentence if it was happening today.
    But I can fathom why LWOP didn’t exist at the time ~ death was thought to be the ultimate sentence, the end of the matter. Parole seemed to take into account that prisoners can change and need something hopeful to aim at and an LWOP is neither the first nor the second.

    We have fed them, housed them, educated them and met all their needs

    Not that they asked for any of this……
    And when you talk of things like educating them, that’s because people within the system fought on behalf of prisoners, not because people such as yourself were in favour of such.

    We don’t owe them anything

    I agree. But the state owes them something: fairness under the law. The perps don’t make the laws, but we shouldn’t cry when the perps utilize the law that is there for them to utilize. Not if we’re law abiding.

  147. Fred Bloggs says:

    Matthew says:
    she may still be a danger. Not sure what kind of danger an old lady can get into but who knows?

    An old lady can get into all kinds of danger. She could allow her home to be a place where a cook can cook meth. She could procure girls and women for prostitution. She could do all kinds of seedy and dodgy things that don’t have to involve violence.
    Parole is always a gamble. Regardless of what a perp says, there’s only one way to really determine if someone is rehabilitated in the true sense of the word. Rehabilitation doesn’t mean perfection.

    She showed remorse but did it again anyway

    Yeah, but this is so nuanced that we’d be going for another 70 comments if we started in on this one.

    GarysCMH says:
    We’ve not been told that Krenwinkel expressed sadness that next day when speaking to LVH. All Leslie shared is that Pat indicated the victims were “so young” and that “it felt wrong”

    Back in December ‘69, Leslie told her lawyer, in private ”I asked Katie, and she told me. She said that they had murdered five people; that they didn’t know there were going to be that many at the house; and they didn’t know who the people were; and there were a whole lot of them. And it happened so quick, and it was a horrible thing. You know, she was shaken up by it.”
    I guess individuals can make up their own minds as to whether or not that indicates sadness or something similar.
    I think the fact that Pat was so shaken up was instrumental in Leslie’s decision to want to go and kill because her friend had done so as something she saw as necessary to their cause as opposed to something she just willy-nilly decided to go and do one day.

    In fairness, I think we must add to this comment of hers the second comment she shared with LVH after the LaBianca slaughter. At some point, Pat found herself looking over family portraits of the LaBianca family that were hanging on one of the walls, and she noted that there were kids involved in this family unit. This, she told Leslie, is why she carved “war” in Leno’s stomach – “at least you’ll never send your kids off to war” she described her thinking in that moment, or words to that effect

    This actually came from the penalty phase of the trial when the female defendants were lying their blaggers off, placing themselves and others at murders they were not at and trying to absolve Manson.

  148. Fred Bloggs says:

    GarysCMH says:
    Much later, Watson claimed responsibility for the “war” message but I do not believe him

    I guess it comes down to whether or not one believes him, but I do believe him. Again, back in early Dec ‘69, before she ever went before the grand jury, and over a year before Pat’s statement quoted above, Susan Atkins told her lawyer, in private, that Watson had been the one to carve ‘WAR’. This is a fascinating part of the conversation:
    SUSAN ATKINS: She said she just saw it and she flashed who, that will scare somebody and she picked the fork up and went over and left the fork in the man’s stomach. She said she reached over at it, took it, hit it and just sat and watched; she watched it wobble and said she was fascinated by it. She said Tex had carved “Pig” in the man’s chest.
    RICHARD CABALLERO: Did she say that she actually saw “Pig” or did she say that she saw some writing on the man’s chest?
    SA: She said “pig”, I believe.
    RC: Could it have been another three letter word?
    SA: It could have been.
    RC: Does the word “war” have any significance to you?
    SA: Yes, it does.
    RC: Tell me what it has for you?
    SA: That’s what Katie said.
    RC: Why did you say “pig” a few minutes ago?
    SA: Because “pig” is instilled in my mind from what I wrote on Sharon’s door.
    RC: Suppose I had just made up the word “war”, would that change your mind?
    SA: No.
    RC: Why wouldn’t it?
    SA: Because Katie, when Katie told me I flashed and said wow, pretty far out.
    RC: Why? Tell me what you thought about it.
    SA: Why I thought it was pretty far out?
    RC: Yes, if it really was “war”.
    SA: The thought behind it, I don’t think I really had a thought behind it at that particular time, but I believe, I logically believed I thought Katie said the word “pig” but now that you say the word “war” was carved in the man’s…
    RC: I didn’t say that. I said if it had
    SA: Well, if it had. That’s what was written on the man’s chest.
    RC: Now, if I tell you I don’t know what the word was, what would you say? What word would you say was on his chest?
    SA: War. And then she said they just
    RC: Did she tell you why she wrote “war”?
    SA: She didn’t do it.
    RC: Oh, did she tell you why Tex did it?
    SA: No.
    PAUL CARUSO: Tex did it on the chest, then.
    SA: At least when we do things together, we never ask each other why. We just accept it if that’s what you’ve done.
    RC: I appreciate that. Now let me ask you do you remember what you were told?
    SA: I believe and I feel and I can see her sitting and talking to her saying “Tex carved the word ‘war’” on his chest.
    PC: With what?
    SA: She didn’t say with what.
    RC: Did you, in the conversation as you recollect it, do you know if it was…do you have a picture of a spreading of blood or of a carving into the body? What? Something just written on him, scratched into him or carved into him – that’s what I want to know.
    SA: She said “carved”.

    He also stated that he alone stabbed & killed Tate, when the physical evidence reveals that two knives were involved in that murder

    Two knives involved in the murder doesn’t necessarily mean two perps. Pat clearly handled two knives that first night.

    Tex was taking credit for most everything by the time he got around to helping to create that first book

    Oh, long before that. But how it happens is curious. In his trial, he denies doing anything to Sharon Tate when his lawyer asks him about it, but by the time Bugliosi questions him, he admits it.

    The Krenwinkel “war” comment was issued to a co-murderer hours after the crime and there is no reason to doubt this

    I think there’s plenty of reason to doubt this. Watson later went on to say that because the women admitted to certain things they hadn’t done, he wasn’t going to contradict them when his trial came up. Remember, he didn’t want to die in the gas chamber ! Hence his playing ‘insane’ and putting the hat on the women. He kind of figured that as they’d already clothed themselves in responsibility in their attempts to absolve Manson, who was he to spill the beans and spoil his chances !

    toss in what we do know about how many years it took Krenwinkel to truly break from Manson, and I think we have a decent enough outsider picture of who this woman was/is

    That of course overlooks the reality that she did break away from him. That it took up to ‘78 isn’t really that important. That it’s 44 years since she was openly and definitively denouncing him is.

    No doubt she is one thousand times sorry now as an old woman, but honestly she can rot

    That is the fate that awaits us all at some point.

  149. Fred Bloggs says:

    Terry says:
    The rumor that has recently been making the rounds on some other Manson-related websites is that Patricia has cancer….Has anyone else heard anything along these lines?

    I’ve not heard she has cancer but I’ve heard a few people asking if she has cancer because they’ve heard the rumour.

    Michael says:
    I would think that would have come up in her recent hearing, if for no other reason than to try for the “compassionate release” concept, as Susan did

    It’s never done Bobby or Bruce any good ! 😁

    Lauren G says:
    It gives a message that murder is no big deal

    That might be true if they had been incarcerated for 10, 15, 20 years. But 50+ ?
    But here’s a reality ~ to a lot of people that kill, murder is no big deal. Having the death penalty has never eradicated murder.

    Our society is becoming numb to crime

    And yet, you have death penalties and LWOPs.

  150. Pam says:

    Hi Fred,
    Hope all is well. I would limit parole considerations to those that are less likely to repeat murder. People who kill in domestic violent situations, incest victims, abused children murdering their attackers. I would NEVER have convicted Ellie Nesler of manslaughter after she killed her son’s rapist. Very young children should also be considered. Linda Kasabian is interesting, Debra Tate believed she should have received the same sentence. I don’t agree with this. I think she was different from PK, SA, LVH and CW. She stood up to Manson and told him she couldn’t kill.

  151. Pam says:

    Forgot to add, LK was technically guilty of the Tate murders and conspiracy in the second murders. I would’ve considered her for parole because of the lack of physical contact with all the victims. I think her involvement was limited.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.