Read the Story-
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-krenwinkel-parole-20161229-story.html
Friday, December 30, 2016
Krenwinkel Parole Decision Postponed
Read the Story-
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-krenwinkel-parole-20161229-story.html
ReplyDeleteFrom the link:
"...Commissioner Susan Melanson said the barbarity of the crimes — coupled with Krenwinkel’s failure to fully grasp the global effects of the Manson killings — warranted more time behind bars.
“This crime remains relevant,” Melanson said. “The public is in fear. ..."
World's most scary senior citizen, apparently. (They have obviously never heard of George H.W. Bush)
Global Effects? Seriously?
LET MY PEOPLE GO!
ReplyDeleteI am shocked that 47 years down the road Krenny is now claiming what amounts to battered wife syndrome. That defense has been around for years for women who killed their husbands but claiming this to justify killing others??? WTF?
ReplyDeleteDeb, I wrote twice. My comment didn't go thru. I have been Manson supporter since 1969.he never put blame on them. But all of them blamed him. Decades later, no one got out, so she now decades later, blames him again. I am furious
DeleteTo me, very pathetic excuse. I just viewed the you tube video. So 47 years later, how many parole hearings, she just remembered this?
DeleteI used to feel sorry for her. I sort of still do. Her life was wasted. But I recently saw the color pictures of the crime scenes for the first time. They are far different from the blurry black and white pictures in books. I was horrified and sickened by the picture of Abigail Folger the most. It's so bad in color. So much blood. The brutality. I can't imagine what kind of person could do something that vile and brutal. She and Charles Watson are two that I seriously question if people like that could actually be rehabilitated. I have less harsh views on some of the others.
ReplyDeleteMost remorseful huh? Sounds more like most desperate to me...
ReplyDeleteThere aint no way Kreny is going to get out. No way on Earth.
I think that my favorite part of George Stimson's excellent book is the last part where he repeats what the girls have said about Charlie over the years, and how Charlie speaks of them. Manson exhibits the closest thing to Class I have ever heard out of him.
Robin is very right. They all blame Charlie, and Charlie is fairly understanding of why the others do.
Kreny is just running out of darts and trying to find something new to throw, as nothing has been able to stick.
Frankly, I find it pathetic. This is the total opposite of accepting responsibility for your actions and she is back to square one - cry- blame others- feel bad for me...
It wont matter anyway. More tax dollars, and another hearing, and then no matter the decision- it gets vetoed in any case if it goes her way. It wont.
If after all of these years they are going to let her go because Charlie beat her, then you have to do it for the others who did less. Oh and Somebody has to tell Whitehouse that they forgot to try one thing a little too late, Cause this defense wont help Susan now.
By the way...
I wonder if the Family supporters would have Pat paroled- at the expense of having to accept/admit Charlie regularly beat woman into submission on record?
I personally do not believe that Charlie hurt her any worse than the others, and I do not Believe that Charlie beat any of them near to the point she would have felt threatened enough to do what she did- out of physical fear if she didn't.
The only reservation I have at all is TJ. He felt scared enough to split, but he did also go back. Then to there were a couple of times various girls fled in fear..
I dont know. But I really think at the end of day it wont matter. I just cant see how they make Susan Die in Jail, veto LULU and let Kreny go???
Thank you, well said. I find it pathetic.trying to rewrite history at this point.
DeleteOK I have one other reservation...
ReplyDeleteThat they are even looking into this. They must be taking it somewhat seriously.
What in the world can this investigation involve? Witnesses? Can they subpoena?
It is going to be very self-serving for Leslie to say the same if it will help. Then what? Will Bruce try it? Then Bobby, all of a sudden, really was in the family after all and was beaten too?
Are the Family now going to divide into two camps? Defend Charlie versus get the others out?
That they would even look into this nonsense is starting to make me nervous...
I mean if it is going to ever be any of them- not Tex or Kreny...
Its unbelievable what they put the victims families through...
ReplyDelete"For this investigation to be initiated at this point is mindboggling," said DiMaria, who attended the hearing but left before a decision was postponed. "I don't understand where we go from a murder, the killing of eight people (including Tate's unborn child) to an intimate partner battery victim. It's absurd .... It seems like the world is turned upside down. How do you kill eight people and now you're the victim?"
Sharon Tate's sister, Debra Tate, said the parole officials told her the hearing was likely to be postponed about six months while they research to see if Krenwinkel meets the criteria for having battered women's syndrome.
Krenwinkel's attorney, Keith Wattley, confirmed that account but did not comment on the postponement.
"She totally minimized her actions and blamed everything on other people the whole hearing," Tate said.
Tate said she didn't buy the concept that Krenwinkel was a victim because she was free to leave at any time and participated in murders two nights in a row.
"We all have to be accountable for our actions. I don't buy any of this stuff. She was there because she wanted to be there. Nobody held a gun to her head," Tate said.
For once, I agree with Debra tate.no one put a gun to anyone's head. Killing is of free will. No one makes you do it. It's either in you or it's not.
DeleteIts so totally unreal to me that they could even consider this at all in any meaningful way.
ReplyDeleteSigh... so long 2016 Next year better bring be way better news than this one did....
I agree. Happy 2017
DeleteWell, Kenny has made the long tour. Right back where she started in her '78 Parole Hearing. Minimizing her role and distancing herself from the murders. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
ReplyDeleteShe added this battered routine. But it's too weak a card and played far too late in the game.
Maybe they all blame Charlie because it's true ? Do you tell the review board what is true or do you tell them what you think they want to hear ?
ReplyDeleteHow many times can one go before a board and say, "Yes, I take full responsibility and will never do it again. I'm ok now" ? I mean, what can be said to convince a board beyond simply repeating the same thing at every review ? How about, "I darn socks for the poor and all my fellow inmates and jailers give me the Pollyanna Award every year" ?
I can't imagine Moonbeam letting PK out. Also don't blame PK & Co. for trying anything to get out. By now PK & CW must know they are never getting out so shoot the line, go for broke and work the legal system for loopholes and possibilities.
Whether she (and Tex) are fully rehabilitated or not, they did some major no-no's and the price is not getting out. LVH & BD .... eh ... let em run and see how they'll handle it. BB ... that's a tough one.
I have a couple comments.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let's give PK a little break (not on parole) on how this 'came up'. If the story is factually correct her attorney first raised the issue in his closing statement. Meaning all the questioning of PK and all the comments were over.
"A source with knowledge of the case, who requested anonymity because the hearing was not public, said Krenwinkel’s attorney, Keith Wattley, raised the notion in his closing statement that his client was a victim of “intimate partner battery.” "
That tells me two things (1.) PK didn't mention it and (2.) the panel took this step to avoid a possible appeal. Any 'abuse' is a mitigating factor.
I think Wattley may be up to two things both are a bit 'risky'. He might be trying to create 'diminished capacity'. The defense is no longer available but the concept would be the same- PK is not totally responsible for her actions due to her mindset because of the abuse. Or he may be trying to argue she acted under duress and therefore was not totally responsible. The 'risk' is that little word: 'responsible'.
I found this statement in the article 'interesting' as to the second point (duress): "after the woman’s attorney made new claims that she had been abused by Manson or another person."
Who is the 'or another person'. Wattley may be about to dump that turd not in Manson's lap but Watson's claiming PK had or felt she had no choice.
Again, IF the facts are accurate in the story.
I can't really imagine that Wattley is pushing for a battered partner defense-type argument. To the best of my knowledge that has only been allowed when the victim is the batterer so that leads me to think he has to be up to something else.
And the panel: they are probably just trying to avoid an appeal.
I think the panel's decision is about due process not the panel taking the claim seriously as a mitigating factor. IMO
Dreath, I had to read your comments twice. The second time slowly. I think what you are saying makes perfect sense.
ReplyDeleteSome sense would be nice lol
ReplyDeleteDreath -- I agree to the extent what I think he's up to is Tex was designated 'in charge' both nights. In '69 men were typically 'in charge' unless you were Queen Elizabeth or Golda Meir. And then based on the evidence some of us feel Charlie designated Tex to be in charge. So yes to this diminished capacity or *responsibility* angle.
ReplyDeleteStill don't think it will work though ....
Dreath, I didn't see that bit about "after the woman’s attorney made new claims that she had been abused by Manson or another person."
ReplyDeleteWas that in the Times article?
That would be a different spin on things.
Impossible to prove at this juncture, but interesting.
Dreath I have one question for you...
ReplyDeleteThis attorney thinks he is hot potatoes obviously. He got the hearing moved up a year. Kreny had to know he was working on doing that...
As hard as she works to get out, and as many times as she has changed attorneys- do you think he threw that out there without her knowing he was going to do it?
Shorty,
ReplyDeleteIt's right at the beginning of the linked article:
"State parole officials Thursday postponed a decision on setting free Patricia Krenwinkel, a follower of Charles Manson and convicted killer, after the woman’s attorney made new claims that she had been abused by Manson or another person."
Saint,
Well, it is unlikely IMO she didn't know. I'm more intrigued by the end of the quote above. Again, if the reporter got the information right Wattley seems to be alluding to someone other then Manson and his best shot (again IMO) is....."Watson made her do it or she was so in fear of him she lost her free will."
It seems to me for this argument to have any legs at all it has to be someone present both nights, capable of inflicting harm on her, who had a history of doing so and someone she had an intimate relationship with. That would seem to point towards Watson if anyone.
robin torro said...
ReplyDelete...no one put a gun to anyone's head. Killing is of free will. No one makes you do it. It's either in you or it's not.
I believe it's in all of us. We all just have different thresholds and tipping points.
Matt, definitely I agree anyone in life or death, or someone has hurt a loved one, anyone can be brought to the point of killing a person. But Pat went along both nights, those circumstances of life or death were not there. It's a bit late in the game to come up with a new reason for why she participated in these murders. If she said this decades earlier, it may have been effective. Now it just seems to me to be grasping at straws, she knows by now about all the others parole hearings. If anyone had a shot, I think Bobby or Leslie would have. However to start up this now, seems like a last ditch effort.
DeleteThen again, Saint, it may be that Wattley isn't that creative and this is just a recycled version of the 'Manson made me do it' argument.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this comment kind of sounds like he has something new:
"In an email to The Times, Wattley wrote, “I pointed out that there are some things that haven't fully been investigated (believe it or not). Can't really elaborate at this time.”"
Matt,
ReplyDeleteI agree. We spend a significant amount of time with our recruits getting them to that point.
And as long as I'm speculating....
ReplyDeleteWe'll obviously know more in the upcoming months but a court action to get the 'Tex Tapes' by Wattley might be an interesting twist.
So as some people have speculated that Tex and Linda had some personal relationship which could have been the source of the real motive...
ReplyDeleteIt is being hinted here that Tex and Pat had some sort of personal relationship which resulted in Tex giving Pat no choice but to murder??
I have never read anything anywhere that would give me reason to believe Tex and Pat had anything significant with each other at all. Neither one of them talks about the other in any detail at all and I have read all of Tex's books and parole hearing transcripts and almost every word Kreny has ever said on the subject...
Tex talks about being with Mary and Linda- but never Pat. Here is what he does say:
"Patricia Krenwinkel was different. We called her “Katie,” and even though she was the sweetest of the girls, none of the men except Charlie ever got involved with her sexually. She was a little standoffish and, probably more important, unattractive. When Charlie started trying to get bikers involved with the Family by offering them girls, they all complained that Katie was too hairy. For all the talk about love and oneness, I think she must have felt the rejection from the men and that made her all the more devoted to Charlie. No matter what the others thought, Charlie loved her, and would make love to her. Why
shouldn't she do anything he asked? Katie, Leslie, Sadie, and another girl, a quiet motherly little hippie named Linda who wouldn't even join the Family until five weeks before the murders, and me: Tex Watson. Why us? Why were we willing
to be sent out into the night with guns and knives? More important, why did we say yes — all of us but Linda — when Charlie told us to kill? There was the acid and the domination and the Helter Skelter doctrine that gave a reason for it all, but still — why?
Maybe for Katie it was gratitude and devotion to Charlie, who accepted her when no other man would."
If this is about Tex forcing Kreny to do anything- it is totally out of thin air in my estimation...
It seems that after all these years that this "Family" has resulted in a group of frustrated, defeated criminals who have all resorted to blaming each other...
ReplyDeleteI say Good for them :)
I think that's pretty sound speculation, Dreath. Apparently the Tex tapes came up in Leslie's last hearing and her attorney tried to get the tapes but was rebuffed.
ReplyDeleteThe Tex Tapes seem to serve the LA DA's office by the mystery of what is in them, as they allude to possibly more murders according to them, but that office refuses to disclose the tapes so that everyone can see what they see in them.
The strategy may come back to bite them if they keep bringing up the tapes and then not let anyone listen to them, including the victim's survivors. We will have to wait and see if the tapes were brought up by the DA's office in Patricia's hearing.
Maybe Tex isn't worried about any new murders. Maybe he knows those tapes contain info about his role in TLB?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I know nothing about this case and should go back to chasing scientologists ?
No one answer that lol
ReplyDeleteSt. I've wondered aloud before about why those particular people were sent out to do the murders. Both Tex and Sadie had been a pain in the ass for Charlie. Tex got him into that deal which ended up with Charlie shooting Bernard Crowe. The clap ridden Sadie had been told to leave at least once before the murders and she also had a big mouth. Linda had been with the Family for a very short time and was tight with Tex, so perhaps expendable. Not sure what Krenny's fault would have been with Charlie other than what you have quoted. Though loyal to Charlie, she was not very marketable for his purposes.
ReplyDeleteCould it be that Charlie wanted to be rid of those particular people for good and thought that they would bungle the job so bad that they got caught in the act?
It is a good question Deb...
ReplyDeleteWhy those people? I have often said that only certain members in the Family could do this type of vicious crime. Gave examples of some of those who couldnt...
But how would Charlie have known then which ones were capable?
Read what he said again about Pat. What in her Family experience would have let Charlie know she was one of the one or two who could go through with it?
Did he get lucky? Did he care?
I meant read what Tex said again. He called Pat " The sweetest of the girls" wasn't Pat primarily in charge of the babies and kids?
ReplyDeleteWhat gave Charlie the idea that this one was going to be able to do all that gore?
Seems it would have gone smoother if he sent DeCarlo, Davis & Plumlee.
ReplyDeleteSt. I think if Charlie wanted to be rid of those particular people he wouldn't give much thought as to whether or not they were capable of carrying out the murders. He may have even thought that they were not capable and therefore would get caught in the act. Had they been caught that first night Charlie's involvement would have been minimal and he might have avoided any charges.
ReplyDeleteThe second night was a whole different ballgame and did not begin like the first night. It was like there were two different motives for the murders and the motive for the second night evolved from what was or wasn't done, in Charlie's eyes, on the first night.
Total speculation on my part.
Its good speculation :) These are great questions!
ReplyDeleteThe "Tex Tapes" also come up Tex's latest parole hearing, a couple times, but the references are very vague.
ReplyDeleteThe brilliant Cielo Drive has the xscript of Tex's hearing and there are some odd things in it.
First there is mention of tapes that 'somebody' (we never learn who) has brought to the hearing. Tex's lawyer asks "You aren't going to use them are you"? There is a negative answer and the subject changes.
Secondly, during Tex's statement, Watson himself mentions the tapes. He is basically giving a long apology. There is a lot of people to apologize to, so it's a long statement. Towards the end of it, he says, "I've admitted responsibility now for 47 years first with my attorney in Texas in 1969. We sat down and recorded tapes that you brought up here."
Who is 'you', brought them here?
Where the F are they?
What's on em?
We don't know bc that's the last mention of the tapes. Tex's lawyer was scared of the tapes, who knows how many worms are in that can. The tapes exist and it's time to unleash that dragon. I personally don't think there is much on there, but screw it, let's find out.
Oh boy, do I agree with that. Let them be heard.
DeleteMe too ....
ReplyDeleteThe tapes..lol..the holy grail perhaps?..I think some of us here would donate a kidney to listen to those tapes...well perhaps a kidney is a stretch..😉
ReplyDeleteNah they can have mine. It's mostly useless at this point anyway lol
ReplyDeletePenny lane,
ReplyDeleteI think in a way those tapes are a bit like the holy grail. I think if we found out that Krenwinkel's attorney had tapes we would want those too. Van Houten's interview by Part and Atkins by Caruso/Caballero are 'off the record' privileged conversations where they may have told the truth- or something close to what they viewed as the truth.
To me it doesn't matter if there is exculpatory evidence on the tapes as O'Neill originally claimed it would simply be intriguing to hear what Watson says. For example, the DA argued in response to Van Houten's effort to get the court to at least listen to the tapes and determine if they had any relevance that the court needed waste its time listening to hours of Watson's musings on cities hidden below Death Valley and strange racial theories.
If this really is on those tapes doesn't that pretty much end the motive discussion? Would we still argue it was Watson's idea if he's rambling on about HS? Would we still talk about drug burns or copycat motives if neither is mentioned?
Seems to me we'd be running out of witnesses for the alternative theories.
A kidney? If Saint's in, I'm in.
I will sacrifice my useless kidneys for good of group but whoever gets it will instantly blow 1.3 stone sober- so get used to cabs and Uber.
ReplyDeleteHappy New Years Everyone :)
I just wanna hear them FFS...who do we call ? We have 3 kidneys on offer at this point ..how can they possibly refuse an offer like that.? and Happy New Year all..
ReplyDeleteIt's in regards to Manson.
ReplyDeleteThat's why Krenwinkel did the whole "Life After Manson" thing. It was all for the parole board and public support. In this day of age of radical feminism and crucifixion of the "white male heterosexual" and the blaming of your problems on him, which was that documentary was propagating, it provides a new excuse and way to garner blind sympathy and support. Her excuse till this point was always drug use.
When Susan's blame game of drugs and Satanism failed, she too went for the "Battered woman defense". It started in the 90s and has been a popular legal defense since. Which is the exact time Susan put it into effect as a new strategy.
Most feminists simply hate men and any situation that adds legitimacy to their agenda, they will use to propagate.
If I was Leslie's attorney, I would talk her into converting to Islam. Since a Christian can be threaten with death for refusing to bake a cake, but people still don't want to criticize Muslims even after they plow through a group of people with a truck or open fire on cartoonists. The bolsheviks of California might cut her loose out of fear of being Islamophobic.
ReplyDelete^^^ single and lonely
ReplyDeletelol .... Manson Mythos and Suze, you're both funny.
ReplyDeleteBoth PK and LVH are now vigorously going after 'whatever works' as they enter the winter of their lives age-wise. For them there's a clear & present urgency.
If they feel the state is being unfair toward them they would feel justified doing whatever works legally.
ReplyDeletePat dindu nuffin
ReplyDeleteMansonMythos. Women probably just hate you in particular, they don't hate men.
ReplyDeleteLol..tiny penis aleřt ! Onya MM blame your obvious lack of ..well everything.. on those dam feminists..How dare we exist in this mans tiny penis world..how very dare we..I may be a dam feminist but u are fucking bigotted pig..with a tiny penis to boot..this is manson blog not a woman hatng blog..fuck off..woman cop enuf sexism in daily life so I dont want to listen to this bile here...
DeleteHaven't looked at college campuses lately, huh?
ReplyDeleteThe feminist agenda latching on to the Manson case is nothing new. Turning Point with Sawyer tried. They even sent questionnaires to the girls about their thoughts on feminism, women's lib, etc....that was the one re-edited after the Tate family complained due to the sympathetic light it cast on the girls.
The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten is hands down the worst book related to the case ever written. Pure feminist garbage that will turn your stomach. The author even wrote a book called "Battered Women". Feminism is about female independence, but it appears they only want credit for the good. Their failure and fucked up behavior is always a man's fault.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDreath said...
I found this statement in the article 'interesting' as to the second point (duress): "after the woman’s attorney made new claims that she had been abused by Manson or another person."
Who is the 'or another person'.
Maybe the "or another person" is the one who beat her with an ugly stick?
She got the face that she deserves, that's for sure.
Manson Mythos wrote: "If I was Leslie's attorney, I would talk her into converting to Islam. Since a Christian can be threaten with death for refusing to bake a cake,..."
ReplyDeletePlease be so kind as to explain this. Thanks.
Jenn
ReplyDeleteDebS, I agree. He sent out the 4 people that he gave the least shit about.
It's possible that Bobby's arrest and Manson's subsequent paranoia - thinking that he was soon going back to prison himself - resulted in a scorched earth policy, and those 4 were the canaries in the coal mine.
@pennylane: I don't hate women, I love women. A feminist isn't a woman. A feminist is a woman who is at war with herself. One turned rotten by Marxist poison that has corrupted her brain with an Us vs. Them mentality.
ReplyDeleteWhat is with this "sent" stuff? That's something never proven. There is documented testimony that Charlie didn't trust or like Susan very much. Charlie chewed Watson up for hiding under the bed with Crowe, so it makes little sense he would trust him to pull off a murder mission, let alone killing an entire block of people and I fully believe that he barely knew Leslie, because Leslie was never convincing about being close to him. She's repeated things others have said. Let's not forget Linda, who was there for only about a month.
If any, all those present were apart of the circle that brainstormed what to do about Beausoleil.
See? Women in general think you are a dumb ass. It's not just college feminists. Women that like men in general, think you are stupid and creepy. Maybe the problems in your life are because you are so dumb, and not the fault of feminists or non white people.
DeleteManson Mythos is not the same person as Esposito who used to rail against feminism?
ReplyDeleteFeminist I think is a term open to many interpretations.
I also agree with Deb S. and Ziggy on their speculation as to why Manson sent those people to Cielo: angry at Tex and Susan, paranoid about Bobby/Hinman crime and Lottsapoppa, scorched earth approach and get rid of some of the ranch gang he didn't like, although what had Pat done to upset him?
^ That's a silly theory that holds no water. The Ranch was under constant police harassment. Sending people on a murder mission to get rid of them makes no sense. I doubt he would be stupid enough to believe it wouldn't have circled right back to Spahn and Pat was anything but disposable to Charlie. Charlie said bad things about Susan, Leslie, Bobby, Tex and dismissed Linda as just a broad who came to lay down at the ranch, but never Pat . Only expressed his upset with that fact she told a few lies. Of all those busted, he's always appeared genuine in his sympathy for Pat.
ReplyDeleteManson Mythos said...
ReplyDeleteIf any, all those present were apart of the circle that brainstormed what to do about Beausoleil
Well, Pat is on record {1978} as saying such a thing never happened and if it did, it was without her.....
The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten is hands down the worst book related to the case ever written. Pure feminist garbage that will turn your stomach
I didn't read it for the first couple of years I had it because I thought that's what it was going to be. But it wasn't. It's one of those books that you have to put yourself, however reluctantly, into the mindset of the writer in order to understand where they are coming from.
As for it being the worst of the books connected with this case, for me that award is split between "The killing of Sharon Tate" and Greg King's "Sharon Tate and the Manson murders." Neither even makes good bin liner.....
Mr. Humphrat said...
I also agree with Deb S. and Ziggy on their speculation as to why Manson sent those people to Cielo: angry at Tex
Manson himself says he got Tex involved not out of anger or dislike but because he owed him. In the jailhouse mentality, you collect on favours owed and there's no iffing or butting or "I don't want to...."
Manson Mythos said...
ReplyDeleteWhat is with this "sent" stuff? That's something never proven
According to George's book, you're wrong there, mate.
If you're going to talk about "proven" the same kind of proof that exists for Charlie sending the killers to Cielo is the same kind of proof that exists for Tex doing his nastiness once they got there ~ witnesses. Crooked ones, yes, but witnesses nonetheless.
The cowardly Manson most definitely barked killing orders to those imbeciles, but Pat being frightened of him, like a battered woman is utterly ridiculous. Do I think Pat would be a danger to society at the ripe old age of 69? Most likely not, but so what. I noticed more & more individuals spouting off that she has done enough time, yada, yada, yada. Well, doodoo! This woman was as brutal as Watson, yet you don't hear anyone chanting to let him out. Just think about what she did. I do, and it reminds me of what one of the parole board commissioners said at Watson's last hearing: "You know even the whole physical part of murdering someone with a knife is so awful and painful. A knife slice cuts through the skin, the fascia, the nerve endings, the muscles, the arteries, the internal organs. It's an awful way to die. It's so up close and personal. When you were holding those people down you were holding and they were looking in your eyes. They could smell your breath. You could probably smell their fear. -In other words it was the most revolting, horrifying thing you could do to another human being, much less seven, including a pregnant woman.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBad choice of words by me. I should have said "chose" instead of "sent".
Those were 4 that he chose for the task at hand. Those were the 4 that he didn't mind seeing go to prison. I don't think, for instance, that he was going to miss being the only one willing to have sex with Krenwinkel.
In the various interviews over the years, he's said that he rejected the idea of getting a lawyer when Bobby was arrested. He admits to telling Tex to pay Bobby what he owes him (Manson). So he chose Tex to do whatever was needed at the time. He also says that the plan was to "make the murders keep on lookin' like they were keep on keepin on" and "it jumped off into who was doing wrong", Melcher not keeping his word, and the little black phone book, Big Brother recordings not paying him what they owed him.
Notice how the plan starts with copycatting the Hinman murder, and shifts to wrongdoers of Manson? And that's straight from Charlie's mouth.
ReplyDelete"Big Brother recordings" [sic] should've been Brother Records or "Brother recordings", as Charlie called it.
I apologize to Beach Boys fans, and I'd also like to pre-emptively apologize to fans of Neil Diamond of the Buffalo Springfield, for any future mistakes.
I'm with Ann :)
ReplyDeleteHappy Holidays and New Year Ann!
AustinAnn74 said...
ReplyDeleteThe cowardly Manson most definitely barked killing orders to those imbeciles
Not in so many words. That's what has always given him the high ground on which to be able to stand and say "I never ordered them to do nothing."
I've long argued that being told to go with Tex and to do whatever he said was interpreted by the women as "Tex operates on Charlie's authority so an order from Tex is an order from Charlie." Kind of how "the child is the leader" in reality means "the kids don't lead shit."
but Pat being frightened of him, like a battered woman is utterly ridiculous
Is it ?
I don't believe Pat killed because she was afraid that if she didn't, Charlie would kill her. However, her stance on this fear is not inconsistent with Pat Krenwinkle over the last 47 years. She told the Mobile psychiatrist, Claude Brown back in 1969 that the reason she'd gone off to Mobile was because she was scared that Charlie would find her and kill her.
1969 !
As a little side point, she was initially doing a Tex and fighting extradition in Alabama. It wasn't just Squeaky's persuasive tongue that made her chuck in a chance of an unencumbered trial and come to California to join the show trial. For me it is no longer an unnoticeable thing that his three co~defendants, once they were split from Charlie in '69 told outsiders that he was the one at the fulcrum of the murders. Then as soon as he knew where they were and what they were saying, he established contact with them and they all changed their stories and threw in with him. Then once guilty, incarcerated and with many years to think about how they'd wasted their life and when it was too late and would do them no good, they went back to what they'd said almost as soon as they were free of him in '69.
And Pat, in her first {and subsequent} parole hearing[s], when she hadn't totally abandoned Charlie, very much gave the impression that she did fear him, having been roughed up by him, having been dragged back by him from some guy she'd gone off with and from the times she'd been pimped out and seen Mary Brunner get smacked around.
It's not an excuse for murder but neither is it something that should be dismissed out of hand. It's certainly not new. It's older than many things that have come to light and I'm particularly interested in the fact that it's genesis is pre ~ trial.
Grim said:
ReplyDelete"Not in so many words."
I don't know, Grim, Watson seems to consistently say Manson gave him some fairly specific instructions- cut the phone lines, kill everyone, use the gun sparingly, get rid of the cloths, dump the weapons. There seems to have been some instruction vis-a-vis the rope we don't know- like 'tie them up' maybe. I think there was a little more then- not in so many words. As to the women, sure- go with Tex.....
But I'm pretty sure Watson and Manson had a more detailed conversation.
Remember the role the women held in the family- they were not Mary Magdalene, the beloved disciple, nor were they likely to talk back. They cooked, cleaned, took care of the kids, dumpster dived, had sex on command and got a backhand when they resisted. 'Go with Tex and do what he says' may very well have carried with it an unstated consequence if one didn't comply.
But I go back to Mr. Wattley- 1969 fear doesn't help his client. The 'defense' is like self- defense: you have to be confronted with the threat to yourself right there and then. 'Manson would have killed me..... no gonna fly.' The 'law's' response: then run away and get help.
Me?
ReplyDeleteOr MM?
Manson's set up was abusive to the women (mostly young girls). Yet some girls ran away and some chose to stay. What Leslie Van Houten did could almost be described as peer pressure, though she chose to go that second night knowing what was going to happen. Pat Krenwinkle was really into the whole thing and acted like a monster. I refer again to the pictures. Something was very very wrong with Pat Krenwinkle besides low esteem and abuse. It's amazing that in a situation like what was going on at Spahn that MansonMythos dipshit is whining about feminists in college campuses in 2017, like Manson's pimp set up in 1969 had anything to do with universities in 2017. I'm certain that MansonMythos isn't attending a university. Imagine that dumb ass trying to take physics. Yeah women are supposed to defer to losers like him and Manson. Not happening.
ReplyDeleteNonymous,
ReplyDeleteMM believes Manson is innocent. He has corrected me on other comments and I respect that. I have never had a 'free Manson' type explain the second night to me. Not even MM. Why? They can't.
But if you accept their theory: Kasabian, Krenwinkel and Atkins were movers and shakers- commanders of the hit squad. They were free thinkers and drove the murders. They were self assertive women one and all. They were, in a nutshell: feminists who f-'d over the men/man.
No, they were subservient and did what they were told and they were told to go with Tex and do what Tex said and they responded precisely how we should expect anyone in that world to respond. The one who was the furthest 'in' attacked. The one at the next level of 'in' hesitated. And the new one- (maybe) didn't do anything. And then the next night the one that was 'all in' wanted to go but when it came to 'real' she hesitated and was commanded to act.
Tex led them and Manson directed them all and really nothing suggests anything else except wishful thinking.
These Manson was innocent people seem to leave out some pretty important things. He participated in the murder of Shorty Shea. He tied up the LaBiancas. He took a machete to Gary Hinman.
ReplyDeleteNonymous,
ReplyDelete'Yes' they do.
Grim said:
ReplyDeleteWatson seems to consistently say Manson gave him some fairly specific instructions- cut the phone lines, kill everyone, use the gun sparingly, get rid of the cloths, dump the weapons.....I'm pretty sure Watson and Manson had a more detailed conversation
I was talking just about the women and in response to Austin Anne's comment that Manson gave killing orders to "the imbeciles." On one hand it seems remarkable that one killed and one was motioned to without any forward planning or expectation that this was what was to happen....until the comment about going with Tex enters the equation. If Manson & Watson did have a conversation, I would imagine it was fairly detailed.
1969 fear doesn't help his client
I agree.
However, to reiterate, what the lawyer is trying to dredge up now isn't some startling new revelation. It's consistent with Pat & Charlie's history and because of that, is unlikely to make waves now.
ziggyosterberg said:
ReplyDeleteDebS, I agree. He sent out the 4 people that he gave the least shit about.
Or as RuthAnn said 'the expendables were sent', something which I always thought was very correct.
ziggyosterberg said:
ReplyDeleteHe sent out the 4 people that he gave the least shit about
I would have thought Tex was valuable to him, if only due to the mechanical side of things. And he had his uses, like netting $7700 in 4 days back in July. And let's face it, there never was any comeback from the Lotsapoppa shooting so Charlie can't even say he fell into Tex trouble because of it.
Pat I can't see him casting as expendable. Not when you consider who else was at the ranch !
Mind you, a year later, everyone was expendable to him !!
Zelda Formaldehyde said...
as RuthAnn said 'the expendables were sent'
I don't buy that. However, if true, it's a truly comical turn of events, given that between them, they all sang like harmony birds at one point or another.
He also shot Bernard Crowe. Charlie preferred not doing the dirty work, but could do it if the chips were down.
ReplyDeleteOff-topic here but .... for those who haven't heard, Manson was rushed to the hospital with "serious" gastro-intestinal problems. Stay tuned.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGrim,
If you did something that resulted in me shooting someone, you'd be at the top of my shit list.
As far as there not being any comeback or "Tex Trouble" from the Lotsapoppa shooting, I'd say that Bobby in jail for the murder of Hinman, and the Black Panther paranoia of July and August might be something that Charlie wasn't too happy about.
Tex talking about the Lotsapoppa shooting in his 2016 parole hearing. Note that Lotsapoppa wasn't the only "black guy" involved. Think maybe that had something to do with Charlie's "Black Panther" paranoia? :
"there was a drug deal that went on between Rosina and I and some black guys that to where 27 hundred dollars were taken in kind of a drug sting type thing. And since I was involved with Rosina and the drug deal and everything and it went bad and Manson went into town and he ended up shooting one of the black guys"
Full Transcript at Cielo Drive.com
ziggyosterberg said...
ReplyDeleteIf you did something that resulted in me shooting someone, you'd be at the top of my shit list
And I doubt that there'd be many people that would blame you.
But you know, if you examine the Lotsapoppa incident, it is at best debatable that Charlie had to shoot Crowe. It's long struck me as odd that the sting happened in the twee hours and it was also the twee hours when Crowe called Spahn. Charlie claims that Tex had spent all the money. Really ? In a few hours in the dead of night ? There's something about that whole incident and the way it panned out that has a strange smell of fish about it.
As far as there not being any comeback or "Tex Trouble" from the Lotsapoppa shooting, I'd say that Bobby in jail for the murder of Hinman, and the Black Panther paranoia of July and August might be something that Charlie wasn't too happy about
Agreed ~ to some extent.
When I spoke of there being no comeback, I meant legally. He was never charged with the shooting, he was never prosecuted nor convicted for it. In terms of comeback in that sense, Charlie got away with it and the funny thing is that everyone knew it but no one seemed to care because there was bigger fish to fry.
Lotsapoppa didn't even try any revenge moves.
I don't know what you mean with the connection you make with Bobby and the Hinman killing. But it does cross my mind that Charlie received some serious comeback "because of Bobby" although again when examined, the outcome of that need not have been {if you believe the Bobby version}.
ziggyosterberg said...
ReplyDeleteTex talking about the Lotsapoppa shooting in his 2016 parole hearing. Note that Lotsapoppa wasn't the only "black guy" involved. Think maybe that had something to do with Charlie's "Black Panther" paranoia?
I wouldn't mind betting Charles Watson can't remember a thing about that night. He's never had to as there was never any chance of any legal comeback on him either.
Also, in his 2016 parole hearing, when talking about that night, he says that TJ is the one that got the money. So his recollections of that night aren't exactly reliable.
That said, during his testimony in the penalty phase, Crowe was asked about his friends that were present and he actually has to name them although he was vague about their surnames. As you observed in a recent post, with the honesty factor of most of the participants at well below zero, it's hard to ascertain much !
Nonymous said...
ReplyDeleteManson's set up was abusive to the women (mostly young girls). Yet some girls ran away and some chose to stay.....Yeah women are supposed to defer to losers like....Manson. Not happening
Dreath said...
they were subservient and did what they were told and they were told to go with Tex and do what Tex said and they responded precisely how we should expect anyone in that world to respond
As well as Pat telling Claude Brown that she was afraid of Manson back in '69, in the same December, Susan Atkins told Richard Caballero and Paul Caruso that she loved and feared Manson and that both Charlie and Tex said if she opened her mouth and told they would kill her. During the TLB trial, when asked why she had gone along on LaBianca night, Linda Kasabian stated that she went because Charlie earmarked her and she was afraid to say no.
None of this is ever an excuse and I'm not pitching for that. But I find it fascinating that that early on, when out of Charlie's sphere of influence, those three women spoke of how scared they were of him.
Again, it's food for thought.
More food for thought from December 4th '69, this time from Stephanie Schram:
ReplyDeleteDEPUTY PALMER: What, what would they do that made you think about after reading about the Tate situation? What did they do that recalled your memory that, that you thought they did it?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: I just that, that it just had pigs on the wall and the Mau, Mau thing and also the way that they chopped people, you know, like I read an article it say how other articles were going overboard and saying that this, you know, that they said were done, sounded just like the things you know, like Charlie said he'd do to me if I, you know, did anything wrong.
DEPUTY GLEASON: What did Charlie tell you he would do to you?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Well, he was saying like cutting off part of your body or something like that, you know.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Did he ever threaten you?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Yeah.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Did Clem ever threaten you?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: No, not really.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Did Tex?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: No.
DEPUTY PALMER: What did ah, what did Charlie threaten you -- why did he threaten you?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Well, one time when I was at the ranch I wanted to go home and he wouldn't let me. So first he beat me up and then he took me back in some room with a great big knife and told me he was gonna kill me if I didn't decide to stay.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Uh, huh. Yeah. I think I've been in that trailer. What did, how did he beat you up, with his fist?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Yes.
DEPUTY PALMER: What did his knife look like that he threatened you with?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Um, I don't remember, there was so many of them around.
DEPUTY PALMER: Was it a small one?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: No, it was pretty big.....
and a little further on, talking about the famous Michigan loader:
DEPUTY PALMER: Were you up in the desert when they burnt the tractor?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Uh-huh.
DEPUTY PALMER: Do you know who burnt it?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Um, Clem, Clem, Charlie and Tex, I think. I can't, you know, I'm not positive.
DEPUTY PALMER: Were you there when they did burn it?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Yeah. We were coming out from the hot springs and ah, they had blown up the road or something so he said nobody could get through. So we fixed the road up and went through it. So then they saw that thing there and we took all the gas out and then burn it.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Whose idea was it to burn the tractor down?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Probably Charlie's. You know, no, he's the only one that ever has any ideas and everybody else just does what he says.
DEPUTY GLEASON: How come everybody does what Charlie says?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Don't ask me. Either, well, the reason I did it was because I'd either get beat up and killed if I didn't do it, you know. And I couldn't leave so I'd just do it, when, you know.
And we know that Diane Lake used to really get it from Charlie {Linda spoke of seeing Diane Lake get beaten}, not to mention Sherry Anne Cooper, Barbara Hoyt, Kitty Lutesinger and Stephanie all escaping the Family in the desert under the cover of night and scared for their lives. Juan Flynn testified to seeing Charlie smash young girls' heads against the road {found in "Witness to evil"}, Gypsy got beaten and threatened with Clem dragging her about roped to a car, it's well known that Mary Brunner used to get beats {as Pat relayed in one of her parole hearings}.
Again, no justification for what what Pat did, but right back in '69 and early '70, the picture emerged that Charlie wasn't averse to slugging the women about and threatening some of them and with all that in mind, it's not hard to see why whoever has thrown in this bit about the abused woman may have done so.
grimtraveller said...
ReplyDeleteAs for it being the worst of the books connected with this case, for me that award is split between "The killing of Sharon Tate" and Greg King's "Sharon Tate and the Manson murders."
Actually, the Greg King one has its moments. It takes a downhill slide once he starts to write about Charlie and the Family but the parts on Sharon and Roman are interesting in parts. Virginia Graham's book "Manson, Sinatra and me" is way worse than the King one.
But it would make good bin liner.