Don Thompson
Published Oct. 14, 2022 6:15 p.m. PDT
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. - California's governor blocked the parole of Charles Manson follower Patricia Krenwinkel on Friday, more than five decades after she scrawled "Helter Skelter" on a wall using the blood of one of their victims.
Gov. Gavin Newsom said Krenwinkel, now 74, is still too much of a public safety risk to be freed.
"Ms. Krenwinkel fully accepted Mr. Manson's racist, apocalyptical ideologies," Newsom said. "Ms. Krenwinkel was not only a victim of Mr. Manson's abuse. She was also a significant contributor to the violence and tragedy that became the Manson Family's legacy."
A two-member parole panel for the first time in May recommended that Krenwinkel be released, after she previously had been denied parole 14 times. Newsom has previously rejected parole recommendations for other followers of Manson, who died in prison in 2017.
Krenwinkel became the state's longest-serving female inmate when fellow Manson follower Susan Atkins died of cancer in prison in 2009. Her attorney, Keith Wattley, said he understands Krenwinkel is the longest-serving woman in the United States.
She and other followers of the cult leader terrorized the state in the late 1960s, committing crimes that Newsom said "were among the most fear-inducing in California's history."
She was convicted in the slayings of pregnant actor Sharon Tate and four other people in 1969. She helped kill grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary the next night in what prosecutors say was an attempt by Manson to start a race war.
Newsom agreed that she has been well-behaved in prison, has completed many rehabilitation and education programs and has "demonstrated effusive remorse." But he concluded that "her efforts have not sufficiently reduced her risk for future dangerousness."
She still doesn't have sufficient insight into what caused her to commit the crimes or her "triggers for antisocial thinking and conduct" during bad relationships, Newsom said.
"Beyond the brutal murders she committed, she played a leadership role in the cult, and an enforcer of Mr. Manson's tyranny. She forced the other women in the cult to obey Mr. Manson, and prevented them from escaping when they tried to leave," he said.
Wattley did not immediately respond to telephone and email messages seeking comment on Newsom's decision.
But Anthony DiMaria, nephew of Jay Sebring, one of Krenwinkel's victims, had urged Newsom to block her release "due to the rare, severe, egregious nature of her crimes." He said her actions incited "the entire Helter Skelter legacy that has caused permanent historical scars" and inspired at least two ritualized killings years later.
New laws since Krenwinkel was last denied parole in 2017 required the parole panel to consider that she committed the murders at a young age and is now elderly.
Also, for the first time, Los Angeles County prosecutors weren't at the parole hearing to object, under District Attorney George Gascon's policy that prosecutors should not be involved in deciding whether prisoners are ready for release.
She and other participants were initially sentenced to death. But they were resentenced to life with the possibility of parole after the death penalty in California was briefly ruled unconstitutional in 1972.
Krenwinkel was 19 and living with her older sister when she met Manson, then age 33, at a party during a time when she said she was feeling lost and alone.
"He seemed a bit bigger than life," she testified in May, and she started feeling "that somehow his take on the world was the right, was the right one."
She said she left with him for what she thought would be a relationship with "the new man in my life" who unlike others told her he loved her and that she was beautiful.
Manson "had answers that I wanted to hear ... that I might be loved, that I might have the kind of affection that I was looking forward to in my life," she said.
Instead, she said Manson abused her and others physically and emotionally while requiring that they trust him without question, testimony that led the parole panel to conclude that Krenwinkel was a victim of intimate partner battery at the time.
It took about two years of traveling and drug use until he began emerging as "the Christ-like figure who was leading the cult" who began talking about sparking a race war and asking his followers, "would you kill for me? And I said yes."
Krenwinkel talked about during her 2016 parole hearing how she repeatedly stabbed Abigail Folger, 26, heiress to a coffee fortune, at Tate's home on Aug. 9, 1969.
The next night, she said Manson and his right-hand man, Charles "Tex" Watson, told her to "do something witchy," so she stabbed La Bianca in the stomach with a fork, then took a rag and wrote "Helter Skelter," "Rise" and "Death to Pigs" on the walls with his blood.
The bone-handled fork "was part of a set that we used at holidays ... to carve our turkeys," the couple's nephew Louis Smaldino, told parole officials, calling Krenwinkel "a vicious and uncaring killer."
Sharon Tate's sister, Debra Tate, the last surviving member of her immediate family, was among victims who dismissed Krenwinkel's explanation that she was led to Manson by alcohol use and a non-supportive family while growing up.
"We all come from homes with problems and didn't decide to go out and brutally kill seven strangers," Tate told parole officials.
UP DATE:
Cielodrive has just shared Governor Newsom's six page reversal decision with us. Thanks Cielodrive.
42 comments:
Shocker!
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the decision, it's a truly awful system.
I agree, Buntline. Why anyone thought that giving prisoners who were sentenced to death life with the possibility of parole was a good idea is beyond me. I believe they should have gotten life with NO possibility of parole.
We probably wouldn't be talking about the Manson saga if none of the convicted weren't constantly coming up for parole.
They couldn’t be sentenced to LWOP because it didn’t exist when the crimes occurred
https://www.history.com/news/charles-manson-was-sentenced-to-death-why-wasnt-he-executed
Hmm, they misspelled Debra's name. How difficult is that to check?
(obv, too much, as I just posted the article without reading it, lol!)
The first line says it all
, she accepted his racist views. Means more to the gov than the murders.
That ain’t the first line Chris
First line from the gov, nice try though.
Oh lord, let's maybe shoot to apply at least a LITTLE critical thinking here, lol.
"she accepted his racist views" was the first quote this CTV reporter chose to cite from Newsom's decision, not the first line of Newsom's decision.
Let's not confuse a reporter's decision on what to quote and highlight as any kind of significant insight on Newsom's thinking.
Jeez.
Can anyone explain Newsomes current administration's stance on crime and punishment with the decision on krenwinkle ? Who really believes that she is a greater threat than the people being let out.
The LA Times does report Newsom's comments in a different order.
“Specifically, Ms. Krenwinkel has not developed sufficient insight into the causative factors of her crime and her triggers for antisocial thinking and conduct in the context of maladaptive relationships,” Newsom wrote.
Krenwinkel, he added, “fully accepted Mr. Manson’s racist, apocalyptical ideologies, and told the psychologist, ‘He was a survivalist to the max ... racist to the max ... we all accepted that. I believed in him.... I was in it completely.’”
The LA Times did not post an article about the reversal until 2 hours after I made this post otherwise, I would have quoted and linked their article. Generally, press that is local to the original incident is more informative. Not so much in this instance though.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-14/newsom-blocks-manson-follower-patricia-krenwinkels-15th-bid-for-parole
Bobby, any governor in California that allows a Manson Family member to be released would be committing political suicide. Newsom has aspirations of running for president in the future. A candidate that allowed a Manson Family member to be released would be up to his eyeballs in recriminations from an opponent. In the grand scheme of things, no Family member is worth the trouble.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/californiaglobe.com/articles/governor-newsom-grants-clemency-to-rapists-murderers-violent-felons-for-serious-crimes-involving-firearms/amp/
Bobby, yes, Newsom commutes the sentences of 20 or more prisoners every year but none of them are as high profile as the Manson Family who are well known nationally. No one has ever heard of many of those he has nominated this year.
Check these past clemency grants out.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/clemency/
I recently looked up a list of the parole denials for murderers Newsom has issued over the last year. There were a ton - easily 3/4s of those granted were ulimately denied by the Guv. One has to assume that these Manaon murderers are WAY down on the list of possibilities.
IMO, these folks were sentenced to death and instead they received live. That's a pretty big gift, and for me that's enough.
Thanks Deb, I think I get exactly what you are pointing out. I have what I believe to be a larger view. Why are people okay to vote for him when he releases the criminals of nowadays but not the ones of the past. Who is voting for him. Hard to believe his followers could care less about manson. But I get it nationally it could be a problem. He is a hypocrite non the less.
To be honest, I'm torn with this. Clem got out. He was creepy. But he had something to bargain i.e. the location of Shea's remains. Ms Krenwinkle was equally appalling but she has nothing to bargain. If she had something to bargain, would she suddenly be less of a threat to society and somehow be released? I'm just trying to balance the logic...
Milly, I think the logic here has more to do with timing than anything else.
Back in the 60s-70s, there was still very much a "feel good" concept of rehabilitation and release in the air - particularly in more liberal states like CA. Yes, Clem did have a somewhat indirect bargaining chip to offer, so to speak, but from what I have learned he also made enormous personal rehab strides behind bars that led to his release. We are less privy to that sort of thing than we are to the more overt and publicized gestures like leading authorities to a victim's remains, but it does appear that Clem grew up and matured enough in prison to merit his eventual release. The body location was simply a product of this rehab effort, from what little we know. I also remind myself that Clem was very much a local yokel kid who was drawn to the Family's lifestyle rather than someone who Krenwinkel, who played a very active part in that social structure (for lack of a better term) among that group).
Anyway, the societal attitudes toward the notion of rehabilitation changed rather dramatically with Reagen and the 1980s focus on law & order.
Rather than comparing Clem with Krenwinkel, I think it much more informative to compare Clem with someone like Bruce Davis, who was convicted of the same murder. Davis also has the Hinman murder on his record, as he twice drove the perps to the murder scene, but the comparison there is much more apt. As far as I'm aware, we do not have access to Clem's parole hearing transcripts or recordings, but we do have access to Bruce Davis' parole hearing history and a simple read through of these proceedings is telling. This latest one from a few months ago is almost shocking - the parole board bends over backward trying to help Davis articulate what the notion of "empathy" actually means, but for all of his life experience and faith, the guy simply doesn't get it. The Bruce Davis definition of empathy amounts to "I saw a fellow prisoner get clocked in the head by a steel beam once, and I thought - wow, that must have really hurt."
Back to Krenwinkel, her situation is hopeless. If Van Houten cannot be sprung, Big Patty hasn't a prayer. Politicians report to their voters and public opinion just isn't supportive of someone in her situation being released.
Milly James said:
To be honest, I'm torn with this. Clem got out. He was creepy. But he had something to bargain i.e. the location of Shea's remains...I'm just trying to balance the logic...
Clem had members of LE, like Burton Katz, very much on his side. In fact, back when he was still roaming free, though he carried possibly the scariest rep other than Charlie, he had LE on his side. Just check out the Grogan probation post from a few weeks back. Also, when he was tried, his initial trial was declared a mistrial. And in his 2nd one, the jury voted death, but the judge overturned it to life. And this was in the days before the death penalty was quashed in California. Even before this, he had escaped indictment on TLB in the most fortunate fashion. After all, he was there in the killers' conference after Cielo and he was part of the second death squad the following night and actually was right outside the apartment {so he & Susan thought} of the person Charlie had ordered them to kill. He had a gun, ready to do the deed.
It would appear someone was smiling on Steve Grogan.
I have to say that I think it is actually illogical to conclude that leading the cops to the remains of Shorty is what gained him parole. Aside from the fact that it was 8 years after leading them to the body that he walked, fact is, he was already convicted of that murder, as were Manson and Davis. Shorty's family barely gave 2 shits about the whereabouts of his body, for their own reasons. None of them kicked up a fuss about his remains. None of them buried him. Until DebS discovers otherwise, we have no indication of any of them being in any way happy that his remains were found. No announcements of peace or "finally he can be laid to rest."
So the question has to be asked, who really benefitted from that ? It's tempting to say {and I have said it before} that LE were finally relieved that they hadn't made a mistake in convicting 3 people of a murder that hadn't happened, but that plane doesn't fly, simply because they had already convicted and sentenced them. The funny thing about leading LE to the body of Shea is that it proved that Grogan had indeed murdered him which, logically, should have been all the more reason to keep him banged up !
Ms Krenwinkle was equally appalling but she has nothing to bargain. If she had something to bargain, would she suddenly be less of a threat to society and somehow be released?
As with both Leslie and Bruce, when Gav the guv says she doesn't show sufficient insight into the causative factors that led her to that place etc, etc, he's talking out of his tush. She has trawled that river bed and mined that shaft ad nauseum for so many years. Anyone that wants to understand how she came to be a murderer can do so with relative ease. He doesn't want to be the one, in the internet age, to release a Mansonista. Simple as that. Mind you, it hasn't harmed George Deukmejian's legacy. He's still listed as a "hard on crime and criminals" guv'nor. Granted, guv'nors in those days didn't have the power to overturn decisions but is there evidence he came out kicking and screaming at the release of a Family member ? It would be interesting to find out.
In Pat's case, however, I think at the moment Gav the guv's right not to rubber stamp the board's decision, but his reasoning is so faulty {as it is with Bruce and Leslie} that it actually has the result of engendering a certain amount of cynicism towards him and sympathy towards her. It makes him look rather "political." In the worst sense of the word.
tobiasragg said:
As far as I'm aware, we do not have access to Clem's parole hearing transcripts
You can find 5 of them here.
This latest one from a few months ago is almost shocking - the parole board bends over backward trying to help Davis articulate what the notion of "empathy" actually means, but for all of his life experience and faith, the guy simply doesn't get it. The Bruce Davis definition of empathy amounts to "I saw a fellow prisoner get clocked in the head by a steel beam once, and I thought - wow, that must have really hurt."
But that is part of what empathy is. Perhaps not the whole picture, but certainly part of it.
And I would stake my life that every member of any parole board one cares to name, would be lacking in empathy. Towards certain things. Because we all do. One might "feel sorry" for people that have no food and have to search rubbish heaps for things for their bodies to consume, but let's not pretend that we "empathize." But does that make you an awful individual ? Does it mean that because you might not empathize in one area, you ∴ cannot in all other areas ?
In that last Davis hearing, the board members weren't bending over backwards on his behalf. Their minds were clearly made up beforehand, the same way that minds have been made up beforehand in Leslie's recent cases, and the way the board's minds were made up beforehand with Pat this time around. Bruce Davis had been found suitable in his last 7 hearings and there is nothing that he has done in the meantime, other than having his life threatened, that has altered that. It's not like Bobby where a case could be made, and was made, that he was displaying his pre~Hinman murder mind.
And since when has not being able to explain what empathy is, a condition of denial for parole when you've been granted it 7 times ?
Going back to your characterization of Bruce's notion of empathy, the
"I saw a fellow prisoner get clocked in the head by a steel beam once, and I thought - wow, that must have really hurt" bit ~ to a prisoner, that's empathy, particularly given that in a violent world, many perps won't think twice about someone else or what they might be feeling. I have long felt that one has to learn to understand the language people speak, in order to be able to know what they're saying. There's this song by Styx called "Light up" that has this great line in it:
"All I need is just one hit to get me by
Coz baby, when you're here I'm half way high...."
A lot of people won't get the depth of what the writer is saying because they might not really get 1970s drug talk or think in terms of the nuances of comparisons in a romantic situation. In the same way, the members of the Davis board laid out their stall, firstly by asking him repeatedly why the guv'nor turned him down. How in the world is Davis supposed to know that ? So he did what we all do and try to work it out. But regardless of what he said, the made-up minds were going to head him off at the pass. Same with empathy ~ because they couldn't be bothered to learn his language, they had to judge him by standards that don't apply.
Vincent Bugliosi actually started that "death by a thousand cuts" way of going at a perp. Block off every available means of escape so that they don't escape. If they take this route, block 'em off with that play. It's clever and right when you're looking at convictions. Maybe not so much when it comes to other matters.
That all said, I thought it was odd that Pat got a positive decision. But as you said, "shocker !" to the guv'nor nixing it ! That was as predictable as the Family eventually imploding !
@grim
I'm gonna disagree with you here a bit, but only a bit. And not because I strongly disagree, but rather because I honestly question some of what you offer. Just randomly:
"One might "feel sorry" for people . . . but let's not pretend that we "empathize." But does that make you an awful individual ?
Well no, murdering other human beings makes one an awful individual. And being able to express empathy for the feelings their surviving loved ones have is probably key in demonstrating that you understand the concept of empathy while also demonstrating a willingness to join them in their personal grief, even when you are the individual that caused them such grief in the first place. This is something that LVH has done quite well in recent years, I think, and I think that has made all the difference in her fate before the parole board.
From everything I have seen and read from him, Bruce Davis does not seem a particularly articulate man. He seems very simple-spoken and he seems to struggle to articulate things verbally. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it does serve as a pretty big hurdle in these high-stakes parole hearings. One doesn't have to be the most verbally dexterous person human being to state quite plainly, "What I did was horrible, and I often think about what a horrible time the Hinman/Shea families have gone through because of my youthful stupidity, blah blah blah."
"In that last Davis hearing, the board members weren't bending over backwards on his behalf."
I kinda felt like they were, at least on the empathy point. They spent a ton of time on that, asking the same question over and over in multiple ways, and Davis still fumbled the response. Part of the reason they were dwelling on this for so long is that I believe this was a legacy point from one of the past hearings (a stated Guv denial from the year before), I can't recall the specifics, and it seemed like they were almost trying to guide him to an acceptable answer that would help satisfy one of Newsom's reasons for a previous denial. We have seen board members do this abundantly with LVH and it seemed to me that was what was at play here with Davis, from what I remember of the transcript at least.
"And since when has not being able to explain what empathy is, a condition of denial for parole when you've been granted it 7 times ?"
This is one of the main reasons I am replying to your response, I think. While I'm certainly no expert on the historical practices of CA parole hearing conditions over the last half-century, I have read each of the incarcerated Mansonite hearings sequentially in recent years and I think I have noted a shift in how these circuses are run . . .
From the 80s/90s on, the hearings were conducted in person and seemed to involve three members of the current parole board. I remember seeing the same names over and over through the years, though of course these names would change over time as new parole board members were named. There seemed to be a kind of loose continuity of sorts at play, where someone like LVH would find herself seated across from at least one or two of the same board members each time she came up. This led (at least in what I remember of my reading of these matters) to a kind of serial conversation happening between the main players.
These days, the hearings are virtual (obviously because of Covid, but I can imagine this practice continuing for budget/convenience' sake) and only two board members are involved. The "cast of characters" involved on the parole board side of the table seems to be an ever-rotating and unpredictable type of situation. This, in my mind, seems to negate your continuity argument. Just like a coin flip, one cannot rely on a past result to predict a future one. Fair? Perhaps not. But it is what it is.
. . . I also think the fact that Davis went from regular grantings to a rather shocking three year denial to be telling of - something. Could be a parole board "something" or it could be a performance "something" on Davis' part, I dunno.
You seem to be one that leans toward release, while I feel like I am the opposite, to some degree at least. I just don't like the guy and I don't trust him. Yeah, I know - who cares what *I* think, as it really doesn't matter, but it is a factor that fuels my response here. I don't buy the "I just cut him slightly on the shoulder" Shea story. But I also don't buy that merely driving the killers to the Hinman home (twice) rises to the same level as a Bobby B or even a Mary Brunner's involvement. I've definitely never liked Davis' former cockiness ("Oh, I know I will be released one day") and I view his apparently exploitative faith-based partnership with Watson years ago as an ugly glimpse into his character. The other Davis factoid that has really stuck with me is his angry and challenging response to one of the recent denials, where he spoke up as the hearing was concluding, arose a bit from his seat and challenged the board: "So you are telling me that this is "life without" I'm serving??" I mean, I get the response and the frustration, but jesus, dude, realize your position in these things!
The vindictive side of me takes a bit of pleasure over seeing Davis travel from the smug "I'm definitely being released one day" to the angry and resentful post-hearing challenge he issued a couple of years ago. The more humanistic side of me slightly agrees with your POV, that the relative fairness of this hearing process is hard to discern, sometimes.
My bottom line where Davis is concerned is: fuck it. The guy lived in a drainage ditch for a year on Manson's order and he turned himself in on Manson's order and this Jesus-is-lord-please-release-me schtick sits about an inch away from the former fascination in the likes of Scientology. Davis was & is a flake and a couple of people (at least) have missed out on celebrating a ton of Jesus birthdays because of his actions.
Maybe a new Governor will be elected and the guy will get lucky, finally, at 78 - I guess we'll see, if we're all still hanging around and keeping tabs on these events.
I wonder if her hand still hurts from hitting so many bones all these years later?
tobiasragg said:
murdering other human beings makes one an awful individual. And being able to express empathy for the feelings their surviving loved ones have is probably key in demonstrating that you understand the concept of empathy while also demonstrating a willingness to join them in their personal grief, even when you are the individual that caused them such grief in the first place
I think we overestimate and underestimate empathy at different times and I also think we weaponize it when it suits us.
Genuinely joining someone in their personal grief is actually one of the hardest things in the universe to do, especially if one is the actual cause of that grief.
But that doesn’t mean that a person can’t put themselves in the other person’s place ~ and here I think we do underestimate the perp’s ability and willingness to empathize. I remember in one of his hearings a decade ago, Bobby was given that little bit at the end to say why he was suitable for parole and he began it by relating that having been stabbed in prison, he could now understand some of what Gary must have gone through. And Angry Anderson on the board was having none of it. He would not allow him to, well, speak his language. Yet, while we all know Bobby was and is a bullshitter and somewhat duplicitous, he may well have actually reached a fuller empathetic understanding than any of his judges will ever get to.
And Bruce, in safe housing because of the perma-threat on his life, may well be in the same position.
As far back as 2003 he began a statement with “You know, when I think about what the families of Gary and Don are going through right now because of me, I realize that this hearing and whatever
I’m doing in my life, I want to do something, whatever they need.“
This is something that LVH has done quite well in recent years, I think, and I think that has made all the difference in her fate before the parole board
Leslie actually showed a strand of empathy as early as her interview with Marvin Part back in December ‘69. She actually stated that she would cry when she thought about Frank finding Leno and so she would more or less not think about it. That’s empathy.
But she doesn’t say that much in her parole hearings.
tobiasragg said:
One doesn't have to be the most verbally dexterous person human being to state quite plainly, "What I did was horrible, and I often think about what a horrible time the Hinman/Shea families have gone through because of my youthful stupidity, blah blah blah."
No. But in a roundabout way, when Bruce has delved into his background and importantly, how he came to be so desensitized to the suffering of others, he’s empathizing. The question is, are those board members sufficiently savvy to hear what he’s saying ?
That he didn’t empathize at the time of the murders is irrelevant. It’s a given that he didn’t. That’s why he’s in these hearings in the first place ! But explaining his own journey is also pointing out what was wrong in his journey and therefore gives him an insight into how surviving relatives feel now. He has more or less said that he understands why they take the view that they do.
If I can see what Bruce Davis is getting at in his inarticulate way, then it is possible for anyone, that wants to.
I kinda felt like they were, at least on the empathy point. They spent a ton of time on that, asking the same question over and over in multiple ways, and Davis still fumbled the response. Part of the reason they were dwelling on this for so long is that I believe this was a legacy point from one of the past hearings (a stated Guv denial from the year before), I can't recall the specifics, and it seemed like they were almost trying to guide him to an acceptable answer that would help satisfy one of Newsom's reasons for a previous denial
Davis can do nothing about Newsome’s {or Schwartzenegger and Brown before him} reasons for previous denials because, as we all know, there are serious problems with those denials. In fact, to ask “why did the guv’nor block your parole ?” has to be one of the most idiotic questions that has been asked of anyone in the 21st century.
Gav the guv’s reasons are his affair. In my opinion those reasons have been dodgy. And as I keep pointing out, they don’t have to be. There is enough solid reason to block Bruce’s parole, just on the heinousness of the crime alone, but he never uses what he can legitimately use, and neither did Gerry Brown before him. He goes for vague bull that is demonstrably untrue. What is Davis supposed to say to that ?
The board were not trying to help Davis. Their minds were made up beforehand and they were determined to tie him in knots, which is quite easy to do.
I think I have noted a shift in how these circuses are run
Same here.
tobiasragg said:
The "cast of characters" involved on the parole board side of the table seems to be an ever-rotating and unpredictable type of situation….Just like a coin flip, one cannot rely on a past result to predict a future one
This is where I fundamentally disagree with you. If a board finds that you are suitable for parole, then for that to change requires a change of hefty proportions. It means, by any logical means, that the person has to change for the worse or do something that shows that they are now a risk or admit that they’ve been lying etc, etc. None of that has applied to Davis. Now, interestingly, it applied to Bobby. And he was taken to task in his last 2 hearings, after having been found suitable. It was very significant that it was put to him that he was displaying the mind that he showed back in ‘69, that duplicitous dodginess that led directly to him murdering Gary Hinman. And lots of questions and facts and figures were thrown into the ring. That’s really not been the case with Davis. Which is why, if the 7 previous hearings found him suitable, and nothing in his behaviour has changed, and then he’s found not suitable, then it’s pretty clear that the current board members were of the mind to never find you suitable in the first place. It’s bollocks to address the reasons why the guv’nor, who has never even set eyes on you, let alone spoken to you, has nixed every decision in your favour. The whole matter actually has nothing to do with him.
You seem to be one that leans toward release
I don’t. But I am resolute that any process must be fair, especially when its practitioners parade themselves to the rest of the world as the epitome of what is just and either heavily imply or more or less state that their way is the way all human institutions ought to conduct themselves.
tobiasragg said:
I just don't like the guy and I don't trust him
Well, he’s a perp. What’s to trust ? But this is the wheel upon which things will always turn, namely, can a vile human being change ?
But to be honest Tobias, you’re showing your bias here.
I don't buy the "I just cut him slightly on the shoulder" Shea story
Well, neither do I. But we weren’t there and no one has ever said otherwise.
Charlie Manson’s words in George Stimson’s book are kind of interesting, though. He openly states that he forced Bruce to cut Shorty. Now, in lots of other situations, Charlie’s defence of a person is more than enough to give me much pause, like he does with Tex in the Shorty affair. His saying that he doesn’t know that Tex was there is one of the main reasons that I think Watson was involved in Shorty’s murder.
Going back to Charlie’s defence of Bruce, in the same book, he’s none too complimentary when it comes to Bruce.
I also don't buy that merely driving the killers to the Hinman home (twice) rises to the same level as a Bobby B or even a Mary Brunner's involvement
Nor do I. Since I understood how conspiracy works, I think there are major problems with it.
I've definitely never liked Davis' former cockiness ("Oh, I know I will be released one day")
Just out of interest, where does he actually say that ? I’d like to grab the context.
That asked, is it cockiness ? Or is it hope, confidence and willingness to show that you can change sufficiently to be once again part of a society that you once showed your backside to ?
tobiasragg said:
I view his apparently exploitative faith-based partnership with Watson years ago as an ugly glimpse into his character
There again, that was over 30 years ago. And as I’ve said many times before, as a Christian myself, if one refuses to accept small steps, immaturity and growth in faith, then one can only see myopically, rarely realistically.
Davis had to grow in faith in prison ! For those of us on the outside, we make plenty of mistakes that reflect our immaturity and ugliness in matters of trust in God. Davis is no different and didn’t have ⅛ of the advantages we have if we’re not banged up.
So yes, it showed much of the ugliness in Bruce Davis’ being ~ and it’s a good thing too. That’s part of the way God works. He has his own agenda in cleaning a believer up through the period of what’s left of their life. God will use everyday events and situations to expose problems a follower of God has. Whether that follower learns at that time is another matter. Free will is no joke.
The other Davis factoid that has really stuck with me is his angry and challenging response to one of the recent denials, where he spoke up as the hearing was concluding, arose a bit from his seat and challenged the board: "So you are telling me that this is "life without" I'm serving??"
This was back in 2007. Looking at the transcript, the conversation is full of “inaudible” and half sentences, mainly from the DDA, Pat Sequeira. It’s very difficult to make head or tail of the conversation.
But in reality, that’s how it must have seemed to Davis back then. Remember, in 1993, he came out and gave details of Charles Watson’s involvement in Shea’s murder. And said why he didn’t think Watson should be paroled for the number of murders he committed.
My bottom line where Davis is concerned is: fuck it. The guy lived in a drainage ditch for a year on Manson's order and he turned himself in on Manson's order
You just don’t like Bruce Davis !
The two things you mentioned there happened 52 years ago. It’s part of a great story, but I don’t really see the relevance, given that he quit Charliedom 4 years later. It would carry weight and relevance if we were talking about Sandy and Squeaky.
this Jesus-is-lord-please-release-me schtick
He does not say that. He’s not said that in anything I’ve ever read of him speaking. He always points out that his faith in Christ is evidence of why he’s no longer the same dodgy person as then, how Christ was the beginning of his changes, how this trust in Christ/God enabled him to understand many things, and why he’s not dodgy. He never says he should be released because he’s a Christian, which your comment implies without actually saying it.
AustinAnn74 said:
I wonder if her hand still hurts from hitting so many bones all these years later?
Maybe that's why she was so ineffective the following night with Rosemary and partly why she pronged Leno with a fork that didn't have to go far in order to wobble, as she described it.
AustinAnn74, I've thought also about the wound Tex mentioned in an interview he received. He said he cut his hand with his knife in his struggle with Voytek at Cielo, and that he bears a physical scar because of it to this day. I don't know if Tex wore a bandage on that hand at the LaBianca's, or if he left any of his own blood at either of those crime scenes.
@grimtraveller
re: your mentioning of Bruce having his life threatened
I recall when Bruce was transferred regarding his personal safety. I may have missed it somewhere, maybe not. I wondered if the circumstances surrounding Bruce being threatened were discussed here or anywhere else.
It's a given that he's inextricably forever associated with Manson, which ensures historical notoriety. What I can't fathom is why threats were made on his life. He's what, cresting his 80's and hasn't been in the best of health. In the hierarchy of the prison totem pole, it's not as if he's in the same league as child abusers/peodophiles (who, traditionally in prison, are segregated as they are effectively wearing a "bullseye"). I'd love to know what incurred him a "death sentence" from fellow prisoner(s). Any insights, or failing that, theories?
I guess they must have thought he was a total wanker
bucpaul2812 said:
I wondered if the circumstances surrounding Bruce being threatened were discussed here or anywhere else....I'd love to know what incurred him a "death sentence" from fellow prisoner(s). Any insights, or failing that, theories?
DebS said that one prisoner owed another some money but couldn't pay, so in exchange for cash, he said "knock off Davis." I haven't a clue why anyone would want to be rid of dear sweet old Bruce.....
I suppose a "Manson murderer" nets a certain level of Kudos in a men's jail, a bit like a Jeffrey Dahmer. It is interesting that all 5 of the convicted Family male killers have had attempts on their lives.
"dear sweet old Bruce" . . . boy, that's a new one.
Catchy, isn't it ? 😆
What's the point in having these parole hearings when the Governor has the final say?
You'd really have to ask the voters in California (as well as dozens of other states) that question if you're looking for a real answer.
My best guess is that at a certain point, people felt that the parole boards can be too lenient and they wanted someone in authority to have veto power over the board. Like I said, California is far from unique in this regard.
I'm not even quite sure what the current status of California law is right now on this matter. Prior to 2020, the Guv was not able to reverse decisions outright - he could only choose to refer positive parole decisions back to the full 15-member panel for full consideration. Perhaps now the Governor can flat-out deny these decisions, seems like it (perhaps someone else here knows the answer to this).
At any rate, a year or two ago - as a result of a similar parole discussion here (probably having to do with Van Houten) - I searched and found a site run by a justice reform group that charted out Newsom's denial rates. I was slightly surprised to learn that he had denied a goodly majority of these parole-grantings, it wasn't just in the highly publicized cases like a Sirhan or a Manson person. Most were run-of-the-mill murderers that the public had never heard of, one could click thru on the name or case number for a summary of the crime & circumstances of each grantee. I wish I could locate that site again, as it gave me a ton of perspective. My thought at the time was "wow, if all of THESE people aren't able to achieve release, what hope does an infamous murderer have?" Fair or not, it helped me understand just what stacked odds these Manson peeps are up against as they make their regular parole bids.
The governor of California has been able, since the passage of Prop. 89 in 1988, to reverse the parole grants outright. The only thing that has changed since the proposition was passed is the amount of time the governor has to reverse the parole. Now when a prisoner has been granted parole it will go before a Board of Parole Hearing (BPH) full review. They have 90 days, I believe, to review the hearing transcript and the inmate's prison records to decide whether or not to send it on to the governor for his decision whether or not to deny release. The governor has 30 days to make his decision.
This law allows the governor to reverse the parole of convicted murderers only.
The original law as it was presented to the voters in 1988. The Manson Family was mentioned as well as many others as a reason to pass the law.
https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2005&context=ca_ballot_props
California and Oklahoma are the only two states that allow the governor to reverse a parole grant.
https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/politicians-have-no-place-making-parole-decisions-for-young-people#:~:text=But%20California%20imposes%20a%20daunting,governor%20to%20veto%20parole%20grants.
I believe that four states give their governors this power, though I cannot recall the other two right now. In other states, the pardon power is used to achieve the same thing, from what I've read. Thanks for the links Deb - very helpful!
Grimtraveller said:
‘But she doesn’t say that much in her parole hearings’.
One thing I’ve learned in life (very late unfortunately) is be careful how much you say. I understand these parole hearings can be quite lengthy and I should imagine it’s quite easy to contradict yourself or not make your point clear by searching for an answer that you think will be most satisfactory. When in fact you end up not being positive enough on the issue.
Surely an allowance must be made for how educated and articulate an individual is?
Regardless. I don’t know any of the victims / families or Krenwinkle. I feel sorry for the first two and I don’t feel sorry for Krenwinkle. However would I have her (so long as she was unknown to the media) living next door to me ? Absolutely yes I would.
Firstly the parole board with their experience and insight have declared she is suitable for release. So that frees up a prison cell and the possible fruit cake living next door to me can take her place. Presumably the governor knows for certain there are criminals on the outside that are less dangerous than Krenwinkle .
Does the governor have some additional information the prison authorities have missed, such as her non reported violent nature whilst she has been in gaol?
Then we have the notoriety issue. I was only 16 when the murders took place and I hope to have a lot more years in front of me. However how many people other than the individuals at the centre of this or a number of us on sites such as this are around to support or promote that notoriety? If Krenwinkle outlives everyone that was around in 1969 will her release be denied because the governor (at the time) is concerned of his/her votes?
Or I could just echo Tony above.
"Then we have the notoriety issue . . . how many people other than the individuals at the centre of this or a number of us on sites such as this are around to support or promote that notoriety?"
The moment you win an Oscar, your public references change from "Tom Hanks" to "Oscar winner Tom Hanks." The same principle holds true here. "Manson murderer Patricia Krenwinkel." It may not seem fair or just in some ways, but it is what it is.
Post a Comment