Darlene - the girl Manson met in Haight-Ashbury

I, Darlene Monaco,  authorize the Blog "MANSONBLOG.COM" to post, publish, archive, and store my copyrighted essay, "Charles Manson and Darlene," on their platforms and systems. This permission does not transfer copyright ownership, and all rights remain with me unless otherwise agreed in writing.

---------------

Charles Manson and Darlene

Copyright (c) by Darlene Monaco 2026

All Rights Reserved.

No part of this essay may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright law.

Charles Manson and Darlene

My name is Darlene. I met Charles Manson in the spring of 1967 in Haight-Ashbury. I was 16 and lived with Charlie when he was 32. Charlie was recently released from prison on Mandatory Release (MR) supervision and had no followers.

I dropped out. Dates meant nothing to me.

Being so long ago, I can't remember everything. But the memories I have are vivid ones.

Darlene is mentioned in a number of books. You will find Darlene in:

• Manson In His Own Words - Nuel Emmons
• Squeaky, The Life And Times of Lynette Alice Fromme - Jess Bravin
• Charles Manson, Coming Down Fast - Simon Wells
• More to the Story: THE MANSON FAMILY - H. Allegra Lansing
• Reflexion - Lynette Fromme

All of these books get a number of facts wrong concerning Darlene. The common mistakes are:

• Darlene was a runaway.
• Charlie was a hero and saved Darlene from the Black Man in Haight-Ashbury,
• Charlie took Darlene to Mary Brunner's apartment in Berkeley right away.
• Mary Brunner tried to talk Darlene into going home.
• Charlie found Darlene making love with another guy at Mary Brunner's apartment.
• Darlene was in love with Charlie.
• When Darlene left Mary Brunner's apartment she went back home to her parents.
• Darlene never saw Charlie again.

Will anyone get the facts right?

Trying to get the facts right.

When I was 9 we moved from New York to California. I liked to draw and I liked horses. I began to smoke cigarettes as a pre-teen.

When I was 11 I became pregnant and gave birth to a boy at age 12. I gave the boy up for adoption and over 30 years would pass before I would see my son again. I would not get pregnant and give birth again until my third marriage. I had 3 more boys.

Emancipated

In California you could get married at 16 with a parental signature. When I was 15 my father lied on the paperwork saying that I was 16. I married a sailor and was now emancipated.

My husband was away in the service and in the spring of 1967 I decided to go to Haight-Ashbury. I did not runaway. Since I was emancipated, my parents could not stop me or tell me what to do.

Meeting Charlie

I met Charles Manson and a Black Man in Haight-Ashbury and the Black Man wanted me to go with him. I could handle myself and would not have gone with the Black Man. Nonetheless, Charlie did tell the Black Man, "She's with me."  I thought Charlie was cute and liked Charlie and went off with him. We would stay in Haight-Ashbury for quite a while before I met Mary Brunner. Charlie and I were not always together so I do not know everything he did.

I was married, but 1967 was the year of "The Summer of Love" and I was a promiscuous 16 year old. Charlie and I had slept together the night we had met. Charlie left in morning and while he was gone another guy climbed into my sleeping bag and I slept with him. Charlie came back and saw us together. Charlie's feelings were hurt and I told him I was sorry. I didn't consider it cheating. I hardly knew Charlie at that time. But I was cheating on my husband. This took place in Haight-Ashbury and not in Mary Brunner's apartment.

One day Charlie took my guitar and pawned it. With the money he bought a bag of marijuana. I was not really upset at the time but I never got that guitar back.

One night Charlie and I were out late, past curfew for a 16 year old and not the best thing for an ex-con out on MR supervision.  A policeman didn't believe I was emancipated and neither did Charlie. I didn't have an ID that said I was emancipated. I did have a military ID commissary card that allowed me to buy food on the military base. I had to call my parents to straighten things out with the police.

Charlie was cute, a fun guy to be with, and a good lover. Charlie turned me on to LSD and marijuana. I liked Charlie but didn't love him. We crashed at places. We spent time staying in apartments in those old Victorian houses. Whitey and Susan was one of the places.

Mary Brunner

Charlie took me to Mary Brunner's apartment in Berkeley. Mary did not try to convince me to go back home. I was emancipated. Charlie did not find me sleeping with another guy at Mary's apartment, that happened in Haight-Ashbury.  I guess Mary had feelings for Charlie and was jealous of me. Many years later Michael Brunner would tell me that Mary was sorry for how she treated me, but I didn't remember being treated that bad. Mary did not feed us when we were there. A neighbor gave me liver and onions. I hate liver, but I scarfed it up. I was so hungry!

I met Charlie's parole officer, Roger Smith, at Mary's apartment. Roger told Charlie to get a job. Charlie shaved his beard off and got a job as a busboy at the restaurant below Mary's apartment. That job didn't last long.

I left Mary's apartment and went back to Haight-Ashbury with Charlie. Charlie would soon be with Mary. I would move closer to Los Angeles.

Lyn Fromme

I would meet Lyn Fromme, but I don't remember things the way Lyn describes things in her book.  Maybe she has a better memory than me or maybe she wrote about our meeting many years ago.

I don't remember riding in a car with Lyn from Venice Beach to Berkeley. While I did know a Ginger very well, Lyn seems to describe a different person. But maybe they are the same person.

I'm surprised that Lyn knew that I liked to draw. She described me as an angry person. I must have been mad about something. But I've always been pretty easy-going.

Funny, the impressions people get from one incident.

Ginger and Gary

Charlie introduced me to Ginger and Gary. They were in an open marriage and had two children. Gary had a job and Ginger sold LSD and marijuana. Ginger used to buy kilos of marijuana and break them up to sell but I was not involved in selling the drugs. I don't think that Charlie knew Gary from prison but there was another guy that lived with them who knew Charlie from prison. I would live with Ginger and Gary in two houses, one in Van Nuys and another in Thousand Oaks. Both of these places are close to Los Angeles. I liked living with Ginger and Gary because I had access to drugs and could use their car.

Charlie and some of the girls used to come and visit when I lived with Ginger and Gary. They brought a real big totem pole and it was put in the living room which had a high beam ceiling. They wanted me to come with them. But why would I leave.

One time Charlie and the girls brought me to a western movie set and I met a guy named Shorty. I am not sure what western movie set we went to.

On another visit Charlie said, "If you had no ego, you would kiss my feet." Well, I smiled and did not kiss his feet. I thought to myself, "If he had no ego, he wouldn't ask me to do that."

I was too independent to follow Charlie. I didn't fit into his curriculum.

Oregon

I was living in Oregon in 1969 when the murders took place. When I heard about what Charlie and his group had done, I was surprised. The Charlie I knew was a fun person. But something happened to his mind.

Miscellaneous - Answers to questions I get asked

• I remember the Diggers.
• I did dumpster dive.
• I saw the Grateful Dead play a free concert in the park in San Francisco.
• Charlie was 32 and I was 16. He knew what he was doing. I didn't have to teach him things. But I guess we all learn from one another.
• I did meet Charlie's parole officer, Roger Smith.
• I do not remember Doctor David Smith. I did go to the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic but I don't remember why. I do remember receiving money for giving blood.
• I don't think Charlie was an informant in Haight-Ashbury.
• I don't think Charlie worked for organized crime in Haight-Ashbury.
• I didn't know Charlie as a pimp. I was surprised to hear that about him.
• I did not give away money along with Charlie in Haight-Ashbury.
• I don't remember seeing a dog at Mary's apartment.
• I never knowingly met Deane Moorehouse, Ruth Ann Moorehouse, Christopher Walsh, or Mark Arneson. I may have seen Ruth Ann at Ginger's house but didn't know her by name.
• I think that Charlie learned about emancipation by marriage from me and told Ruth Ann Moorehouse about it.
• I never saw any babies with Charlie or the girls.
• I never met Dennis Wilson.
• Charlie never hit me. Charlie treated me better than a lot of men, even husbands, treated me. I've had pistols stuck in my mouth, been shot at, brought up on a hill to dig my own grave (but a friend rescued me).
• Charlie never made up a song about me. As far as Charlie's music, he was very talented. Of all the musicians' music I like, each group has songs I don't particularly like. Charlie had a song I remember that was okay called 'House of Tomorrow'. But some of his songs weren't very good, in my opinion. I don't know why Neil Young thought Charlie was so talented. He sang well, and some songs were okay.
• I was living in Oregon in 1969.
• Years later a reporter saw me with Sandra Good and Lyn walking down the court hallway after Lyn pointed a gun at the president, she asked for an interview. But I knew my mother wouldn't want my name associated with that, so I turned it down.
• I also played a guitar that Sandra Good was going to send Charlie.
• I met Sandra Good in Sacramento when she lived on, I think, P Street. My kids were small then. We went to the Capitol Park and to her house. I played a guitar she was going to send to Charlie. We visited the courtroom hallway where they were leading Lynette Fromme to court.
• For many years I had drug related problems. Nothing good came from using drugs.

NOTES

* Charles Manson DOB - 11-11-1934

* Darlene Monaco DOB - 11-15-1950

* Darlene Monaco's first child born around - 05-01-1963

* Charles Manson Release from Terminal Island - 03-21-1967

* Mary Brunner meets Charles Manson in April (or May) - 04-15-1967

* Lyn Fromme left home around Memorial Day - 05-30-1967

* Deane Moorehouse meets Charles Manson in June - 06-XX-1967

* Charles Manson arrested in Leggett - 07-28-1967

* Ruth Ann Moorehouse DOB - 05-19-1952

* Ruth Ann Moorehouse marriage to Edward Heuvelhorst - 05-20-1968

* Lynette Fromme points gun at President Ford - 09-05-1975

* Lynette Fromme spells her nickname Lyn.

* Lynette Fromme's last name is pronounced 'Fromm Me'.

* Charles Manson was not released on Parole but on Mandatory Release (MR) supervision.

* Charles Manson's DOB is sometimes listed as 11-12-34 and other times as 11-11-34.

* Charles Manson, Mary Brunner, Lyn Fromme, Christopher Walsh, Deane Moorehouse, and Ruth Ann Moorehouse are mentioned in the Leggett arrest report.

* Mark Arneson is sometimes thought to be one of the characters with a pseudonym in "Garbage Dump".

Unpacking the 1972 Charles Manson Interview: Media, Cults, and Cultural Mythologies

 

 

Bernard Crowe Wanted The Spotlight, The Book Deal, and Hollywood Connections - Then Nobody picked up the phone

Bernard Crowe wasn't exactly running from the spotlight.If anything, he seemed to be checking whether the spotlight had his good side.

This  transcript reveals Crowe's immediate interest in whether people contacting him were working on a book. He wanted to know who was writing it, who was investigating, and who was behind the effort to turn the Manson saga into another published story.

And when you put that together with Ed Sanders' handwritten notes from the earlier material, an even more interesting picture emerges.

According to Sanders' notes, Crowe explained that “the biz” made him testify.

That little phrase—the biz—may be one of the most revealing pieces of the entire story.

Crowe and “The Biz”

Crowe wasn't simply dealing with the aftermath of being shot or with the pressure surrounding the Manson case.According to the Sanders notes, there was something else in the equation: the entertainment business.

Crowe was looking to sell his story.

He was looking to make Hollywood connections.

And in order to make those possibilities a reality, testifying could become part of the package.

In other words, the courtroom wasn't necessarily the end of Crowe's story.

It could have been the beginning of the Bernard Crowe media franchise.

There was a notorious case. There was Charlie Manson. There was a shooting. There was a threat. There was a potential first-person account.

And somewhere in the background was Hollywood. What could possibly go wrong?

The book was already on his mind

Crowe's attention turns toward the prospect of a book almost immediately. He wants to know whether the people talking to him are involved in one and who exactly is behind it.

He's not merely answering questions.

He's asking questions about the people who want his story.

Who is writing?

Who is investigating?

Who is involved?

When Sanders' notes are considered alongside the transcript, the picture becomes even more pointed: Crowe wasn't unaware of the commercial potential of his story.

He appears to have understood that his connection to the Manson case could have value.

Testify first, Hollywood later?

Crowe had reportedly been reluctant to testify against Manson. The Sanders material also records Crowe acknowledging that the threat was real, while indicating that he had feelings of sympathy toward Manson and didn't initially want to testify against him.

Yet there was another consideration.

The biz.

If testifying could help establish his story, attract attention, lead to a book, or create Hollywood contacts, suddenly the courtroom offered something beyond simply answering questions.

It offered exposure.

And exposure, in that world, could potentially be turned into money and opportunity.

Then came the awkward part: none of it happened

There is an almost perfect Hollywood punchline to the whole thing.

Crowe was looking to sell the story.

He was looking toward the entertainment business.

He wanted Hollywood connections.

He had a story involving one of the most notorious names in American criminal history.

He testified.

And then...

Apparently nobody ordered the sequel.The big media payoff never materialized.The Hollywood connections didn't turn into the career opportunity Crowe apparently hoped for.The story didn't become the lucrative entertainment-business launching pad that the plan seems to have envisioned.

All that anticipation, all that potential publicity—and ultimately, very little to show for it.

And suddenly the book questions make a lot more sense.

This is why Crowe's questioning about the book is so revealing.

When somebody approaches him connected to the Manson story, one of the first things on his mind is whether they're doing a book.

That doesn't look like an accidental concern.

It fits neatly with Sanders' handwritten notation about “the biz.”

Crowe knew there was an audience.

He knew there were authors.

He knew there were people interested in the story.

And apparently, he knew there might be a business opportunity attached to it.

The tragedy—or perhaps the irony—is that the opportunity seems never to have delivered.

That's a remarkably different motivation from the image of someone simply being dragged unwillingly into the public eye.But the grand payoff never came.

**The spotlight was there. Crowe just never got the starring role.**

 

You can read the transcript here

I Survived Netflix's New Manson Doc, and All I Got Was This Crappy Reenactment

 

If you've ever found yourself thinking, "Wow, I really hope someone makes a 4,000th documentary about Charles Manson, but this time with absolutely zero new information and a bunch of annoying reenactments," then buckle up. Netflix has finally answered your incredibly weird prayers.

Conversations with a Killer: The Charles Manson Tapes hypes up "never-before-heard audio" from the "cult leader" himself. What do we actually get? We get bad dramatizations, Vincent Bugliosi's exact same version of events we've been hearing since the Nixon administration, and Charlie literally reciting the Our Father. Move over, Pulitzer committee—we have some groundbreaking journalism here!

Somewhere right now, author Jeff Guinn is probably screaming into a pillow, yelling, “I ALREADY COVERED THIS A DECADE AGO!” Which is incredibly bold, considering his 500-page "definitive" 2013 biography of Manson is famously packed with more inaccuracies than a politician's tax return.

If Netflix wanted to rehash the same tired narrative, they couldn't have picked a more hilarious foundation than Guinn's book. This is the same author who confidently declared that Manson's entire cult-leading strategy was born from reading Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People in prison. Yes, you read that right. According to Guinn, all you need to start a murderous cult is the same self-help book your uncle read to get a promotion at State Farm.

Even better, Guinn's book boldly claims that Manson went back to the Tate murder scene to "rearrange" it for dramatic effect, specifically taking an American flag out of a closet and draping it over a couch. A chilling, mastermind detail... except for the fact that the housekeeper testified the flag was already there, and there are literally pre-murder photographs proving it was just sitting on the couch the whole time.  So, not only is Netflix beating a 57-year-old dead horse, but they're basically tracing over the factually bankrupt homework of a guy who couldn't even fact-check a couch cushion.

Even the professional critics are struggling to justify this docuseries' existence. Over at Decider , they crowned it "the most frustrating entry in Joe Berlinger's docuseries franchise," noting that you have to suffer through "narrative misfires" just to get a microscopic tidbit of new audio. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Chronicle praised it for being "reasoned, responsible and detailed." You know what else is reasoned, responsible, and detailed? A microwave instruction manual, and frankly, I'd rather read that.

Instead of providing any chilling new insights into a notorious criminal mind, director Joe Berlinger basically grabbed the cameras and decided to film a Wikipedia article. You know a true-crime doc has officially flatlined when viewers admit on Reddit to turning it off mid-episode to go binge the canceled 2011 Pan Am series just to feel a pulse.

The only current "conversation" happening here is Netflix asking, "Can we milk this story one more time?" and the audience shouting, "Please, we are so tired."

Verdict: Save your time. The Manson cinematic universe is officially out of material. If you want to listen to an erratic old man ramble incoherently while a bunch of people try to figure out what it means, just go to your family's Thanksgiving dinner.

And then there's the glaring, George-Stimson-sized hole in the entire production. If you're making a documentary about Charles Manson, you might think to call the guy who spent over a decade regularly visiting him in prison, clocked hundreds of hours on the phone with him, and wrote the literal rebuttal to Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter. But Netflix? Hard pass. Why? As Stimson perfectly sums it up to Buddy Day, he knew the second they ghosted him that the filmmakers were terrified of "getting too far afield from the standard narrative." Heaven forbid a so-called documentary actually stray from the cozy, regurgitated mythology we've been spoon-fed since 1970! Netflix clearly couldn't risk Stimson bringing his decades of firsthand nuance to the table, because that would mean doing the current work of dismantling the "same old, same old" Helter Skelter boogeyman they needed for cheap binge-watchability. After all, why let an actual subject matter expert derail your neatly packaged true-crime cash grab with pesky, inconvenient realities? It's much easier to just hire a few actors in cheap wigs, play the hits, and pretend the guy who actually knows the score simply doesn't exist.

You can watch George and Buddy discuss it here

RIP Janelle Delabar

Janelle is seen here sitting beside Kitty 

Janelle Delabar passed away at the age of 69 following a heart attack. Though she spent only a short time around the girls, that brief period left a lasting impression on her and became a meaningful part of her life story.

Janelle held a deep admiration for them, especially Sandy, whose act of kindness meant so much that Janelle kept the shirt Sandy gave her for all those years. It was a simple gesture that became a lifelong keepsake, a tangible reminder of a moment she never forgot.

Her connection to that chapter of history continued long after her time with the girls. Janelle became an advocate for the release of Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel, maintaining her own convictions about their lives and futures.

In the years that followed, Janelle pursued a different path, appearing in B-movie horror and science-fiction films. She seemed to embrace the fun of making these productions, regardless of how cheesy, low-budget, or over-the-top they might have been. One of her later films was Attack of the 50 Foot Cam Girl, a fitting example of the wonderfully unconventional world she enjoyed being part of.

I also remember a conversation that revealed something endearing about Janelle. She told me about being around the girls outside the courthouse. When I sent her a photograph from that time, she was surprised and asked how I had obtained it. I explained that it was available on the internet, and she responded that the girl in the picture was her. She had not even realized that she appeared in photographs that had been published over the years. That moment offered a glimpse of someone who was not particularly internet-savvy, yet had unknowingly become part of the photographic record of a significant period in history.

Janelle's story reminds us that even a brief encounter can leave a lasting mark. History is made up not only of its most famous names, but also of the people who passed through those lives, carried their memories forward, and preserved their own connections to the past.

Janelle will be remembered for the kindness she received and never forgot, the causes she supported, the films she enjoyed making, and the unique experiences that made her story her own.

Rest in peace, Janelle Delabar. May she be remembered with warmth and affection by those who knew her and those who continue to discover her story.

Former Charles Manson follower Patricia Krenwinkel again granted parole

Gov. Gavin Newsom has reversed previous recommendations of parole for the 78-year-old Krenwinkel, who is serving a life prison sentence for the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders.

By Jonathan Lloyd and City News Service • Published October 7, 2026 • Updated on October 7, 2026 at 3:37 pm

Former Charles Manson follower Patricia Krenwinkel was against recommended for parole Tuesday as she continues to serve a life prison term for her role in the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders in Los Angeles.

Krenwinkel, 78, was preliminarily granted parole Tuesday at her 18th subsequent suitability hearing, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Grants of parole are proposed decisions that include a comprehensive review by the Board of Parole Hearings and the governor, who has reversed previous decisions involving Krenwinkel.

The most recent reversal came in October 2025. Newsom commended Krenwinkel's efforts to improve herself in prison, but said that growth was outweighed by a potential danger to the public.

Her recommendation for parole in May 2022 also was reversed by Newsom.

Krenwinkel was convicted of seven counts of first-degree murder in 1971 for participating with fellow Manson family members Charles "Tex" Watson and Leslie Van Houten in the Aug. 9, 1969, killings of actress Sharon Tate, Thomas Jay Sebring, Abigail Ann Folger, Wojciech Frykowski and Steven Earl Parent and the slayings of grocers Leno and Rosemary LaBianca the following day.

Tate was seven months pregnant.

Krenwinkel originally was sentenced to death. The penalty was reduced to life in prison under a California Supreme Court ruling that invalidated all death sentences before 1972.

Under California law, parole commissioners must determine whether an incarcerated person currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, according to CDCR. The review includes risk-assessment tools, evaluations by forensic psychologists, the inmate's prison record, parole plans and impact statements.

The preliminary decision in Krenwinkel's case is subject to a 120-day review by the Board of Parole Hearings. Because she was convicted of murder, the governor then has an additional 30 days to review the decision and may allow it to stand or reverse it.

If the governor reverses the parole decision, Krenwinkel would be scheduled for another hearing within 18 months of Tuesday's hearing, according to CDCR.

Manson died in November 2017 at a hospital in Kern County. He had been serving a life prison sentence in connection with the murders.

AI cleanups of existing photos of 5 of the Family's victims.

Nice job on the cleanup - particularly of Gary Hinman. So few photos of him are available publicly, and most are in poor condition.

 

Bernard Crowe: The Threat, The Bullet, and the Reluctant Witness.

The Bernard Crowe story looks very different when the surviving Sanders notes are placed alongside Crowe's own courtroom testimony.

The handwritten Sanders notes are an independent contemporaneous account concerning Crowe, while the trial transcript records what Crowe himself said under oath. They should not be treated as interchangeable sources—but together they illuminate some remarkable circumstances surrounding Crowe's role as a witness against Charles Manson.

At the center of it all is a threat.And, according to the Sanders notes, Crowe admitted that the threat was true.

That statement deserves careful attention.

Crowe and the Threat

The Sanders notes describe Crowe in connection with a threat against Manson and the "Manson family," including the threat that the entire family could be destroyed. Most importantly, the notes record that Crowe admitted the threat was true.

When questioned about the threatening words said over the telephone, Crowe acknowledged that he knew those words had been spoken. When asked whether he knew they had been uttered, his answer was unequivocal: “Oh, yes, certainly.”

Crowe testified that his own objective was to recover his money or the marijuana. When questioned about the discussion concerning wiping out the people at the ranch, he insisted that he did not approve of such a plan.

He said:

“I didn't approve of anything. I didn't say anything.”

He further explained that doing anything to anybody was not in his mind.

Elsewhere, when directly asked whether he approved of the threat, Crowe answered:

“Under no circumstances.”

And that is precisely what makes the record so interesting.

Crowe Didn't Want To Testify Against Manson.

According to the handwritten account, Crowe originally refused to testify against Manson.

The notes go further, stating that Crowe apparently felt guilty about testifying against Manson.

That is a striking detail.

The conventional image of a prosecution witness is someone eager to tell authorities what happened and help secure a conviction. The Sanders notes instead describe a man who apparently had serious reservations about becoming a witness against Manson.

That reluctance becomes even more significant when considered alongside Crowe's own testimony.

Crowe eventually took the witness stand—but the Sanders notes indicate that getting him there was not necessarily easy.

The Bullet In His Back

The Sanders notes also record an extraordinary detail concerning Crowe's physical condition.

Crowe had been shot, and the bullet remained in his back.

According to the notes, Aaron Stovitz offered Crowe the best medical attention available in an effort to have the bullet removed.

And even with that effort, the notes state that Crowe initially continued to refuse to testify.

Eventually, according to the Sanders account, Crowe was persuaded to testify.

The chronology is striking:

Crowe was shot.

A bullet remained in his back.

Efforts were made to obtain the best medical treatment to remove it.

Crowe initially refused to testify against Manson.

The Sanders notes say he felt guilty about testifying against Manson.

And ultimately, he became a witness.

Why did he become a witness? that will be coming in part 2. A hint is given in the documents above. 

  The $2,400 and the Marijuana

Crowe's courtroom testimony supplies the context for the confrontation.

The dispute involved $2,400 and marijuana. Crowe acknowledged that the $2,400 was his money, and his testimony repeatedly returned to the question of recovering either the money or the marijuana. It  gives us Crowe's stated motive without having to speculate.

He wanted what he believed was owed to him.

  Crowe Wanted to Protect His People

After the shooting, he explained that he did not want Rosina, Del and Steve unnecessarily dragged into the consequences. He testified that they had not committed the shooting and that he did not want them becoming entangled in the legal aftermath.

Whatever else may be said about Crowe, his testimony does not portray him as someone casually indifferent to what happened to those around him.

A Reluctant Witness With His Own Problems

There was another complication.

Crowe himself had legal problems.

During his testimony, questions were raised about his own criminal matters, and at one point he invoked his right against self-incrimination concerning a pending case.

 Crowe was not entering the courtroom from a position of complete detachment.

Yet eventually he took the stand.

The Manson Identification 

There is another important limitation.

Crowe's testimony does not provide an airtight basis for saying that he recognized Manson as the person with whom he spoke on the telephone.

The transcript indicates that Crowe did not know who the man on the telephone was at the time of the conversation. Manson was encountered afterward.

That means we should not turn Crowe's testimony into something it wasn't. Contrary to what Tex Watson said, We have no physical proof that T.J. know Crowe and that T.J. was in on the burn. Tex Watson is not the most reliable source of information.

The result is not a simple story.

It is a story about a drug burn, a threat, a shooting, a bullet, a reluctant witness, personal loyalties, legal complications and an admission that sits uneasily beside Crowe's courtroom denials of personal involvement.

The Last Normal Day: What Really Happened Before the Tate Murders

 

 

 

Bobby Beausoleil’s 2026 Parole Hearing: The Questions of Insight, Credibility and Continued Risk

Bobby Beausoleil’s 2026 Parole Hearing: The Questions of Insight, Credibility and Continued Risk

On July 14, 2026, Robert “Bobby” Beausoleil appeared before the California Board of Parole Hearings for his 22nd subsequent parole suitability hearing. After more than five decades in prison, the question before the panel was not whether he had been convicted of murdering Gary Hinman. The question was whether the man sitting before the panel in 2026 remained an unreasonable risk to public safety.

The answer from the two-member panel was yes.

Beausoleil was found unsuitable for parole and received a three-year denial. The panel acknowledged significant mitigating factors—including his age, lengthy incarceration, physical condition, institutional work history, educational development and a risk assessment finding him overall low-risk for violence—but concluded that unresolved concerns surrounding his insight, risk factors, programming and conduct outweighed those mitigating considerations.

The case history could not simply be ignored, but the ultimate question was whether Beausoleil had demonstrated enough growth, insight and behavioral change to establish that the circumstances associated with his past no longer represented a meaningful risk.

The Shadow of the 2025 Parole Grant—and Its Reversal

One of the first major issues addressed was the fact that Beausoleil had previously received a grant of parole at his January 7, 2025 hearing.

That grant was subsequently reviewed by the Board of Parole Hearings and the Governor’s office, and Governor Gavin Newsom reversed the grant.

Beausoleil was asked directly whether he understood why the Governor had reversed the decision.

He identified three concerns. Among them were concerns relating to statements in his Comprehensive Risk Assessment, his communications with the media, and a letter he had written to Cheryl Pickford, a relative of Gary Hinman.

The discussion about that letter became one of the clearest examples of the hearing’s central theme: insight versus self-perception.

Beausoleil acknowledged that including personal anecdotes and information about his relationship with Gary in an apology letter was inappropriate. He said that his participation in victim-impact-related programming had helped him understand why such a letter could be perceived as centering himself rather than the victim.

But there was an important qualification.

Beausoleil continued to defend the sincerity of the letter and said he still stood by its core message. He acknowledged that the Governor’s criticism concerning the way he presented himself in the letter demonstrated a lack of insight, while maintaining that the underlying apology was genuine.

That tension—acknowledging a problem while continuing to defend the underlying behavior—appeared repeatedly throughout the hearing.

The Question of “Adulation” and Narcissistic Traits

Another major issue involved the most recent Comprehensive Risk Assessment.

The assessment had discussed Beausoleil’s history of receiving attention or what the assessment characterized as “adulation” from people inside and outside prison. The concern was not simply popularity. The concern was whether positive attention had reinforced personality characteristics that made it difficult for him to recognize when his own attitudes or behaviors were problematic.

Initially, Beausoleil said he did not fully understand why that language had been used.

As questioning continued, however, he acknowledged that the assessment was referring not only to his distant past but also to behavior during his incarceration.

He ultimately agreed that recognition for his art, music and other work had historically provided gratification and acknowledged that this could become problematic.

Beausoleil told the panel that he had worked to stop making everything about himself and that he no longer needed the same level of attention or recognition.

The commissioners, however, were clearly interested in whether this represented a genuine and sustained change rather than simply an explanation developed for the hearing.

Empathy Became One of the Central Issues

Perhaps the most important psychological theme of the hearing was empathy.

Beausoleil described developing greater empathy as one of the major changes in his life. He said that he had learned to place himself in another person’s position and consider what that person might be experiencing rather than automatically viewing events through his own perspective.

When Deputy Commissioner Vijay Desai returned to the circumstances surrounding Gary Hinman’s treatment, Beausoleil acknowledged something particularly significant.

When asked whether he had been practicing empathy at the time of the offense, he answered that he had not.

He said he did not understand empathy in the way he does today.

The distinction mattered because the Board was not merely looking for a statement of remorse. It was examining whether Beausoleil could identify the psychological and behavioral mechanisms that contributed to his conduct and demonstrate that those mechanisms had changed.

The Continuing Dispute Over the Circumstances of Gary Hinman’s Death

The most controversial issue remained Beausoleil’s account of the circumstances surrounding the Hinman murder.

Throughout the years, Beausoleil has presented a version of events involving a drug transaction, the Straight Satans and money allegedly owed after a mescaline transaction.

During the 2026 hearing, that history again became an issue.

Beausoleil’s attorney acknowledged that there were discrepancies between Beausoleil’s account and the official record but emphasized that his client had maintained his version of events for decades.

The Art and Business Controversy

Another major portion of the hearing concerned Beausoleil’s art and music.

Beausoleil explained that people had purchased his artwork and that money had passed through an outside account. He disputed the characterization that he had been operating a business and maintained that some of his work had previously received institutional authorization.

The panel, however, questioned whether those prior authorizations applied to subsequent activity in California.

The commissioners specifically examined a 2020 disciplinary matter involving unauthorized business activity.

Beausoleil acknowledged the disciplinary finding but maintained that he had acted in good faith and believed he had previously obtained appropriate authorization.

He said that after the 2020 disciplinary action he stopped monetizing his work.

The issue nevertheless remained significant because prosecutors argued that the business activity raised questions about his willingness to follow institutional rules and his credibility concerning money.

The Money Question

The District Attorney’s office requested further investigation into Beausoleil’s financial accounts, particularly payments and transactions involving people outside the prison.

The board argued that the financial history raised unresolved questions about whether Beausoleil had continued engaging in unauthorized commercial activity.

The hearing included discussion of payments made by Beth Hall, whom Beausoleil described as a friend and assistant.

Beausoleil stated that she helped with typing, communications and financial matters.

When asked whether he would cooperate with an investigation into his accounts, Beausoleil ultimately said that he would answer questions concerning money that had been sent to him.

The financial issue became more than a question about money.

For the board, it became a credibility issue.

If Beausoleil’s explanations about his business activity were incomplete or inaccurate, the question was whether that demonstrated the same kind of thinking that had contributed to previous institutional violations.

Victims’ Representatives Presented a Strongly Opposing View

The victim representatives presented some of the most forceful opposition to parole.

Cheryl Pickford’s representatives argued that Beausoleil continued to minimize the seriousness of the offense and that his repeated public appearances, interviews and creative work kept him connected to the notoriety surrounding the murder.

The victim representatives also argued that Beausoleil’s continued presentation of himself through art, music and media attention was evidence of the very attention-seeking behavior identified in his risk assessment.

Kay Hinman Martley emphasized the continuing effect of Gary Hinman’s murder on his family and argued that Beausoleil had not fully accepted responsibility.

Deborah Tate also addressed what she described as continuing inaccuracies in the public discussion of the case and argued that Beausoleil continued to minimize his responsibility.

The hearing therefore became not only a debate about Beausoleil’s rehabilitation but also a confrontation between his interpretation of his personal transformation and the victims’ interpretation of the continuing consequences of his conduct.

The Panel Gave Victims a Broad Opportunity to Speak

There was considerable procedural debate about the scope of victim statements.

Beausoleil’s attorney argued that victim-impact statements should remain focused on Beausoleil, the commitment offense and matters legally relevant to parole suitability.

The District Attorney emphasized the victims’ statutory and constitutional rights to speak.

Commissioner Chappell ultimately ruled that victim statements would be allowed to proceed without continuous interruption, while the panel would determine how much weight to give the information presented.

This became an important procedural component of the hearing because the victim representatives presented extensive arguments concerning historical conduct, public notoriety, business dealings and perceived minimization.

Beausoleil’s Rehabilitation Was Not Ignored

Deputy Commissioner Desai stated that Beausoleil had not sufficiently developed programming addressing negative peer association and violence.

The panel also noted shortcomings in his relapse-prevention planning concerning critical risk factors.

These concerns were weighed against the mitigating evidence.

Instead, it concluded that neither was appropriate given Beausoleil’s age, the victims’ interests and the overall circumstances.

What the Board Wants to See Before the Next Hearing

The commissioners gave unusually clear recommendations for the next three years.

They instructed Beausoleil to:

Remain disciplinary-free.

Avoid new 115 or 128A violations.

Continue earning positive institutional chronos.

Continue self-help programming.

Participate in programming addressing criminal thinking.

Take denial-management programming if available.

Address his history of negative peer association.

Continue victim-awareness and victim-impact programming.

Continue substance-abuse programming.

Develop stronger strategies addressing the risk factors identified by the panel.

Commissioner Chappell stated that the panel had considered the legal standards, the central file, the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, the hearing testimony, the attorneys’ presentations and the victim statements.

The panel concluded that Beausoleil continued to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.

Parole was denied for three years

You can read the transcript here, or I can give you a link to download the PDF here