Your Resource for the Tate-LaBianca (TLB) Murders
Yesterday :: Today :: Tomorrow :: Where No Sense Makes Sense
How a 77-year-old Manson follower has Newsom in familiar bind
By Bob Egelko, Courts Reporter
June 3, 2025
San Francisco Chronicle
Once again, a state parole board has found one of cult
leader Charles Manson’s followers – Patricia Krenwinkel – suitable
for release after more than 56 years behind bars for her role in seven 1969
murders. And once again, Gov. Gavin Newsom must decide whether there is any
evidence that Krenwinkel, 77, would pose any danger if released – and whether a
decision to free her would affect his political future.
The Board of Parole Hearings, whose members were
appointed by the governor, voted Friday to grant parole to Krenwinkel, the
state’s longest-serving female prisoner. The board had ruled against her 14
times before recommending parole in 2022, but Newsom vetoed her release, saying
she had not shown “sufficient insight” into her crimes.
The governor gave a similar explanation in 2022 for
vetoing the parole of another Manson follower, Leslie Van Houten, whose release
had been approved five times by the parole board since 2016 but blocked each
time by Govs. Jerry Brown and Newsom.
But a state appeals court ruled in 2023 that Newsom had
failed to justify his conclusions that Van Houten, 73, lacked sufficient
understanding of her actions and could still be dangerous after 54 years in
prison. She was freed after the governor decided not to appeal the ruling.
“The only factor that can explain this veto (of Van
Houten’s parole) is political optics, and California law does not allow
governors to veto people’s parole because it will look bad,” said Hadar Aviram,
a professor at UC College of the Law San Francisco and author of the 2020 book “Yesterday’s
Monsters: The Manson Family Cases and the Illusion of Parole.”
And she said the same thinking will most likely affect
Newsom’s upcoming decision on Krenwinkel, once the parole board’s decision
becomes final in 120 days.
“What does he think people have an appetite for in this
political reality?” Aviram asked, noting California voters’ approval last
November of Proposition 36, which increased some sentences for drug crimes. “It
costs him nothing to oppose (her release). In the worst-case scenario, the
court overrules him again and she gets out.”
Newsom’s office denied a request for comment.
Manson ordered seven of his followers, including the
21-year-old Krenwinkel and two other young women, to kill nine people in three
gruesome attacks in the Benedict Canyon area of Los Angeles in July and August
1969.
During her trial, Krenwinkel admitted chasing Abigail
Folger, heiress of the Folger coffee family, and stabbing her 25 times in the
home of actress Sharon Tate, another murder victim, and then helping to kill
grocery store executive Leno Bianca and his wife, Rosemary, and using their
blood to scrawl “Death to pigs” on a wall.
Convicted of seven murders, Krenwinkel was sentenced to
death along with Manson and three others in 1971. But the sentences were
reduced to life with the possibility of parole after the California Supreme
Court overturned the state’s death penalty law in 1972.
The voters passed a new law in 1977 making capital crimes
punishable by death or life in prison without the possibility of parole, but
those sentenced under the earlier law, including Krenwinkel, remained eligible
for parole. Another ballot measure, approved by the voters in 1988, authorized
the governor to veto decisions by the parole board.
In prison, Krenwinkel has a clean disciplinary record,
earned a college degree and has taken part in community-service programs,
working to support other inmates with mental illnesses. At her 2022 parole
hearing, she said that after dropping out of school and becoming an infatuated
member of Manson’s so-called family at age 19, “I allowed myself to just start
absolutely becoming devoid of any form of morality or real ethics.”
In a statement released by Krenwinkel’s lawyers, Jane
Dorotik, a former inmate and now part of the support group California Coalition
for Women Prisoners, said, “Those of us who served time with her came to know
her as a thoughtful, gentle, and kind person – someone deeply dedicated to
creating a safe, caring environment.”
Relatives of the murder victims have not been persuaded.
“I beg the board to consider parole for Patricia
Krenwinkel only when her victims are paroled from their graves,” Anthony
Demaria, a nephew of victim Jay Sebring, testified at one of her hearings.
And Patrick Sequeira, a prosecutor in the murder cases,
told the board that if Krenwinkel “truly understood her crimes and the horrific
nature of it, she wouldn’t be here at a parole hearing. She would just accept a
punishment.”
Not so, said her lead attorney, Keith Wattley, executive
director of UnCommon Law, an Oakland-based firm that represents inmates seeking
parole.
“Pat has fully accepted responsibility for everything she
did, everything she contributed to, every twisted philosophy she embraced and
endorsed and, most importantly, every life she destroyed by her actions in
1969,” Wattley said in a statement after the board’s latest decision.
“Now it’s the Governor’s turn to show that he believes in
law and order when the law requires a person’s release despite public
outcry.”
After his failed parole hearing where he was denied for three years because he appeared on Keith Rovere's "The Lighter Side of Serial Killers" he continues to communicate with Rovere.
These pics were snagged from Rovere's Instagram page.
Deb's original post on the subject:
https://www.mansonblog.com/2024/02/bruce-davis-podcasts.html
They blabbed about their crimes. They blabbed, and blabbed, and blabbed. And when they were done blabbing, they blabbed some more. Sadie's famous blab to her jail mates Cory Hurst, Nancy
Jordan, Ronnie Howard, and Virginia Graham wasn't the only time the
Family suffered from loose lips when talking about the murders. Anybody watching the Family
closely would probably have picked up on the many incriminating
statements.
(confessions to the cops and lawyers not included)
Chaos by Tom O'Neill, pg369
"The most puzzling question of
all," Bugliosi wrote, was how Manson had turned his docile followers
into remorseless killers. Even with the LSD, the sex, the isolation, the sleep deprivation, the social abandonment, there had to be "some intangible quality... It may be something that he learned from others."
Here are some other candidates for that 'intangible quality.'
MENTALISM
Death to Pigs, by Robert Hendrickson, c.2011 pg323
".. Phil Phillips was actually being played by the workings of a "mentalist" ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalism
...mentalists,
appear to demonstrate highly developed mental or intuitive abilities.
Performances may appear to include hypnosis, telepathy... mind
control.... Mentalists perform a theatrical act that includes effects
that may appear to employ psychic or supernatural forces but that
are actually achieved by "ordinary conjuring means", natural human
abilities (i.e. reading body language, refined intuition, subliminal
communication, emotional intelligence), and an in-depth understanding of
key principles from human psychology or other behavioral sciences....
Long Beach Independent, 10-28-70
"When
I(Vern Plumlee) first met Charlie, he walked up and said 'Let me run
your life down' and he did. It just kinda blew my mind. He said I had
been in jail since I was 14; knew I was at McClaren (Juvenile) Hall;
knew I was AWOL. I don't know how he knew."
Maybe Charlie was employing the mentalist tactic of 'cold reading.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading Cold
reading is a set of techniques used by mentalists, psychics,
fortune-tellers, and mediums. Without prior knowledge, a practiced
cold-reader can quickly obtain a great deal of information by analyzing
the person's body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender,
sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, level of education, manner of
speech, place of origin, etc. during a line of questioning. Cold
readings commonly employ high-probability guesses, quickly picking up on
signals as to whether their guesses are in the right direction or not,
then emphasizing and reinforcing chance connections and quickly moving
on from missed guesses.
This poster on a defunct forum claims to have had connections to the case via her dad's friendship with Vince Bugliosi, and posted this re Gibbie:
Peter Sr.
immediately became suspicious of the new man in his daughter's life,
after all he was an immigrant who had only been in the US for a very
short time and seemed to have neither ambition nor money.
What many do not know is that from very early on in their relationship, Peter
Sr. had all of Gibbie's and Voytek's comings and goings monitored.
Peter Sr. had an investigative and security team which could put the CIA
and FBI to shame. In fact, both of these teams were made up of
former members of these institutes and of the Secret Service as well as
other high-ranking retired military men. His legal team was beyond
reproach as well.
Needless to say, Gibbie was on a much shorter
leash than she believed she was. And the heat on she and Voytek only
increased with their move to California. Peter did not approve of Voytek
whom he saw as an opportunistic cad who was riding on Gibbie's
financial coattails.
This being said, Peter Sr. did have Voytek
extensively investigated and traced his whereabouts in the US prior to
meeting Gibbie and throughout Europe. Unfortunately, for those tin-foil
hat wearers, Peter Sr. was only able to find out that Voytek was a
deadbeat dad and husband having left behind in Poland both a wife and
son who were barely getting by while he was flitting around Abigail's
fortune. He also found out that although Voytek was a drug user, and a
sometimes seller of the stuff, he was not a dealer of any notability.
It
has been said that Voytek didn't want to marry Gibbie because of her
money. That's total BS. He would have jumped at the chance at marrying
her had it been possible. But it couldn't, because, #1 he was married
already, and #2 Peter Sr. was in the process of putting in place an
iron-clad pre-nup should the event ever occur. There was no way Voytek
was ever going to inherit a penny from Abigail other than what she
willingly gave him while alive.
Abigail was watched the entire time she was living in LA. ...
Peter
Sr. had people stationed in LA who reported back to him regularly about
Abigail's whereabouts. I do know that he was concerned about the
frequency of her visits with her psychiatrist. He was afraid that this
information would get into public hands and that Abigail would be
perceived as "unstable". Back then, seeing a shrink wasn't nearly as
accepted as it is today. There was a definite stigma associated with it.
As
far as Voytek was concerned, he was definitely low-level when it came
to drug-selling. Peter thought him to be dangerous to Abigail not so
much because of who he would expose her to, but rather because he could
provide her with drugs that she could become dependent on. He was
suspicious of Jay too but not for the same reasons. Abigail had asked
her father to look into investing in Sebring International. Jay was not a
great businessman. His forte was PR and the actual artistry of the cut.
When he died he was in debt, not to drug dealers but to creditors. He
tried to expand too much and too quickly and this is what Peter was wary
of.
Peter Sr. was an incredible businessman and he did question
Abigail's judgment in investing in Jay's company even though the amount
of her investment was negligible. He was looking into Sebring
International's fiscal viability at the time of the murders. I doubt he
would have invested had that night not happened because Jay had bitten
off more than he could chew.
I will say that Jay's investors were
all legit. There was not money laundering within his business nor were
there any sketchy shareholders. This was all confirmed via investigation
by the DA's office.
----------------------------
Thoughts? It sounds realistic, imo.