Leslie Van Houten: Appeal Denied

Photo:  ABC News

In better late than never news, and I do mean that, Leslie Van Houten, once known as Lulu when she lived and conspired with the notorious Manson Family, once again lost her chance at parole.  (And when I say "lived and conspired with," I also mean "killed with.")

As you may know, Van Houten was recommended for parole by the California Parole Board last September, a recommendation that was shut down by Governor Jerry Brown in January.  Van Houten and her attorneys then filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking an appeal on Brown's refusal.  That petition was responded to last week with a 16 page ruling that stated, among other things, Van Houten "may someday be suitable for parole, when her commitment offense is no longer predictive of current dangerousness, it is not yet that day."  The legal document also called the crimes she participated in "among the most abominable committed in California in the second half of the 20th century" and Judge William C. Ryan noted "Petitioner's crimes terrified a generation and remain imprinted on the public."  Judge Ryan also pointed out that "if any crimes could be considered heinous enough to support a denial of parole based on their circumstances alone years after occurrence, they must certainly be the crimes perpetrated by the Manson Family."

Debra Tate, younger sister of victim Sharon Tate and now the only surviving child of Paul and Doris Tate, was quoted after the ruling as being "very pleased."  Ms. Tate says she believes that Van Houten is "as self-consumed today as she ever was, and that is the premiere marker of a sociopath."

Van Houten was 19 in 1969, when she joined Manson and several of his other Family members on their second night of murderous glee at the home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in Los Feliz.  By her own account, she knew that people would die that night and she put a pillowcase over Rosemary LaBianca's head and stabbed the woman some 16 times.  After the couple was slaughtered, she joined Charles "Tex" Watson and Patricia "Katie" Krenwinkel in playing with the LaBiancas' dogs, eating their food, drinking some chocolate milk and helping themselves to Rosemary's clothing.

Over the years, due to being the youngest convicted Manson killer and the argument that she "only" participated in the killing of two people, Van Houten has had more support for her release than other Manson Family members.  However, like Watson and Krenwinkel, Van Houten too has also laid the majority of the blame at the feet of the now-dead Charles Manson.  Last summer during a hearing to present mitigating evidence in Van Houten's favor, former Family member Catherine "Gypsy" Share testified that prior to the murders Van Houten was "extremely docile" and it was her belief that Van Houten would have done anything Manson asked her to.

If you've read my previous posts on Leslie Van Houten and the Manson Family in general, you'll probably guess that I'm okay with this denial.  I will never forget that Vincent Bugliosi, the District Attorney who prosecuted the Manson Family, stated that he believed that Van Houten was the least devoted of Manson's followers.  That's a frightening thought - - the least devoted of all and yet she would still kill for him.  (Unless of course that "kill for him" is utter rubbish and she simply wanted to kill.)  I also can't get out of my mind how Van Houten acted during the trial in 1970.  She giggled and laughed, even while the terrifying and painful last moments of the victims were being detailed, and when asked by her own attorney if she ever thought about Rosemary LaBianca, she said, "Only when I'm in the courtroom."  That coldness is what I believe Rosemary LaBianca saw, not the "extremely docile" person Catherine Share attempted to describe.

I've said this many, many times.  Leslie Van Houten, and all the convicted Manson Family members, were granted far more mercy than they ever showed their victims when the death penalty was declared unconstitutional in California and their death sentences were commuted.  Getting life sentences with the possibility of parole was yet another gift.

Were Leslie Van Houten not linked to Charles Manson and the infamous killings, do I think she'd get parole?  Probably.  But she is linked with Manson.  That will never change.  And the murders were horrifying, brutal and senseless.  Rosemary LaBianca was only 39 years old.  The last thing she heard before being stabbed to death was her husband, screaming in pain and begging for his life, while Tex Watson killed him in the other room.  An hour or so before she was killed, she was crying about the Tate murders the night before -- crying because she couldn't understand how anyone could be so cruel.  I have no sympathy for Leslie Van Houten; I reserve my sympathy for the LaBiancas who did nothing other than be home that night.

Van Houten's attorney, Rich Pfeiffer, refiled the writ with the appellate court.

Van Houten remains incarcerated at the California Institute for Women in Corona.

Rosemary LaBianca

December 15, 1929 - August 10, 1969

She is the victim, not Leslie Van Houten

Book Review: "Hunting Charles Manson: The Quest for Justice in the Days of Helter Skelter" by Lis Wiehl and Caitlin Rother

As Helter Skelter was the first true crime book I ever read, and one that will permanently sit on my list of best true crime books, I have a lifelong interest (sounds better than fascination) in the so-called Manson murders.  No book can truly be held up to Helter Skelter, nor should it.

Hunting Charles Manson is a notable and strong entry of the books on the infamous summer of 1969.  It doesn't cover as much ground as Helter Skelter, which gives us a lot of information on the criminal trial, but it also doesn't have its intimidating (for some) page count.

Hunting Charles Manson starts with background information on Manson himself, giving the reader an exploration of his home life, mindset and how he started down the road that would lead him to the Haight-Ashbury and the birth of "The Family."  I found the sections of the inception of The Family particularly interesting; the result is beneficial insight into why he managed to attract so many females to his coterie who remained loyal to him for years.

Many of his Family members are also given page time.  Rather than being portrayed as merely Manson's bloodthirsty minions, the authors demonstrate they were real people with real lives before becoming part of Manson's contingent.  It will make you think about what might have happened had they never met up with him; was the Family was little more than a drug-addled cult?  The authors' descriptions of daily life on Spahn Ranch are extremely well done.  I could visualize the hot dust blowing on the old movie sets and Family members grouped around, listening to Manson playing guitar.  It brings on a wistfulness -- even sadness -- that this communal living, instead of bringing love and peace, spawned violence and death.

The murders themselves are each recounted.  The details, if you are sensitive, can be agonizing to read and envision.  Gary Hinman, Steven Parent, and Donald "Shorty" Shea are often given the short-shrift of the verified Manson victims; Parent is the forgotten victim of the Tate-LaBianca crimes while Hinman and Shea are very nearly forgotten as victims at all.  More details are provided on Hinman and Shea as people versus just murder victims; it makes their loss, and the violent actions of Manson and the Family, all the more poignant and effective.  Thanks to this book being recent and published after Shea's body was discovered, a long-held legend within the Family that Shea had been "chopped up" into pieces and scattered in multiple graves can be discounted as well as providing a solid account as to Shea's final movements and day of life and who was involved in killing him.

The convicted killers' convoluted and tangled web through the legal system is also explored and this is one of two points in the book that I didn't agree with.  Sections on Charles "Tex" Watson, the man involved in every murder save Gary Hinman and the self-professed "right hand man" of Charles Manson, read almost sympathetically.  Even if you do believe that Watson is paying his debt to society and has become a born-again Christian, I cannot forget that he brutally stabbed to death Sharon Tate, who begged for the life of her unborn child, and then went on to marry and father four children while incarcerated.  I find that particular irony distasteful and revolting.  While Watson may have taken so many illegal drugs as to hinder his thinking, it didn't affect his ability to torture and kill and I simply cannot grant any sympathy to him; only to his victims.

The other point in the book that I didn't agree with - - and this is more my opinion than anything else -- is a motive for the Tate murders put forward in Hunting Charles Manson.  I've heard of the motive previously and this book does an excellent job in breaking it down and presenting it.  The problem I have with it is that it doesn't explain how and why Steven Parent became a victim, if you believe that Parent was the first person on Cielo Drive to die that night.  (And there has never been evidence to suggest otherwise.)  But again, that's simply my opinion and motive is something we may likely never get a firm answer on, especially now that Manson is dead.

Hunting Charles Manson does something that many books in the Manson library have not been able to do and that's provide a fresh look on crimes that have been written about, debated and dissected for nearly fifty years.    I appreciated the view inside Manson's life for the last ten or so years of it -- something rarely written about.  I also like that Ms. Wiehl and Ms. Rother showed the determination and strength of Debra Tate, Anthony DiMaria and Kay Martley as they attend and have attended parole hearings for years, speaking not so much of the ugliness their loved one experienced at the hand of Manson, et al. but of the precious memories they have of the precious people that were.

Hunting Charles Manson is an excellent resource for exploring the psyche of Manson in our quest to answer why.  Why did he turn out the way he did?  Why did he want strangers butchered?  Why does he continue to fascinate today?

I have been a fan of Caitlin Rother's books for years and made it a point to get this book solely based on her as an author.  As with her previous books, Ms. Rother presents the story and attempts to get into the mind of madness and answer the questions that puzzle those of us who have been fortunate enough to remain distant from the crime.  She is always respectful of the victims and their survivors, not glorifying the violence or the offender, and that is one reason I am a fan.  She's also a darn good writer.  For more information on Caitlin Rother and her books, go here.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Hunting Charles Manson for true crime buffs or readers looking for information on Manson and his crimes.  The fact the book features information from as recent as early 2018 is a bonus.

Hunting Charles Manson is available for purchase at major booksellers.

FTC Disclosure:  The review copy of this book was provided to me by NetGalley in exchange for a fair and honest review.  The provision of this book did not affect the outcome of my review.  I was neither paid nor compensated for this review.  

Manson Family Updates

So a few items on the Manson Family that are worthy to note.

First - - Tex Watson, as expected, was denied parole.  For the 17th time.  Thank you, California Parole Board.  Officially, Watson was found "unsuitable" for release.  No kidding.  This parole hearing, back in October, was his first since 2011.

One of the more interesting things to come out of Watson's parole hearing was that back in February of 2013 he was stabbed by another inmate.  I don't advocate violence but somehow I'm not seriously offended by this story.  I wonder why.

According to Watson, he was washing his clothing in a sink on a second story tier of the prison when another inmate approached and asked him if he knew anything about Kabala.  He responded in the negative and turned his back to the inmate.  Said inmate stabbed Watson in the back with a sharpened paint brush that was concealed in a rolled up magazine, and then attempted to throw him over the railing.  The inmate didn't succeed, maybe because Watson is a pretty big guy or maybe God was protecting this alleged born again Christian (and I write this with as much sarcasm as you can imagine.)   Anyhow, Watson was able to hang on to the railing until staff intervened.

Don't you just love it when the karma bus rolls around?  Sorry, Tex, but I hope it hurt like a bitch.

In other news, Patricia Krenwinkle's parole hearing has been continued.  Testimony lasting a day began on or about December 29 and information disclosed during the testimony is cause for an investigation.  Once the investigation is concluded, the parole hearing will proceed.

Krenwinkle, known as "Katie" within the Family and who personally stabbed to death Abigail Folger and carved the word "WAR" into the flesh of Leno LaBianca (she sounds like a peach, doesn't she?), had her last parole hearing in 2011 and was denied for seven years. She successfully petitioned to have her hearing date advanced earlier this year.

And last, but not least, when Leslie Van Houten was once again denied for parole, the California Supreme Court requested the Attorney General to provide evidence that she is an "unreasonable risk" for parole. Hmmm, I'm kind of thinking that maybe someone who got their jollies from stabbing another human being to death and then blames it on others may fall under the "unreasonable risk" thing but it could just be me.

Anyhow . . . given that the parole board's recommendation of parole didn't piss off enough California residents, this seemed a good plan.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court came through just in time for Christmas to deny Van Houten once again, refusing to hear her petition.

I think all Manson Family members should just get comfy behind bars.

ETA:  It's being reported that Charles Manson has been taken from Corcoran State Prison to a Bakersfield area hospital.  Reports do not indicate what medical condition Manson is suffering from, other than being a delusional asshole.

Van Houten Denied Parole; On to Beausoleil and Watson

Joyous Leslie then, serious Leslie now

Delayed news but Governor Jerry Brown did the right thing and denied Leslie Van Houten parole, despite the parole board recommending that the 66 year old convicted killer and former Manson Family member be sprung.  Thank you, Governor Brown.

Without getting too much into whether or not she's rehabilitated (which Governor Brown apparently didn't buy), let's realize for a moment that she has been incarcerated since late 1969.  That's 47 years, more than double the time she had lived in 1969.  To say that she's thoroughly and completely institutionalized is an understatement of the highest level.  (Granted, she was on bond in 1977 during her retrial.)  Things have changed since 1969 and even 1977.  The world has changed.  Van Houten herself is no longer a giggly nineteen year old singing songs on her way to and from jail.  If she were considered rehabilitated and released, could she be a healthy and productive member of society?  How?   She needs to pay for her crime with her life.  A life sentence should mean a life sentence.  And be grateful that society has granted her more mercy than she granted to Rosemary LaBianca.  Van Houten was allowed to live, more than four decades past Mrs. LaBianca, and was even able to obtain a college degree.  On the California taxpayers' dime, no less.

In October, two more Manson killers come up for parole and two more petitions need your signature.

Beausoleil today

Beausoleil in 1969

From July 25-27, 1969, Bobby Beausoleil tortured music teacher Gary Hinman.  He forced Hinman to sign over his two vehicles to him before stabbing him to death on July 27, while Hinman, who knew Beausoleil, begged him for mercy.  It's this crime for which many Tate-LaBianca devotees believe led to the August 8-10, 1969 massacre that would make Manson infamous, as some believe the Family was trying to commit copycat murders to free Beausoleil.  In 1984 Beausoleil was caught drawing cartoons of naked toddlers being spanked by adults and selling them to known pedophiles.  He has told various parole boards different stories about Gary Hinman's murder and his participation in it and even goes so far as to claim today that he was never affiliated with Charles Manson and the Manson Family in any way - - a fact that is easily disputed.  He once said "you'd better hope I never get out."  I say we heed that advice and make sure he doesn't.

Watson today

Watson in 1969/1970

The most infamous killer, outside of Manson himself, and one who participated in each of the brutal murders August 8-10, 1969 is Charles "Tex" Watson.  Watson, who now claims he prefers to go by his given name of Charles versus his Family name of Tex, also claims to be a born again Christian (isn't everyone in prison?) and has been allowed to marry and father four children while a longtime guest of the state of California's penal system.  That's right - - the man who personally stabbed to death the very pregnant Sharon Tate was not only granted the privilege to father children himself but to place the burden of the cost of those children on the state's taxpayers.  Seems fair.  He's also presented himself as some sort of pastor to a prison church that his now ex-wife helped him run (thereby having free reign with the tithes and donations) and has written several books, the most recent of which is nothing more than a finger pointing exercise at Charles Manson while claiming he was just a poor puppet influenced by the evil Manson and he's so, so sowwy for what he's done.  Yeah, not buying it.  Let's also not forget that he told his victims on the night of August 8-9, 1969 "I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's business."   If this individual is eligible for parole in anyone's book, there is no justice.


Van Houten's denial does not bode well for Beausoleil or Watson.  It's unlikely that Watson will ever get out (nor should he) but Beausoleil, being less known and having one victim versus seven, has a better shot.  Beausoleil has been incarcerated since July of 1969; I would think it's not likely that during his incarceration he's become a mellow tree-hugging lover of people.

Debra Tate, Sharon's younger sister, has been an advocate for many years.  I encourage you to sign her petitions, asking the California parole board to keep both Bobby Beausoleil and Tex Watson behind bars.

You can find the petition to oppose Bobby Beausoleil's parole here.

You can find the petition to oppose Tex Watson's parole here.

Should Leslie Van Houten Be Granted Parole?

Van Houten in 1970

Vincent Bugliosi predicted this, although he believed it would happen many years ago.  He did think that the Manson "girls" would be granted parole, paving the way for Tex Watson, Bruce Davis, Bobby Beausoleil and eventually Manson himself.   So this shouldn't be all that surprising.

The Manson "girls" aren't girls any longer.  Only two remain - - Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie Van Houten - - and both are in their sixties.  (The third, Susan Atkins, died where she should have - - still incarcerated and a guest of the State of California.)

Van Houten had her twenty-first parole appearance and the Board recommended that parole be granted.

This makes me angry.  I'm a resident of California and I don't want to see Leslie Van Houten (or any of the Merry Manson Band of Murderers) at my grocery store or in my neighborhood.   I know that some have said that she is the least culpable in the group of killers but killing is killing in my book.  She can whine all she wants about how Rosemary LaBianca was already dead when Leslie took a knife repeatedly to her back and it makes little difference to me.  Leslie held her down, Leslie aided and abetted Watson and Krenwinkle at the very least.  At most, she stabbed a woman who was still alive at the time.  Coroner Thomas Noguchi said that a number of Mrs. LaBianca's wounds were antemortem, meaning they occurred before death.  There is no way to say which wounds Van Houten delivered and which were delivered at the hands of Krenwinkle and/or Watson so I think it's best to err on the side of caution and assume that Mrs. LaBianca was still breathing when Van Houten attacked her.

Van Houten today

This is a woman who laughed and joked during the criminal trial, when witnesses were talking about the brutalization of the victims, their pleas for mercy and when her own life was on the line (she and her co-defendants received the death penalty.)    She admitted she felt no remorse for the victims' deaths, their pain or their loved ones' pain.  She admitted she only thought about Rosemary LaBianca while in the courtroom.  Within her first few years of incarceration, she was found to have a woman's prison guard uniform in her cell.  Until last month, she never admitted responsibility for her actions nor any remorse.  She blamed her actions on Charles Manson, on drugs, on her parents' divorce and on an abortion she had as a teenager.

To the finger pointing, I say this - - bitch, please.  We all deal with various shit in our lives.  Some of us have more to deal with than others.  Some of us handle that shit better than others.  None of it - - no matter how much or on what level - - justifies breaking into someone's house and slaughtering them.

I don't buy Van Houten's remorse.  I think she's a sociopath and this is just a calculated act in order to leave prison in something other than a pine box.

Something else about Van Houten scares me and that's this.  Bugliosi said himself that she was the least devoted of Manson's followers (and he should know.)  Think about that.  She was the least devoted out of this ragtag group and she was willing to kill strangers on his orders?  That's frightening.  What would she have done if she was utterly devoted to him?

If you don't believe that Manson ordered those murders, that would mean that Van Houten simply thrilled in killing.  Or maybe it's both.

Her attorney claims that this "violent act" was the only one of her life.  Not only would I hope so but isn't it enough?  Her "act" resulted in the violent and horrific deaths of two people that can never again live.  She has been given more compassion and mercy than the victims were.  They begged for their lives and were met with laughter, insults and the business end of a knife.  She and the others have been given the gift of parole hearings, of education, of families and of life.  Now she wants to beg and plead?  I say let's respond to her pleas with the same denial she gave her victims.  No business end of a knife but with a resounding "no."

While it's true that no amount of punishment will ever bring back the persons that were killed, punishment is punishment, justice is justice and life should mean life.

If she is granted parole, how long before Patricia Krenwinkle follows suit?  If Krenwinkle is granted parole, the clock will be ticking on the men.

Rosemary and Leno LaBianca

None of these people should get parole.  None of them.  I hope that Governor Jerry Brown is listening to the people and thinking about justice, the victims, the victims' families and what is right.

Sharon Tate's sister Debra started a petition to keep Van Houten in prison.   Add your name as a supporter here.

Let me know what you think.  Has Leslie Van Houten served her time?  Should she be paroled?  If so, why?  If you think she should remain in prison, give me your thoughts on that.

Debunking Helter Skelter



The ones who matter

If it seems too crazy to believe, it might just be. 


The theory of "Helter Skelter" has long been accepted as the motive behind the senseless slayings of seven people and one unborn child on the weekend of August 8-10, 1969 in Los Angeles by the so-called Manson Family.  Vincent Bugliosi did a masterful job presenting the theory of Helter Skelter to the jury, who listened, understood, bought it and found the killers guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.  Honestly though, if Manson were trying to jumpstart a race war, why stop after the two sets of murders?  It's not like the police were hot on his trail.
So was Helter Skelter the true motive for the murders? 



Drugs.  Were drugs the underlying cause of the massacre?  Tate detectives initially believed they were, convinced that a drug deal had gone south.  True, drugs were found on the property . . . but not enough to suggest anyone at Cielo was a dealer.  If a drug burn was the root of the homicides, wouldn't a hit be more clean?  In other words, would a professional (as surely a hit would suggest) show up at the Cielo property with a rope, knives and a bayonet?  Hardly the weapons of a professional killer. 


Was Voytek Frykowski dealing?  Feelings on this seem divided.  If he was, he had to have been small potatoes.  No significant amount of drugs were found in the house to suggest he was a major player and there were no weapons -- like a gun - - that you would expect a dealer to have.  Would a dealer be living in such an easily accessible property?  Even assuming that he was the target, he left the house earlier in the day - -  the perfect time to carry out a hit and making him a far easier target for a professional.


Same with Abigail Folger.  If she were the target, she had a standing appointment Monday through Friday to see her therapist every afternoon.  She could easily have been eliminated leaving or returning to Cielo Drive without involving anyone else.


Rumors have floated for years that Jay Sebring was the candyman to quite a few Hollywood players.  If true and if Sebring was the target, it makes zero sense that he would be taken out anywhere other than his own house or office.  His visit at Cielo seemed to be a casual type of dropping by you do with friends, which would make it more unlikely that he was the target in my book.  He also had no drugs on him and a relatively small amount in his Porsche.  None were found in his system at autopsy.  While it could bolster the dealer argument (as most dealers apparently live by the creed that you don't use yourself) it does weaken the rumor that he had a major coke problem.  If he was such an addict, wouldn't he have the drug in his system? 


Besides that, assuming that one victim was the target why take out everyone?  Would anyone attempting a hit slaughter a pregnant woman?   Would they write in blood on the front door?  Would they tie rope around the victims' necks? 


And where does Steven Parent fit in all this?  He had no previous connection with anyone at the Cielo property and it's not been suggested that he was a drug dealer or user.  Assuming professionals were dispatched to Cielo over a drug burn, they would have let the unsuspecting Parent, leaving the guesthouse, get in his car and drive away.


Furthermore, if drugs were behind the crimes, would the assailants leave any behind?  Wouldn't they search the property and take any and all drugs with them, even minor amounts?  And where does that leave the LaBiancas?  They had no known connection to drugs, nor were any found in their home or in their systems upon autopsy. 


While drugs may have been present and perhaps even tied the victims, however remotely, to their eventual killers, I don't think it was why the murders were committed.


The Mob.  The Mob angle is tossed around with regard to the LaBiancas but not Tate.  Since the two crimes are related we'd have to find a connection to the Tate homicide and the Mob and so far, there appears to be none.  Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski had no known ties to the Mob.  Jay Sebring was in debt at the time of his death but not to the Mob - - to Sharon, to Abigail, to his dentist, all of whom invested in Sebring International.  He seemed to be a textbook case of cash poor but having assets from his business.  No apparent connection with Abigail Folger or Voytek Frykowski.  Steve Parent had just graduated from high school two months prior to his murder so a connection there is about as likely as Manson getting parole. 


Even if the Mob were somehow involved with the LaBiancas, specifically Leno, would they execute a hit by tying up Leno and his wife, putting lamp cords around their necks, stab them repeatedly and write in blood on the walls before taking a shower and grabbing a bite to eat on their way out the door?   And making sure to write about Manson's infamous upcoming race war on the fridge?  Really?   Not only great luck and quite a coinky-dink but also an extremely sloppy hit.


As far as the Mob contracting Manson to perform the hit . . . my eyes ache from how hard I'm rolling them.


Black Magic and Witchcraft.  This theory is almost too laughable to press but it came out immediately following the murders and it still haunts to this day.  I think the gruesomeness of the crimes combined with Roman Polanski's films (most especially the then-recent Rosemary's Baby) gave this tale legs.  It didn't help that Sharon Tate was pregnant (feeding into the allegations that a child is the ultimate sacrifice) or that is was mistakenly reported (repeatedly) that Jay Sebring was found with a hood over his head. 


Over the years various "sources" have claimed that Sharon was initiated into witchcraft and said witchcraft is what got her killed.  They use a photo of her standing in a magic circle to prove it.  First, the photo is a picture taken on set of Eye of the Devil, in which she plays a witch so no dice.  If a real photograph existed, in this age of social media and eBay, you'd bet it would be circulated.  No black magic paraphernalia was discovered at 10050 Cielo Drive so what kind of black magic practitioner was Sharon anyway?  Witchcraft doesn't mesh with Sharon's Catholic upbringing and none of her friends claim that she participated in any such thing.  Her sister spent quite a bit of time with Sharon that summer and saw nothing amiss.  Furthermore, nothing has been said about Abigail, Jay, Voytek or Steven being into witchcraft so why were they killed?  Guilt by association?  The magic circle made a mistake? 


Orgies and Sex Tapes.  This topic has reached almost epic proportions in some arenas.  It was reported in Bugliosi's Helter Skelter that the LAPD recovered a videotape in the loft of the Cielo property that showed Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski making love.  Hardly an orgy or a cache of porn and yet some remain convinced that Tate, Polanski, Sebring and a host of other Hollywood players were participating in various orgies, all of which were recorded for good measure and the existence of these tapes (and the threat of them) is what incited the murders.


What makes this impossible for me to believe is, once again, that if such tapes existed, where are they?  It's been more than forty-six years since the murders; surely they would have surfaced by now.  Someone, somewhere, would be trying to get big bucks for these tapes and yet . . . not a peep.


And if the murders were committed in order to retrieve these tapes, why was it necessary to kill everyone in the house?  Why write in blood?  And why execute the LaBiancas the next evening?  Surely they had nothing to do with supposed Hollywood orgies.


And maybe the most important point - - what would Charles Manson and his band of killers have to do with sex tapes that don't involve them?  Exactly.  Nothing.


Copycat Motive.  Other than below, this motive makes the most sense out of all of them.  To wit:  Bobby Beausoleil was sitting in jail for killing Gary Hinman and The Family/Charlie/the girls thought a copycat killing spree would exonerate him for the Hinman murder and/or they needed cash to bail Bobby out.


The robbery angle is weak in my book.  Manson had no problems sending his girls out hooking before for cash so why not do that now?  He had also starting creepy-crawling homes so surely they could have pocketed some items worth a little bank. 


If Manson was so concerned about Beausoleil's incarceration why was he taking his jolly ass up north with Stephanie Schram and hitting the Esalen Institute to play his music?  (More on that below.)   Shouldn't he have been staying in town to organize his troops for soliciting and stealing? 


As far as that goes, wouldn't you think that he'd want to distance himself as much as possible from Hinman?  Especially given that he was present during Gary's imprisonment and torture, slicing off the poor man's ear himself.   You would think he'd go underground or something but this is Charles Manson.


The copycat motive is similarly weak in places.  Beausoleil (and possibly Manson, Atkins and/or Mary Brunner) had Hinman sign the titles of his two vehicles over to the Family before his death.  (In fact, Beausoleil was arrested in one of Hinman's vehicles.)  None of the vehicles at either Cielo or Waverly was touched.  (Maybe Beausoleil's stupidity taught them?)  The cops also knew that Beausoleil was part of Manson's gang so it stands to reason that another murder or set of murders along the lines of Hinman should have been a red flag leading the cops to Manson, right?


Manson and Revenge.  I believe Manson spoke about "Helter Skelter" coming down to the Family.  He was a storyteller and a preacher (non-religious, of course) who loved to hold people in rapt attention, particularly those who were under the influence of drugs and other dysfunctions.  One thing I will say about Charlie was that he was very adept at reading others' hang ups and issues, like most good con men and sociopaths.  The ragtag group of social misfits and dropouts that made up his "Family" wanted something to believe in besides all the free love and drugs that permeated Spahn Ranch.  Helter Skelter gave them a purpose and also fed into their antisocial nature by promising the "Pigs" (i.e., the white establishment) would get theirs while Charlie and his group remained hidden away until they could safely emerge and take over.  It's been said that Charlie is actually quite intelligent with a fairly high IQ, something that might very well be the truth given how easily he manipulated the Bible and the songs on the Beatles' White Album to interpret Helter Skelter. 


However, I don't think that's why seven people lost their lives that terrible weekend.  I don't think it's a coincidence that on August 8, 1968 - - exactly a year before the Tate murders - - Manson recorded his music with the help of Dennis Wilson, Terry Melcher and Greg Jacobson.  Manson wanted to be a musician, like Dennis (of the Beach Boys fame) and the Beatles but he wanted to do so without having to pay the dues that most musicians do.  In other words, he didn't want to work his way up the ladder, he wanted to own the ladder from jump.  While it's been said that he wasn't a bad musician and his voice was fine, his lyrics and the overall down nature of them turned off the executives.  Remember, this was just before the Summer of Love; the hippies were preaching peace and love, not death and destruction.  So Manson got the usual "thanks, we'll be in touch" line and went back to Spahn Ranch to wait for the call that would make him king.  The call that would never come.


Manson apparently waited and stewed for months, while putting Terry Melcher on redial.  By March of 1969, he had enough and went directly to Melcher's residence on Cielo Drive to find out why the executives weren't beating down his door with offers.  The property's owner, Rudi Altobelli, was living in the guesthouse at the time and informed Charlie that Melcher had moved out and new tenants were living in the main house.  When pressed, Altobelli told Manson that while Melcher had moved to Malibu, he had no idea where in Malibu.  A lie.  He also told Manson, when Charlie asked about Altobelli's contacts in the entertainment industry, that he was living for Europe the next day and would be gone for a year.  Also a lie - - Altobelli did leave for Europe the next day, along with Sharon Tate, but he wasn't planning on being gone for a year. More like a few months.


Manson went back to his life at Spahn of fixing dune buggies, eating out of garbage cans and sending the girls out on prostitution runs for extra cash and things seemed to be status quo until August.  In early August Charlie went up north to the Esalen Institute and played his music for its guests - - the so-called establishment that he despised.  There is no proof they were there at the time but both Sharon Tate and Abigail Folger had been guests of the Institute previously.  Charlie's music was met with dislike and disdain and he must have left thoroughly bitter.  He left on August 7, 1969.


I think when he returned to the L.A. area on the afternoon of August 8, he was seething.  It had been a year since all of his music industry dreams were to have come true.   Terry Melcher had told Manson he was going to get his music out there and to Charlie, a man born of the prison system where your word is the only thing you have, a promise was a promise.  Melcher, part of that establishment of "Pigs", along with those at Esalen Institute, had humiliated him for the last time.  He wanted revenge.


Charlie wouldn't have offed Melcher, the same way he wouldn't have offed Dennis Wilson or Greg Jacobson.  He needed them to further his musical career.  But sending a message was okay.  He had done so with Wilson by leaving him a bullet, the subtext loud and clear.  He would do the same to Melcher but in far gorier terms.


He knew Melcher no longer lived at Cielo; he may have heard that movie industry people resided there now.  It mattered little.  He knew the layout of the property and he knew that Melcher would hear of what was going to happen.  


When he sent his merry band of killers out that night, he was careful not to accompany them but his wishes were clear.  I think he sent them out on their deadly mission under the guise of Helter Skelter because he didn't want to tell them that he was really throwing a temper tantrum and ordering the deaths of a group of people because he was pissed.   Watson, Krenwinkle and Atkins - - thoroughly antisocial and blood thirsty - - were more than happy to instigate what they thought would be a race war.  In truth, they were simply obliterating human beings because Charles Manson didn't get his way.


I don't think Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring or Voytek Frykowski had personally done anything to Manson.  In fact, I doubt they had any interactions with him, ever.  They were merely representations of the industry and the establishment that had mocked him and for that, they lost their lives.  Steven Parent was collateral damage, having the extreme misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and meeting up with the evil and unsympathetic end of Watson's gun.


The LaBiancas were victims of geography, living next door to a house that Manson had been to several times, and victims of the Family's bloodlust.  They too represented the establishment that Manson had so much disdain for and yet wanted to be a part of.  For that, they too paid for his raging desire for revenge, plain and simple.


I think the truth of this case is a matter of Occam's razor - - the simpler explanation makes the most sense.  And the simplest explanation to me is revenge.

Linda Kasabian's Story Sounds Like B.S.

The History Channel aired a little docudrama about the Tate-LaBianca murders back in 2009, to mark the fortieth "anniversary" of the deaths, and they were kind enough to replay it this past weekend.  I think I may have seen it when it originally aired but if so, it either didn't make enough of an impression on me to warrant comment or I didn't fully watch.  In any event, I watched yesterday and what I saw made me angry.


The docudrama was told as Linda Kasabian saw it, with dramatic reenactments interspersed with interviews of Kasabian who was supposedly hidden with a bad wig, sunglasses (in some shots) and sketchy lighting.  I have to say that if this was how to keep her hidden I sure wouldn't want to go into witness protection with the History Channel covering my back.   I could pick Kasabian out in the dead of night, with one eye shut, in a swamp covered in mud on a foggy day.  Sheesh.


Anyhow, this was promoted back in 2009 as the first time she spoke publicly in forty years about what happened - - or in other words, since she testified at the trial that put Charles Manson and his merry band of murderers in prison.  If you aren't up on your Manson facts, Kasabian was given immunity in order to testify as she did not actually kill anyone that night and prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi stressed that she was just a little hippie girl that wasn't cut from the same cloth as Manson and his followers.


What struck me right away (besides the bad wig) was that when recounting meeting "the Family" and Manson for the first time, Kasabian looked wistful, as if she were remembering a loved one who had passed on or recollecting a fun, joyous time in her life.  I have no doubt that she bought lock, stock and barrel into the commune style living and the free love-share everything philosophy that the Family espoused.  To each his own.  I do think that the reenactment of Spahn Ranch was much cleaner than the reality likely was and the actors cast were much more attractive and prettier than their real life counterparts would have been. 


I found it unsettling that Kasabian recalls her first meeting with Tex Watson in such dreamy, awe-inspired tones, as if she was a lovesick teen.  Watson's sex appeal was off the charts, per Linda, and the attraction so instant that the two were having sex within hours of her arrival at the Ranch.  Tex Watson, in case you need a refresher, was Manson's main hit man on the nights of August 9 and 10, 1969 and personally stabbed to death a pregnant woman.  Yep, you can see why he would be so attractive.   So here I'm thinking that not only is Linda's judgment on where to live a bit sketchy but also who she finds attractive.


So her story about the murder nights is essentially the same as what she told Bugliosi with the notable exception that she is now claiming that she climbed into Steven Parent's car after the oh-so-sexy Tex Watson shot him four times in order to take the wallet from the dead teenager's body.  Hmmmmm.  She didn't kill him but her hands aren't exactly as clean as Bugliosi would like us to believe.  Unless of course she is lying.  More on that.


Linda continues to maintain that she was sent around the back of the house to look for open doors or windows and returned to Tex and lied, despite the nursery window being open and without a screen and then remained outside while Watson, Krenwinkle and Atkins went inside to do away with Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger and Voytek Frykowski.  She claims she remained outside, giving Atkins her knife when Susan ran outside asking for it and then telling her to listen for sounds, and came face to face with Frykowski when he stumbled outside after being attacked, desperate for a means of escape.  She sobbed and cried about how she looked into his eyes . . . and then did nothing, watching him stumble off before Watson (again) caught up him and slaughtered him on the lawn.  That Watson, he sure is a catch.


She claims she wanted the killings to stop but she did nothing to stop them.  Did she run screaming from the property?  Nope.  Did she jump in the killers' car, to which she had the keys, and peel the hell out of there?  Nope.  She waited in or by the car and when the trio returned, exuberant over their fresh kills, she collected the bloody knives and clothing and tossed them out the window. 


Let's break this down.


She said she thought the group was going on another "creepy crawlie," wherein they would dress in black, break into homes and rearrange furnishings in order to freak the occupants out when they awoke.  So why would the group need rope, a gun and knives?  Why would Watson need to cut the phone lines at Cielo?   


I can buy that she was in a state of shock during and after the murders.  Her daughter was back at the Ranch and even if she had taken off from the Cielo property, if Watson, et. al. had gotten to a phone before she could get back to reclaim her daughter, who knows what could have happened.  She couldn't very well show up at the Ranch without her cohorts. 


She certainly knew the next night when she was instructed to put on black clothing and grab a knife what was going down.  She didn't enter the LaBianca home or property but claims that she thwarted another planned attack on an actor she had met.  She, Atkins and Grogan were instructed by Manson to drive to Venice Beach, gain entry to this man's apartment and kill him.   Linda claims that she intentionally knocked on the wrong door so that said man wouldn't be killed.  Okay, but what about the poor person who opened the wrong door?  How did she know they wouldn't kill him or her?


Linda sees her chance for escape - - too late to save Sharon Tate, her unborn child, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Voytek Frykowski, Steven Parent, Rosemary LaBianca or Leno LaBianca - - when she is asked to visit Bobby Beausoleil in jail in L.A.  She says she is unable to get to her daughter so leaves without her.  Okay, a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do.  But does she drive directly to the LAPD and tell them she can solve the Tate-LaBianca homicides?  Nope.  She goes to New Mexico and into hiding.


What mother does this?  She says that she "knew" the Family wouldn't harm her daughter but she also told Bugliosi that Manson had said that at some point in the future they may have to kill children as well.  Knowing absolutely that the Family had butchered a pregnant woman, I certainly wouldn't be betting my child's life on anything they had to say. 


A few more things come to mind as well.  Linda was supposedly brought along on the two nights of murder because she was the only member of the Family with a valid driver's license.  However, Linda did not drive on either night.  So what difference did having the license make?  So why was she brought along?  She had only been with the Family for a month.  Some have speculated that Manson chose those Family members that were most expendable to him to send on his murderous mission but I don't think so.  Patricia Krenwinkel was said to be Manson's female equivalent - - utterly devout.  Leslie Van Houten and Susan Atkins were also reported to be fully in with the Family and its beliefs, including murder.  Only Tex Watson was said to be independent in any way but he followed Manson's orders like a good soldier.  It doesn't wash for me suggesting that any of these people were expendable.  I think Manson sent those followers he knew were the most antisocial, the angriest, the most fucked up who would slaughter strangers for shits and giggles.  So what does that say about Linda Kasabian?


She claims she didn't hurt anyone.  She says that Tex ordered her to stay outside . . . but why?  They didn't know how many people were inside.  Does it make sense that Tex would enter the house with just two women to commit those murders?  (Granted, they were armed with a gun, bayonet and knives.)  Did they truly need a look out (a job which Linda failed at pretty miserably) or was Tex making sure that his little sweetie wouldn't go down for murder? 


Linda Kasabian, in my mind, proved herself to be a shitty mother.  She joined the Family, where her daughter was promptly taken away from her.  Manson believed that parents ruined their own children and therefore shouldn't be allowed to raise them.  Linda should have run right then but she stayed and handed her daughter over to be grouped with the other children, in a separate building, taken care of by other Family members.  When she fled after the Tate-LaBianca murders without her daughter, she didn't get herself to the nearest law enforcement officer or building; she fled to freaking New Mexico.  Where she hid without her daughter, who she would get back only after the raid at Spahn and all the children were taken into protective services.  Still at that time, Linda said nothing.  Only after Susan Atkins began spilling the beans while in jail and an arrest warrant was issued for Kasabian did Linda start talking.


Had Linda come forward immediately, the murder of Donald "Shorty" Shea wouldn't have happened.     It's also possible the deaths of John Philip Haught (known as "Zero" within the Family and who was found dead from playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded pistol), and Joel Pugh (husband of Family member Sandra Goode) could have been prevented. 


I'm not sure I buy Bugliosi's suggestion that Linda was just a little hippie girl.  She had committed criminal activities prior to joining up with Manson and happily stole $5,000 from her husband's friend after Tex Watson suggested it to her on the day they met.  She clearly had no problem with the theft, as she had no problem doing the "creepy crawlies" with the Family.  She admitted in 2009 that she searched a dead teenager's body for a wallet.  How do we know she didn't do more than that?   

A New Book on Sharon Tate

I hate to say that I'm a Tate-LaBianca or Helter Skelter junkie but I've read Vincent Bugliosi's book many times, as well as various other books and articles on the case.  Eventually I became a fan of Sharon Tate's - - her sister Debra's book  (Sharon Tate: Recollection) is a gorgeous collection of photos and remembrances.

When I heard that Ed Sanders, author of The Family, was releasing a new book, and on Sharon Tate, I was excited and decided that I most definitely needed to read the book.  That excitement quickly fizzled out when I read excerpts through The Daily Mail.

Among other things claimed, Sanders writes in Sharon Tate: A Life that Sharon participated in threesomes with her husband, Roman Polanski; that she participated in orgies with other famous Hollywood folk that was captured on video; that Polanski showed these videos to his friends; that Sharon was initiated into witchcraft in 1965 following filming of Eye of the Devil and pictures of her inside a consecrated magic circle were taken.   There are also quite a few allegations that in an effort to hold on to Polanski, Sharon got caught up his drug-fueled and sexual decadence, that Polanski wanted Sharon to have an abortion and when she refused, he refused to have sex with her and began an affair with her friend Michelle Phillips, and that during that last summer of her life, Polanski was dismissive of Sharon, calling her a "dumb hag." 

I'll start with the Polanski allegations first.  I think it's fairly well known that Polanski had no desire for children; I believe he admitted that himself in his autobiography.   It's also well known that he was less than faithful to Sharon during their courtship and marriage and despite what may have been said immediately following the murders, Sharon was well aware and it was a source of unhappiness for her.  She was considering leaving Polanski and the marriage after her baby was born (sadly, she did not get that chance.)

As far as the drugs go, Sharon was no saint.  She had experimented with drugs before meeting Roman so I'm not sure it's fair to claim that he got her into that lifestyle.  He told the LAPD (and may have mentioned in his book) that the first time he dropped acid, he had done so with Sharon and it was her fifteenth or sixteenth trip.  She also appeared to be a recreational marijuana smoker before she met the director so I'll take the drug related stories with a relatively small grain of salt, at least.

After the murders, when the LAPD was searching the residence on Cielo for evidence, they found a tape of Sharon and Roman having sex.  If there were other videotapes on the property, as Sanders alleges, don't you think the LAPD would have booked them into evidence?  It's not like anyone would have had time to search the property and get rid of them - - the home was locked down once the bodies were discovered.  If the tapes existed, the other parties on the film would have a possible motive for murder.  Because of this, I don't think these videos ever existed . . . just another rumor out of many in this case.

The allegation that Sharon was participating in orgies goes against what everyone has said about her since 1969.  She was said to be sweet, almost naïve, and a homebody at heart who only wanted a home, husband and baby.  If Sharon did indeed participate in these acts, where were these people in 1969 or 1970? 

The witchcraft initiation rumor - -and it's just that, a rumor - - has been around for years.  There is no proof or substance to it.  Again, if there were indeed pictures of Sharon being initiated, where are they?  Surely in this age of eBay and internet, they would have surfaced by now. 

Sanders also got the facts glaringly wrong.  He claims that Terry Melcher was the owner of the house at 10050 Cielo Drive but the owner was actually Rudy Altobelli.  Melcher was the tenant at the house prior to the Polanskis moving in.  It may not seem that large of a mistake but it certainly makes you call Sanders' other so-called facts into question.

Perhaps most amazingly is that Sanders claims that Manson was paid $25,000 by a Satanic group to off Sharon because of something relative to the Robert Kennedy assassination she overheard.  This is so ridiculous it's almost not worthy of comment.  But let's address it anyhow, for argument's sake.  $25,000 was a large bit of money in 1969 (and would equate to over $650,000 today.)  If Manson had collected that sum, where was it?  Did he have some secret bank account that Bugliosi never found?  And if Manson was paid to knock off Sharon Tate, why would he send a vagabond band of killers to her home, with others present, and with such unwieldy weapons as a bayonet and 40 plus feet of rope?  Why would they commit such overkill?  Why butcher Rosemary and Leno LaBianca the next night?  None of it makes sense.   Never mind that Sharon supposedly knew something about the RFK assassination that was kill worthy.  If she knew something, don't you think she would have told Roman Polanski?  And wouldn't he have mentioned it to the LAPD when they were attempting to find a motive? 

Despite how good The Family was, Sanders failed miserably on this one.  Who was his source, Manson?  I think Sanders was trying to find the most salacious and juicy gossip in order to sell his book.  Shame on him - - just another person who has no difficulty in murdering Sharon's memory.

The Daily Mail article - - big grain of salt, folks - - can be found here.

The MacDonald Case: The Tate/LaBianca/Manson Connection

If you believe Jeffrey MacDonald's account of what happened that night of February 16-17, 1970, the crimes had a direct correlation to the so-called Manson Family murders that happened in Los Angeles in August of 1969.  MacDonald alleges that a band of drug-crazed hippies invaded his home and while on an acid trip, slaughtered his family and left him barely alive.

Let's look at the connections between the two crimes.

Both the Tate-Polanski and LaBianca residences were home invasions, with the killers entering the homes uninvited in the very early morning hours.

Per MacDonald's story, his home was entered by a group of hippies in the wee hours of the morning.

Victim Sharon Tate was pregnant.

Victim Colette MacDonald was pregnant.

The Tate and LaBianca victims were stabbed multiple times.

The MacDonald family victims were stabbed multiple times. 

The word "Pig" was written in Sharon Tate's blood at the crime scene.

The word "Pig" was written in Colette MacDonald's blood at the crime scene.

On the surface it seems there is a lot connecting the two cases.  However, looking at the differences shows there are more of those than similarities.

Both Colette MacDonald and Kimberley MacDonald were bludgeoned with a club.  Other than two victims being hit with the butt of a gun, no Tate-LaBianca victims were bludgeoned.

Three of the Tate victims suffered gunshot wounds. None of the MacDonald victims had gunshot wounds.

Rope was placed around the necks of two, possibly three, of the Tate victims to either restrain them and/or hang them.  No rope was used or found at the MacDonald scene.

The Tate-LaBianca killers brought their murder weapons with them to each crime scene.  The MacDonald killers came empty handed and used weapons found at the residence.

The Tate and LaBianca victims were allowed to fall where they may.  No effort was made to return them to any particular room or "pose" them in any fashion.  Kimberley MacDonald was initially struck in the master bedroom and carried back to her own room, placed into her bed with her favorite blanket, and the covers pulled up to her neck before she was struck again and stabbed.  Colette MacDonald was bludgeoned in Kristen's room and then carried to the master bedroom in a bedsheet, where she was deposited on the floor before being killed by further blows and stabs.

The LaBianca victims were restrained with leather thongs and the cord from a lamp.  The MacDonald victims were not restrained.

At both the Tate and the LaBianca scenes, the male victims were restrained first and attacked first.  Makes sense as the men would be the larger threat to the killers.  At the MacDonald scene, MacDonald reported that his wife and children were attacked first and he was attacked last, despite being a far greater threat than a pregnant woman and two little girls.

No children were present or killed (save the unborn son Sharon Tate carried) at either the Tate or LaBianca crime scene.  Two little girls were found slaughtered at the MacDonald crime scene.

The Tate crime scene was not contained - - victims ran through the house and into the yard to escape their killers.  Two bodies were found on the yard and one body was found in a car.   The MacDonald crime scene appeared more methodical.  Each child was found in her own bedroom and Colette MacDonald was found in the master bedroom.  The bloodshed appeared to have been contained in the three bedrooms.

The Tate property was isolated, with the canyons able to play tricks on hearing.  The location was chosen in part due to its isolation, allowing the killers to murder their victims without threat of discovery.  The LaBianca residence had a fairly long driveway set off the road.  The MacDonalds' upstairs neighbors reported they could hear when the tv or stereo was on, or when MacDonald and his wife had loud discussions.  It seems inconceivable that four drug-impaired hippies could have massacred the family and attacked MacDonald, a Green Beret, without them hearing. 

The phone lines at the Tate residence were cut, isolating the victims.  The phones were not touched at the MacDonald residence.

The Tate killers discarded their bloody clothing and the murder weapons off an embankment en route from the Cielo Drive address back to the Spahn Ranch location.  The MacDonald killers supposedly discarded the murder weapons outside the back door of the MacDonald residence under a bush. 

Upon discovery of the Tate victims the following morning, housekeeper Winifred Chapman ran screaming for help to the closest neighbor.  Upon regaining consciousness from his wounds, MacDonald stated he did not go to the neighbors for help because he "didn't know them that well." 

No victims were left alive at the Tate or LaBianca scene.  In fact, all the victims were horribly overkilled.  Jeffrey MacDonald was left alive at the MacDonald scene and his wounds were entirely inconsistent with those suffered by his family.

A March 1970 issue of Esquire magazine was found at the MacDonald residence after the crimes, with a cover story on the Tate-LaBianca murders.  Many facts reported in the article were incorrect, including the word "Pig" being written on the headboard of Sharon Tate's bed and that acid had something to do with the crimes.  The word "Pig" was written in blood on the headboard above where Colette MacDonald slept and MacDonald reported that the female intruder stated that "Acid is groovy." 

Tate killer Susan Atkins spilled the beans to a cellmate while incarcerated for another crime, implicating herself and the other Manson Family members.  All of her information checked out, leading to the arrests and convictions.  Drug addict and police informant Helena Stoeckley claimed to have possibly been present at the MacDonald scene, recanted that "confession", stated again to have been there and then recanted again.  One of the persons she claims to have participated in the murders was proven to have been in jail that night.  Her story has never checked out.

Hmmmm . . . what do you think, dear reader? 

The Manson Murders: Patricia Krenwinkel

So much has been said about Charles Manson and his crimes and yet somehow there always seems to be something else to add.  More than forty-five years after the murders, and with one convicted killer dead (Susan Atkins), there are still news releases about these infamous crimes.  

Earlier this summer I saw that Patricia Krenwinkel had given a prison interview.  She has been relatively silent over the last four decades of her imprisonment, with few and far between tidbits being released about her work in prison (training dogs for the blind maybe?) and the fact that she seemed to be a model prisoner.  In 1994 she granted Diane Sawyer an interview stating "I wake up every day knowing that I'm a destroyer of the most precious thing, which is life; and I do that because that's what I deserve, is to wake up every morning and know that."   She also expressed the most remorse for what she did to Abigail Folger, telling Diane Sawyer, "That was just a young woman that I killed, who had parents. She was supposed to live a life and her parents were never supposed to see her dead."   I was impressed by these statements, it's true.

When you compare these statements, which do make Krenwinkel seem remorseful for what she did, to the crazy town talk that seems to spill unbidden from Manson or to Charles "Tex" Watson's claims of being a reborn Christian and his "ministry" or to Susan Atkins' (also a supposed reborn Christian) pleas for mercy (i.e., release) when she was dying from brain cancer (or being a murderous asshole) or to Leslie Van Houten's inane bullshit - - well, Krenwinkel appeared to actually have realized exactly what she had done.

So when I noted that she had given another prison interview, I was most anxious to read it and see what she had to say.  Disappointed?  Yes.  Angry?  Unbelievably.

This interview was part of a documentary called "My Life After Manson" and to me it was nothing more than a bunch of whining and finger pointing as to how Manson screwed up poor little Patricia Krenwinkel's life and she committed the murders because she was a "coward" and to win the approval of the man she loved (Manson).  She also says she just wanted to be loved and her childhood led her to kill.

Hey Pat, I'm sure that Abigail Folger wanted to be loved.  And Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, who you also stabbed and killed.  Not to mention Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski and Steven Parent, whose murders you watched and supported.

Honestly, I'm surprised that the ingestion of Twinkies wasn't mentioned as being responsible. 

What made me angriest about this tête-à-tête was that never once did Krenwinkel apologize for what she had done.  Never once did she address the families of her victims, take responsibility for what she had done to them and say she was sorry.  I'm not sure the word "sorry" even came out of her mouth.

Obviously she wants to get out (I want a million dollars, doesn't mean it's going to happen) but this woman needs to stay exactly where she is.  In my opinion if she can't admit after more than forty years in prison that ultimately SHE is responsible for what she's done and where she is, she's learned absolutely nothing.