 |
| California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation via AP |
New laws of significance:
1) The parole panel must now consider that she committed the murders at a young age and is now an elderly prisoner.
2) Los Angeles County prosecutors weren’t allowed at the parole hearing to object, under District Attorney George Gascón’s new policy that prosecutors should not be involved in deciding whether prisoners are ready for release.
I have mixed emotions on this parole decision. In my opinion, Tex has the most blood on his hands, but Pat ranks a close second. In terms of culpability, Pat is #2 on my list.
On the other hand... I've always found Pat to be the most sincere in terms of remorse and rehabilitation. She seems well-grounded, and I believe she has genuinely "learned her lesson". She certainly seems more sincere and rehabilitated than Tex, Bruce, Bobby, and Leslie. Of course, such opinions of character are (to a large extent) subjective.
26 comments:
I've gotta here Dilligaf's opinion on this development:
New laws since Krenwinkel was last denied parole in 2017 required the parole panel to consider that she committed the murders at a young age and is now an elderly prisoner.
Also, for the first time, Los Angeles County prosecutors weren’t at the parole hearing to object, under District Attorney George Gascón’s policy that prosecutors should not be involved in deciding whether prisoners are ready for release.
Wow, I never thought this would happen. Of course, if Newsom won't let the others out, he's certainly not letting Krenwinkel out.
Hmmmm...
I have mixed emotions on this decision.
In my opinion, Tex has the most blood on his hands, but Pat ranks a close second.
In terms of culpability, Pat is #2 on my list.
On the other hand...
I've always found Pat to be the most sincere in terms of remorse and rehabilitation.
She seems well-grounded, and I believe she has genuinely "learned her lesson".
She certainly seems more sincere and rehabilitated than Tex, Bruce, Bobby, and Leslie.
In my opinion, those 4 jokers are still full of baloney.
Of course, such opinions of character are (to a large extent) subjective.
=================================
ba·lo·ney
/bəˈlōnē/
nounINFORMAL
1.
foolish or deceptive talk; nonsense.
"typical salesman's baloney"
"Krenwinkel became the state’s longest-serving female inmate when fellow Manson follower Susan Atkins died of cancer in prison in 2009. Wattley said he understands she is the longest-serving woman in the United States".
That's gotta suck...
A jury of their peers gave them the death penalty because of the heinousness of their crimes and also because of the way they acted in court like murder was just a big joke to them.
When California abolished the death penalty, their sentences should have been commuted to life in prison without parole. That would have ended all of these parole hearings and subjecting the family members of the victims to hearing all of this over and over again.
Well, here is a Dilligaf opinion..
For the past two decades, the California Legislature has done everything it can to de-criminalize crime, and the punishment that often accompanies crime. From Props. 47, 57, and the passage of AB109, California has worked hard to reduce prison sentences, reduce prison populations, and send the problems down to county levels, all while saying what a great job we are doing as your leaders. Nevermind that crime, across the board has risen, and that California society is suffering as a result, if it makes you feel good, then it must be right.
Now, in regards to our current parole board in California, always keep in mind that PBH officers are appointed by the sitting Governor, which for the past 14 years have been soft on crime Democrats. Over time, the boards have been reduced to only two members per hearing, reducing the chances of opposition. To serve on PBH boards, it is an unspoken directive to find ways to grant parole. The use of Elderly Parole hearings has increased not because of anything other than reduced prison & medical costs. If an elderly inmate is paroled, care&costs are then the responsibility of the county in which the inmate is paroled to. How lucky for that county, and it’s taxpayers.
You are also seeing an increase in parole hearings based on AB 1308, and SB 260, 261, also known as Youthful Offender Parole. This create the opportunity for inmates to argue that since they were under the age of 26, their brain was not fully developed, thus the punishment for their crime should be mitigated by that fact. Based on both California & US Supreme Court cases, the California Legislature took cases and expanded it even further. Having Democratic supermajorities in both chambers allows very liberal beliefs to become law.
Krenwinkle tried arguing for Youthful parole status in the past, but failed. She may have tried it again, but we will not know until we see the transcripts. Look at it this way; she can argue that she was too young and should be paroled for what is, in essence, a retroactive mental capacity defect, and if that doesn’t work, argue for parole because she is too old to remain incarcerated, especially since California created many reasons to grant such a claim.
The reality is that, most likely, Governor Newsom will override the board’s recommendation, which only kicks the can down the road. The only guarantee that any of the remaining members remain in prison is for them to die there. Otherwise, we are most likely to see some granted parole, as long as the state continues to look for ways to diminish an inmate’s responsibility for their actions.
Yet, there's a strange anomaly with the Family killers ~ I don't know how 'across the board' this is in California generally. But with the Family killers, the PBH officers are appointed by the Guv'nor in a liberal administration. Yet repeatedly with both Guv'nor Brown and now Gav the Guv, any recommendations for parole have been reversed. Although it's true that back in '85, the Guv'nor didn't have the power to reverse a parole recommendation, it's still something of an irony that the only Family killer to actually make parole, Steve Grogan, did so under the auspices of a Republican Guv'nor, and one that saw himself as tough on crime.
Dilligaf said:
To serve on PBH boards, it is an unspoken directive to find ways to grant parole
Interestingly, in the hearings last year for Watson and Beausoleil, it seemed to me that the board actually went out of their way to do the opposite. Beausoleil had already once been granted parole {although, to this day, I'm still at a loss as to how that happened !} and therefore it was all the more surprising that twice subsequently, he's been denied it.
This create the opportunity for inmates to argue that since they were under the age of 26, their brain was not fully developed, thus the punishment for their crime should be mitigated by that fact
There might be something in that if the age was, say, 19. A 15 year old clearly isn't in the same league of maturity as a 40 year old. That said, I don't think brain development has any more to do with it than whether one stays up all night to watch movies. Brain development is one thing. The ability to make choices in violating moral codes is another thing altogether. Many experienced criminals commit crimes without thinking through the ins and outs of the consequences, because they're not banking on failing and getting caught. And that takes place at all ages.
we are most likely to see some granted parole, as long as the state continues to look for ways to diminish an inmate’s responsibility for their actions
I just wonder sometimes, if granting parole to someone who has been in jail for half a century and has been remorseful for 44 of those years and has tried to make good in that time, equates with diminishing that inmate's responsibility for their actions.
I'd say that all along the way, Pat's actions have ever been before her, the state in a number of ways have ensured that she has ben held responsible for them and the granting of parole doesn't take any of that away. I don't think it's saying that "oh, she wasn't really in her right mind, poor Patty."
That said, I, for one, was surprised at her parole recommendation, particularly given that it came after a 5 year denial and her last hearing was both tense and intense. I'm curious as to what has changed in that time and I'm also curious as to whether or not the board members are the same folk that were on her previous one.
katie8753 said:
When California abolished the death penalty, their sentences should have been commuted to life in prison without parole
I don't think that option existed at the time. I suspect that if it had, that's exactly the sentence most of them would have got.
That would have ended all of these parole hearings and subjecting the family members of the victims to hearing all of this over and over again
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said:
I have mixed emotions on this decision
Personally, I wouldn't have paroled her. But if she carries on till the age of 80 on the trajectory she's been on for many a year now, I would.
As harsh as this may sound, the family members of the victims are not forced to hear anything over and over again. That's a choice that they make. They choose to go to hearings and they choose to fight against the perps being released.
Venus sent me Anthony DiMaria's statement to the parole board Commissioners regarding Pat Krenwinkle's parole. I will post this, with Anthony's permission, in several different sections since it is so long. Thanks Venus & Anthony!
May 26, 2022
RE Patricia Krenwinkel CDC# W-08314
Dear Commissioners Dianne Dobbs & Dale Pomerantz,
My name is Anthony DiMaria, nephew of Jay Sebring.
Before I begin my statement I’d like to address that a week and half ago or so, my mother and I made a request for her to be present and speak at today’s hearing. That request was denied due to the 30 day rule. We certainly respect rules but I’d like to ask if the board could consider realities our families deal with regarding family, business and medical demands before these hearings particularly with regard to vetted victim’s next of kin. My mother, Margaret DiMaria, Jay Sebring’s sister, has been vetted by CDCR since 2004.
Today’s hearing is the fourth we have attended in the past 7 months related to the Manson Crime Organization. It bears acknowledging that the Manson family is no hippie cult, it is defined by its extensive crimes as a violent crime organization that conspired, tortured, mutilated, and killed collectively as a syndicate. Patricia Krenwinkel is no “follower,” she is a cold-blooded killer of eight people.
The more accurate number of Krenwinkel’s victims is eight, as I include the murder of Sharon Tate’s unborn son.
To be clear, our family’s involvement in today’s hearing has nothing to do with anger, revenge or hatred towards Ms. Krenwinkel, rather we are present out of love to speak for eight people who remain voiceless in their graves. The only hatred I feel is for the actual crimes and parasitical vermin who exploit these murders for profit and self-promotion.
Part of what continues to impact our families are these hearings and what is said in these hearings, past and present. This is exacerbated by the twisted legal and policy reforms that perversely favor Patricia Krenwinkel, at the expense of her victims.
For the 6 killed by Patricia Krenwinkel at Cielo Drive, there is no Youthful or Elderly Victim Programs. For the couple she butchered at Waverly Drive, there is no Next Step Program. There are no ‘Special Considerations’.
Under the current leadership of LA DA George Gascon, our loved ones have been stripped of their legal voice after Gascon’s sweeping mandates forbidding all representation from his office and/or any involvement with our families with regard to all Manson parole hearings. Violent killers are coddled, as the victims and our families are discarded like trash.
I remind the Commissioners that Patricia Krenwinkel is one of the most deplorable killers of the entire Manson family. She dealt more direct and fatal blows than Charles Manson.
Under California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation supervision, Patricia Krenwinkel and her cohorts have benefitted from doing numerous interviews with Diane Sawyer, Larry King, Rolling Stone magazine, writing books, etc., etc. In 2014, Patricia Krenwinkel produced her own documentary titled LIFE AFTER MANSON: THE UNTOLD STORY OF PATRICIA KRENWINKEL, available for purchase on Amazon and on its own website. The petitioner’s role as producer is irrefutable as the film’s director Olivia Klaus states Patricia Krenwinkel “approached me to capture her story.” Commissioners, I wonder if you might understand that, from the victim’s perspective, the world has been perversely twisted upside down.
There is talk today about pre-commitment offence influences, prison programming, good behavior, Elderly Offender & Youthful Offender Programs, Twelve Step Programming, Coping Mechanisms, Sponsorship Support, the Parole Board’s investigative conclusion that Ms. Krenwinkel is an Intimate Partner Abuse Victim, rehabilitation and suitability for parole.
I appreciate the opportunity to address these:
But first, I direct each of us in this hearing- to LAWRENCE.
If ever murders could be described as “Crimes of the Century,” Ms. Krenwinkel’s actions embody this heinous standard. The unspeakable number of stab wounds, mutilations, Ms. Krenwinkel’s threats smeared in her victims’ blood of DEATH TO PIGS and HELTER SKELTER on the walls at her crime scene terrified the nation. Patricia’s obscene behaviors throughout her trial not only spit on the memory of her victims and tormented our families, but directly created the destructive Manson family mystique, causing permanent scars on American history.
As noted author Joan Didion writes in THE WHITE ALBUM, “the Hippie Movement ended abruptly on August 8, 1969,” the exact night Patricia Krenwinkel killed 5 people and an unborn child at Cielo Drive. The “rare, severe, egregious nature” of the petitioner’s killings meet every criteria defined by LAWRENCE. The severity of her actions are so profound that her lethal legacy has been influential in similar horrific murders well after her incarceration.
Detective Don Ryan describes the crime scene of Vivian French’s murder March 7, 1977: “As I entered the residence I could hear ‘The Pigs Are Coming’ song that was playing over and over again. When we walked in, I observed a white female, later identified as Vivian French, lying on her back. She was nude and I noticed what appeared to be a black handled knife in her right side just above the breast. I noticed on the wall there were some things written in blood: ‘Helter Skelter’ and ‘All Pigs Must Die’...”
“HELTER SKELTER” & “ALL PIGS MUST DIE”—— the same words written by Patricia Krenwinkel in her victims’ blood at the LaBianca crime scene.
On May 30, 2003, Jason Sweeney was murdered by four teenagers, ages 15 to 17. The weapons used to massacre the young man were a hammer, a hatchet, and several large rocks. At one point during the attack there was a hammer blow so severe that it remained protruding from Jason’s scull, as he continued to fight for his life.
During the trial, the teenaged killers testified listening to "Helter Skelter" over and over repeatedly for several hours before committing the murder. "Helter Skelter"...
The prosecuting attorney, Jude Conroy, stated, "It is really amazing that teenagers in Philadelphia, Memorial Day weekend, are attuned to the whole Helter Skelter mythology. It's a sad testament to the twisted, brutal legacy those murders have left behind such that it attracts 15, 16, 17-year-olds.Over forty years later. 3,000 miles across the country. It is a powerful legacy." (END QUOTE)
Charles Manson did not write HELTER SKELTER in blood, Patricia Krenwinkel did. There can be no Manson-blaming in this. Patricia Krenwinkel is the author that ignited what would become an endless cultural cancer with sinister and deadly consequences.
One of the things my mother wanted to share in this hearing was an incident involving her daughter, my sister, Mishele. Just a couple years ago she was at a concert. When the lead singer came out in a “Charlie’s Angels” shirt she was so disturbed and traumatized she immediately left the concert. On the T-shirt was Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten and Susan Atkins laughing on their way to court.
For many vulnerable and depraved minds in pop culture and among some youth- these crimes are almost cool. And in several circles- Patricia Krenwinkel and the other killers have attained serial killer rock-star status. You have only to reference the internet to evidence this.
The nexus of current dangerousness, and the threat of Patricia Krenwinkel and her crimes to society today——direct, symbolic and cultural——is permanent, lethal and malignant.
REGARDING MINIMIZATION & DEFLECTION:
Glaring to our families is Ms. Krenwinkel’s extensive pattern of deflection and minimization for decades in these hearings, in public interviews and through her documentary.
At today’s hearing, Ms. Krenwinkel describes “allowing” and “allowed” as in “I allowed these things to happen” & “I allowed to lead me in this direction.”
After having lived with the loss and suffering caused by Patricia Krenwinkel for decades- any use of the words “allow”, “allowed”, “allowing” is quite disturbing.
Particularly painful and disturbing to our families were decisions and judgements that occurred at Patricia Krenwinkel’s last two hearings, on December 29, 2016 and June 22, 2017, when the Parole Board and CDCR decided to initiate an extensive investigation into whether Patricia Krenwinkel——the convicted killer of seven and an unborn child——was an abuse victim.
As I stated to Don Thompson of the Associated Press, “for this investigation to be initiated at this point——after several decades——is mind boggling. I don’t understand how we go from being a murderer——convicted killer of eight——to an ‘intimate partner victim’. It’s absurd. It’s like the world is upside down. How do you kill eight people, and then become the victim?!”
Just as sick and twisted at the initial December 29th hearing was Ms. Krenwinkel’s admission that she was in charge of watching the children at Spahn Ranch, and her knowledge that Charles Manson was raping the children there.
From page 124 of the transcript: “There was people that took care of the children...there’s a lot of people and there has to be a designation of labor...So I would take care of the children.”
Then on page 208, Ms. Krenwinkel refers to Manson as, “a pedophile. He slept with 12-year-olds at the Ranch. 13-year-olds. 14-year-olds. 15-year-olds.”
It was incomprehensible to hear this bombshell admission, and yet witness a rather feckless follow-up from Deputy Commissioner Nga Lam. The actual interaction is the following:
Deputy Commissioner Lam: “But you knew he was sleeping with 12, 13-year-olds then, right?”
Inmate Krenwinkel: “Yes. I never thought about it...yes.”
Commissioner Lam: “Did that—— did it bother you then?”
Inmate Krenwinkel: “A couple of times things that he did, I mean, his violence against some of these PEOPLE. But I didn’t think about it because we were all—— it was all this communal living.”
So, how does this rationale work? The inmate didn't think too much about the rapes of children because it was “communal living”? This selective reasoning is sociopathic. Ms. Krenwinkel was also cunning enough to swap nouns after asked if Manson's rapes of children bothered her. Her response: "A couple times things he did, I mean his violence against these people..."
PEOPLE? She was asked about crimes against children.
It has been established in several past hearings that Patricia Krenwinkel & Leslie Van Houten were the main caretakers of children at Spahn Ranch. In addition to Ms. Krenwinkel’s testimony, Leslie Van Houten revealed at her hearing 9/6/2017 (p.118 ll.18-9) “Pat and I were taking care of the children.”
I immediately filed a complaint and request to CDCR’s Jennifer Shaffer and Jennifer Neill, demanding a formal investigation focused on the rapes of children at the hands of the Manson family at Spahn Ranch. Quoting from my initial complaint:
“Since the Board is now opening investigations in addition to its chief role of determining suitability of parole, I demand an investigation to determine if Patricia Krenwinkel was an accessory in the rapes of children. If these children were ABUSE VICTIMS of Patricia Krenwinkel or any of the clan at the ranch.
Let there be no distraction from who the ACTUAL victims are...with regard to these murders. Or in the rapes of children.
When authority and judgement are formed selectively or politically, the scales of justice are thrown in the trash, leaving us all blindfolded. This is madness. I ask that this be entered in to the record.”
Commissioners, do you have this document in your records?
I am going to read a passage from Dianne Lake’s book MEMBER OF THE FAMILY. On page 125, “Lynette and a girl named Patty (inmate Krenwinkel) stroked my hair and passed me a joint while Charlie strummed out more tunes on the guitar…there was a lot of unspoken communication between Charlie and the girls. His expression changed slightly, and as if the scene had been rehearsed, Patty took his guitar from him. He stood, took my hand, and led me outside. We walked hand in hand to the black bus.” According to Ms. Lake, this is when Charles Manson first raped the 14-year-old.
Petitioner Krenwinkel might describe this incident as “communal living”, but a vast majority in civil society know this to be contributing to the delinquency of a minor, grooming & facilitating the rape of a 14-year-old child.
Ultimately, a formal investigation was initiated. It concluded that Patricia Krenwinkel was an intimate partner of Manson...and a victim. To date, no inquiries or investigations have been conducted by CDCR or the Parole Board delving into Ms. Krenwinkel’s admission that children were being raped at the Ranch. One can only imagine that the extent of Patricia Krenwinkel’s knowledge and/or possible involvement of child molestation at the Ranch would be of profound relevance in the calculus to determine suitability for release. But, no such regard or investigation for those crimes or those victims.
Commissioners, I point you to CDCR Executive Director Jennifer P. Shaffer’s response dated February 14, 2017 to my initial complaint. Quoting:
“Lastly in light of the fact that the board is opening an investigation into inmate Krenwinkel’s claim of intimate partner battering, you requested that the board also investigate allegations that inmate Krenwinkel may have been involved, or was an accessory in the rapes of children by Charles Manson around the times the murders took place, based on her testimony 12/29 hearing. I appreciate your desire for additional investigation into these allegations.
However, as I have explained above, the board is specifically required by law to investigate claims of intimate partner battering that were not admissible at the time of her trial. In rare occasions other investigations (that are not mandated by statute) can be requested by a hearing panel if necessary for determining an inmate’s current risk of dangerousness. No investigation has been requested.”
In light of Patricia Krenwinkel’s revelations of the rapes of children, Dianne Lake’s corroborating accounts- clearly Ms. Krenwinkel’s knowledge and/or involvement in these crimes against children at Spahn Ranch, her lack of regard for these children and her veiled secrecy after more than 50 years of rehabilitation- is more than enough evidence raising concern for the petitioner’s current risk of dangerousness and suitability for release.
On March 17, 2017, Ms. Krenwinkel, in a primetime ABC tabloid said, “I learned choice at the most horrific cost.” SHE learned at “the most horrific cost?” NOT HER VICTIMS?!
This statement is frighteningly insightful in its ironic narcissism—— as only can be said by a sociopathic killer who feels entitled to usurp the realities and rights of her victims...by positioning herself in the role of the victim. It’s in her nature. She doesn’t even know she’s doing it. Or she does.
I’m going to read from a cover of the inmate’s film LIFE AFTER MANSON: THE UNTOLD STORY OF PATRICIA KRENWINKEL, which for the record can be purchased online for $15, $25—— and for only $250 the “Educational Package” is available, which includes a booklet of “Krenny’s” personal collection of poetry & photos, a Power Point Presentation, and licensing options for public libraries and classes Kindergarten through 12th grade. I screen-capped images for your reference if you’d like me to send?
Quoting from the DVD’s cover, “Now as California’s longest incarcerated woman, she continues to be demonized by the public and haunted by the suffering she caused over five decades ago.”
“Continues to be DEMONIZED by the public”?! It seems Ms. Krenwinkel and her production team lost sight of who the actual victims are in these murders...even after 53 years of supposed reflection and rehabilitation. So let us consider the untold stories of Patricia Krenwinkel’s dead:
LIFE AFTER KRENWINKEL: THE UNTOLD STORY OF ROSEMARY LABIANCA: Stabbed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10...41 times with a bayonet and hunting knives.
LIFE AFTER KRENWINKEL: THE UNTOLD STORY OF LENO LABIANCA: Bound defenseless in a chair and stabbed throughout his abdomen and thorax dozens of times with his own butcher knife & carving fork.
LIFE AFTER KRENWINKEL: THE UNTOLD STORY OF ABIGAIL FOLGER: A death so horrifically unbearable that her last words were, “Please stop. I’m already dead.”
LIFE AFTER KRENWINKEL: THE UNTOLD STORY OF AN EIGHT AND A HALF MONTH UNBORN BABY SLOWLY SUFFOCATED TO DEATH WHILE HIS MOTHER IS BUTCHERED AS SHE SCREAMED FOR HIS LIFE.
LIFE AFTER KRENWINKEL: THE UNTOLD STORY OF MARGARET DiMARIA (my mother). Who was pregnant when her brother Jay was killed.
So traumatized she was by Jay’s murder that she lost her child (For the record, that makes two babies whose lives were stolen as a direct result of Patricia Krenwinkel and her crimes).
When I read that the petitioner is described as “California’s longest incarcerated woman,” I am haunted by the memories of our eight loved ones. All of them dead, for 53 years and counting.
All said, 424 years in their black, cold coffins.
Commissioners, you’ve asked the petitioner, “Who were you then? Who are you today?”
-I ask the same questions, “Steven, Abigail, Woyteck, Sharon, Jay: Who were you on the night of August 8, 1969? Who are you today?” “Leno, Rosemary: Who were you on the night of August 10, 1969? Who are you today?”
While the inmate, her attorney, and film team believe Ms. Krenwinkel has been rehabilitated and is a changed person, I remind the Board that her eight victims remain entirely unchanged. Unrehabilitated. Unparoled. As my mother has stated in past hearings, “They are just as dead today as when Patricia Krenwinkel sent them to their graves 53 years ago.”
As the attorney today invokes the law, you see blood relatives, Lou, Debra, Kay & myself, seeking justice. We implore you to indeed follow the law, particularly as defined in LAWRENCE.
For the rare, egregious, severe nature of Patricia Krenwinkel’s crimes: LAWRENCE. For how horribly her victims suffered: LAWRENCE. For her crimes against civilized society as she terrorized the nation with her blood-spattered threats and cruel, perverse behavior during her trial: LAWRENCE. For the permanent cultural, historical scars Ms. Krenwinkel has dealt with destructive consequences even today: LAWRENCE.
Commissioners, I reiterate the petitioner’s knowledge and grooming in crimes against children at Spahn Ranch as provided earlier in this statement. Again, I request an investigation to be conducted to determine the role of Patricia Krenwinkel & Leslie Van Houten in the rapes of children at Spahn Ranch crucial to current dangerousness and suitability of release of either inmate per Jennifer Shaffer’s response to my original request 1/30/2017.
I mentioned earlier how the world has been perversely twisted and turned upside down for the victims and our families. Commissioners, how you can make amends for Patricia Krenwinkel—— when nothing, no law, neither of you, can make amends for her dead or the diabolical destruction she has caused to society.
I urge the Board to consider parole for Patricia Krenwinkel, once you’ve paroled her victims from their graves.
As we acknowledge the cruel, severe nature of Krenwinkel’s crimes, the impact upon and threat to society, the pattern of minimization, the number of Krenwinkel’s victims and how horribly they suffered...
We ask for a parole denial, and for the longest period of time.
Thank you.
There was always going to come a time when some members of the families of the victims were going to find that their power had run its course. Times change, views and concepts change. Their hurt doesn't.
That said, I'm still surprised Pat got the nod, even though Gav the Guv is way more likely to knock it back than acquiesse to it.
The familiy’s power has not diminished, as I tried to explain earlier, the rules have changed. When you factor in that Gascon arbitrarily decided that his staff will no longer attend parole hearings, you see that the dynamic has shifted some, It places the burden on the victim’s family to argue why a person should remain incarcerated more than it remains on the inmate to argue why they should be released. This is but just one more reason why Gascon will most likely be recalled this year. When I stated that California Democrats are decriminalizing crime, this is but another example. The sad thing is that this could have been avoided. Los Angeles County knew what Gascon was when they elected him, they knew his prior record when he was Assistant Chief with the LAPD, when he brought down similar disaster as SFDA, and such results were no surprise.
The fact that Newsom will most likely block release, is not the issue. How rules are continually changed, and weakened, is the issue. Krenwinkle merely gives more illumination to the crisis that California is enduring. Well, one of the many that California is facing…
Grim said:
When California abolished the death penalty, their sentences should have been commuted to life in prison without parole
I don't think that option existed at the time. I suspect that if it had, that's exactly the sentence most of them would have got.
That's really a terrible shame. People on death row should have gotten life without parole. Period. A jury panel spent 9 months of their lives, listening to the horrors of what these killers did, and also endured fearing for their lives because of the threats and actions of the Manson Family who weren't incarcerated, but were still brave enough to vote for the death penalty for these people. Some of these jurors had to have police protection at their homes after the verdicts.
Changing their sentences to life with parole is a slap in the face for these brave people who did their civic duty.
Dill said:
When you factor in that Gascon arbitrarily decided that his staff will no longer attend parole hearings, you see that the dynamic has shifted some, It places the burden on the victim’s family to argue why a person should remain incarcerated more than it remains on the inmate to argue why they should be released. This is but just one more reason why Gascon will most likely be recalled this year.
Dill I agree. I don't live in CA but I hear a lot about Gascon and his liberal policies. Why anyone would think that the city/state would be a better place if all criminals were released is, as the King of Siam would say, a "puzzlement".
Does anyone know the state of Krenwinkel's health?
Thanks Dilligaf...
Thanks Grim...
Dill, do you know what is in this Gascon that he is so soft on criminals ? What is his rationale for his actions. Newsome seems to be in Gascons corner so it seems hypocritical to blo k these so called manson murderers.. correct me if I'm wrong about Newsome. Thanks
I searched all over the site for comments on the mindhunter book and tv series. The FBI and Douglas have a unique take/theory on the murders that I haven't seen on the blogs.
Post a Comment