Monday, June 26, 2017

Anthony DiMaria's Victim Impact Statement at Patricia Krenwinkel's Parole Hearing 2017

Venus sent me Anthony's impact statement.  Thanks Venus!!!

June 22, 2017

Dear Commissioners Chappell and Lam,

I thank you for the opportunity to be heard as you conclude today's parole hearing and announce your findings regarding Patricia Krenwinkel’s intimate partner victim request which… Initiated 48 years after the inmate killed eight people. 

Commissioners, I ask if the formal complaints I filed to the Board on January 31 and February 16 of this year we're articulated to you and entered in the file? I brought copies for your reference if you like. 

As I stated when last we met on December 29, our families continue to be disrupted and impacted by these endless paroles and what occurs in these hearings. But we return year after year to speak for those who are silent in their graves.

After review of the transcript from the last hearing, I must address these issues:  agenda, narrative, the “intimate partner battery” investigation and what has become the twisted metamorphosis of a killer into victim. 

I’ll begin with AGENDA-

At the last meeting, defense attorney Keith Whatley said he found District Attorney Lebowitz's language "offensive". [p.273, ll. 6-8]

And yet there was silence from Mr. Whatley when his client revealed that she “took care of the children (at Spahn Ranch) and Manson designed” these duties. Ms. Krenwinkel went on to admit she knew Charles Manson had raped children that were young as “12,13,14, 15 years old” at the Ranch. [page 208, ll 18-20]

Patricia  Krenwinkel knew about rapes of numerous children and still hid these sex crimes from authorities?   
Never mentioned these crimes for nearly 50 years…and an investigation wasn’t opened on THIS?

Does it get any more offensive than concealing and perpetuating the rapes of teenagers and children?

Actually, it does when we see the inmate's behavior in these killings and how she gleefully performed during her trial.

I add the unknown, forgotten raped children to the long list of Patricia's victims.

On March 17, 2017 Ms. Krenwinkel in a prime time 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 victim. It’s in her nature. She doesn’t even know she’s doing it.

You see 5 people before you who live with the cost of the petitioner's choices. These “choices”, as she describes them, destroyed our families as they existed total and complete. For us, there are no programs, certificates or promotional films to restore the decades of loss and suffering. There is no “learning” for Debra, Tony, Lou or Mishele. For our families- there is persistent pain, loss and coping.

On the inmate’s REVISIONIST MINIMIZATION-

I quote attorney Whatley, “I’ve read every transcript and every Psych Report and counsel’s report. And Ms. Krenwinkel’s statement has always been consistent. Her description of what happened has always been consistent.” [p.273, line 12] 

I call to your attention several inconsistencies that illuminate the contrary and point to revisionist tactic and minimization. 

On Motive-

December 29 of last year Commissioner Chappell read a statement from Ms. Krenwinkel at her 2011 hearing. From p. 46 of that transcript “Because there was no doubt that I knew that what was going to happen was not going to be good. I did know that that was the plan to murder two women in the house.”

To which the petitioner replied, “I never said that. [p.155, line 9]…That doesn't even make sense. I never said that.” [line 20]

Clearly Ms. Krenwinkel contradicts herself. So, which intent was it- robbery or plot to kill two women?

Then on the Cielo guesthouse door-

At the last hearing Ms. Krenwinkel describes this account:

KRENWINKEL: “He [Watson] told me to go to the back house and kill anyone that was there…I went to the back house and I just stood there. I didn’t enter. [p.150, line 15-21]

COMM. CHAPPELL: “You just told us that if you didn’t do what was told to you, what was instructed to you, you would be killed or you would be sacrificed.”

KRENWINKEL: “Right.”

COMM. CHAPPELL: “So what stopped you?”

KRENWINKEL: “I just couldn’t continue on. So I just went in the back and I waited till everything quieted down and I went out when it was all quiet and I left with Tex and Susan.”

Yet at her hearing in 1993 Ms. Krenwinkel tells a different account:

“When I went to the back house, I stood there and I opened the door and I was supposed to look in.”

COMM. GIAQUINTO: “Was anyone there?”

KRENWINKEL: “I never saw anyone.”

So did she encounter an empty room as described in 1993, or experience a sudden moral epiphany as described in 2016? 

Sadly, it doesn’t matter because a few nights later she killed two more people.

NARRATIVE v. FACT

Since these killings, our families have been pummeled by exploitative reports in the media and occasional presumption in these hearings. For crimes of this profundity it is imperative that we distinguish fact from agenda. Truth from narrative.

So, I’m compelled to address leading questions that occurred at our last hearing. With respect, I was confused with how Commissioner Lam would direct inmate Krenwinkel regarding “indoctrinating” when no one- in particular, the petitioner herself- ever uttered the word in the hearing until Nga Lam injected the word herself. 

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: Okay. I'm glad you 
brought that up, because I wanted to know when did he start indoctrinating you with his own philosophies. When did that start? Because when you met him, he seemed like a normal guy; right? 
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Right. (p.118, ll. 3-8)

Was this presumption from decades of narrative?…Or worse….agenda?

Out of respect for the Board I would never presume. But when we review the transcript, it must be one, or the other.

If there is any question regarding directive questioning in the past hearing I leave you with the following interaction between Commissioner Lam and inmate Krenwinkel:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAM: So did you kill because of love for Manson? Or did you kill because of fear of Manson? 
INMATE KRENWINKEL: Both. (p.198, LL.8-11) 

On fact versus agenda-

For several months leading up to the murders on August 8, 1969 the Manson clan were united in racist, terrorist ideologies.  They committed extensive crimes involving drug trafficking, credit card fraud, grand auto theft, prostitution, pimping, extortion, child molestation, torture and the murder of Gary Hinman on July 27,1969.

Then the drug deal burn of Bernard Crowe. Then his attempted murder when he was shot.

August 8- the murders of 6 people on Cielo Drive.

August 10- the murders of 2 people on Waverly Drive.

August 28- the murder of Donald Shea.

September 9,1970 the attempted murder of Barbara Hoyt.

August 21,1971 the robbery of firearms from a supply store and subsequent shootout with 30 police officers in Hawthorne

September 5, 1975 the attempted assassination of US President Gerald Ford 
In 6 years, from 1969-1975:

grand auto theft,
credit card fraud, 
drug dealing,
prostitution,
pimping,
extortion,
torture, 
rapes of children,
2 attempted murders,
an attempted assassination of a US President,
numerous attempts to frame African Americans with murder 
9 people and a full term unborn baby killed and mutilated….

This is no hippie cult. These are not duped, brainwashed teens. This is an extremely dangerous, sophisticated crime organization whose notorious path of destruction continues to impact with cultural and historical consequences even today. 

 We must acknowledge these actualities because anything less is narrative and minimization.

 At what point does Patricia Krenwinkel metamorphize from convicted killer of 8 into a "follower"?

At what point does a cold blooded sociopath- 

after plunging a hunting knife and carving fork into human flesh dozens of times, painting messages in blood, taunting American society as she spat on the memories of her victims by singing, giggling and performing for cameras for months after her murder rampage-

-at what point does she become a VICTIM?…48 years later? It’s as if the world has been turned upside down.  

Regarding Patricia Krenwinkel as an INTIMATE PARTNER VICTIM

Nothing is more telling than the following interaction at our last hearing:

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. 
DEPUTY 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.
I’m trying to wrap my head around this. The inmate didn’t think too much about the rapes of children because it was “communal living”?! Yet in this “communal living”, Ms. Krenwinkel considers herself an “intimate partner” of Manson, who was sleeping with anyone he could. Including 12,13 year olds.

This selective hypocrisy is perverse and disturbing. This is the thinking of a sociopath.
-and she’s very good at it. She was manipulative enough to swap nouns when answering the question if knowledge of Manson’s rapes of children bothered her. Her reply, “A couple of times things he did, I mean his violence against these people…” PEOPLE?! PEOPLE?! She was asked about children. 

Commissioners, today you will determine if such deplorable manipulations will be permitted and defined by California law. All of this is in your hands now. I ask that you Commissioners Chappell and Lam put an end to this perversion of justice especially when everyone in this room acknowledges that sadly, there are millions of intimate partner battery victims in this country. 
But fortunately, it’s safe to say, that almost none of them suddenly become a maniacal predator that stalks, pounces, butchers and mutilates her victims. 

Let there be no fog from the attempts of agenda and minimization. Let there be no confusion as to who the ACTUAL victims are. 

I state this- not out of anger, but out of love for the memory of the dead…in outrage for the crimes they suffered in their last moments…in passion for justice. 
Given the horrific dimension of Patricia Krenwinkel’s crimes, how profoundly her many victims suffered, the inexplicable disconnect exhibited in her statements, and the behavioral evidence defining an entrenched sociopath despite decades of rehabilitation-

It is only just and civil to deny Patricia Krenwinkel parole for the longest period of time. 

Anthony DiMaria

66 comments:

katie8753 said...

Anthony made a very moving impact statement. These killers don't like the family members attending their parole hearings and making an effort to block their parole, but as I've said before, I'm sure there's a million other places these family members would rather be than some stuffy, airless parole hearing room, listening to these killers trying to justify horrific murder and somehow make it okay for them to get out.

These killers have to remember one thing: they started it. They decided with their own free will to do home invasions and an ambush, and commit brutal, horrific murders on innocent people. Their choice to kill...the families choice to try and keep them in.

My thanks to Anthony, Debra and all of the other family members who are vigilant in their efforts to keep these killers off the streets!!

Venus said...

Anthony clearly takes notes at parole hearings, does his research and takes the time to write a powerful statement each time he goes to one of these hearings. He does a wonderful job. I can NOT imagine having to go to these hearings over and over again. But, the families do it because they love the ones they lost and they do it to honor them.

katie8753 said...

Pat says she knew Manson was raping children, and she continued to live there?? That's disgusting and pathetic!

Dave1971 said...

Katie im not sticking up for Charlie but when did he rape children? Im pretty sure if the one incident with the girl from Receda was true hed have been prosecuted for it

katie8753 said...

Well Dave, you're probably right. I'm just listening to Pat rant, which I shouldn't do while eating buttered popcorn.

But as we discussed earlier, they're all liars. Maybe Pat was trying to throw Charlie under the bus to make her look better, but it didn't really make her look better, in fact, made her look horrible.

Pat really shows her ass by trading stories and trying to constantly re-invent herself and try to make herself look innocent. It only makes her look more guilty!

She spent an AWFUL LOT OF TIME talking about those children she was supposedly "baby-sitting". She mentions them all the time. For her to mention that Charlie was raping them and she did nothing about it either tells me: (1) she's insidious or (2) she's lying to make Charlie look horrible so she looks better, and there's no way she looks better, even to a blind man. LOL.

Dave1971 said...

Yeah Katie i think its a bit of both, dont get me wrong Charlie was a scumbag and even though i believe his guilt on Tate-Labianca is questionable he deserved to sit behind bars for alot of years for assaulting
Hinman, shooting Lotsapoppa, selling dope, stealing cars, extorting money from people and i believe going to Cielo post murders to tamper with the crime scene but i dont believe he molested underage girls, wed have heard alot of witness accounts from other family members especially the girls, i dont think underage girls were Charlies thing but who knows

Dave1971 said...

Yeah Venus its pretty hard to argue with anything he said, he nailed it perfectly

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marliese said...

But we have heard about Charlie having sex with underage girls, Dave1971. Dianne Lake, for one. There were plenty of others...underage girls he gave drugs to, had sex with and gave away to others. He was a pimp before he was a murderer. And though you didn't mention his crimes at Waverly, he is guilty of the first degree murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. He was there, he invaded the house, he sent the killers in to butcher those people,and that makes him as guilty as those plunging the knives. But underage girls...seriously....the runaways were all over the place. Charlie didn't suddenlly acquire morals around underage girls.

Marliese said...

Regarding the "incident" with the girl from Reseda...that he wasn't prosecuted doesn't mean it didn't happen. He wasn't prosecuted for a lot of criminal activity. I have no idea about the details of his release from prison in 1967. Was his time served and was he simply released..or was he released on some kind of parole? If he was on parole, what were the terms and where was the supervision? His life situation alone should have been questioned...no place to live, no family, no job, no income, no skills, no stability, no nothing...just more crime...from petty crime to serious, immoral, violent crime. He should've been picked up months before August 1969, and he wasn't.

katie8753 said...

Hi Marliese! Yeah we've read about the children being involved in "orgies". Disgusting! That's sexual molestation! Charlie is NOT above molesting children. Look at Ruth Moorehouse and her psycho Daddy! Or Deirdre Lansbury.

For Pat Krenwinkel to stay at the ranch after seeing all that stuff is so revolting and disgusting. Doesn't speak well for her mental health and release from prison. In fact, it speaks volumes about her mental health during that time, and probably now!

And Charlie was just as guilty for the LaBianca murders as the killers, since he drove them there and left them there to kill! That speaks volumes!

Hey Marliese, please e-mail me @ katie8753@gmail.com!

Dave1971 said...

Marliese weve all heard about incidents or rumors of things talked about but you have to remember when it comes to this case 90 percent of testimony comes from people who were a part of the group and their stories changed like the weather, now i dont know for sure if Charlie was into messing around with 12 and 13 year old girls or not but from every interview ive seen with him he diesnt strike me as that type, 17 or 18? Yes but not kids, like i said before im not apologizing for Manson he was a POS in my book

Dave1971 said...

Also Marliene i fully understand wgat the laws are in California regarding murder and conspiracy and ive gotten into this discussion on another blog but my belief in Labianca was about money for Charlie, he had been inside that home before when it was unoccupied but still owned and furnished by Lenos mother, Manson has said him and other guys used to take the girls over there to have fun when they partied at Harolds place next door, i think he went there on August 10 looking for money and told Tex to get it before he left, my theory is that Tex left with Rosemary to get something due to her hands being untied when she was found when everyone said her hands were tied at first, expensive dress on over her nightgown and the car oarked in the street with the boat attached when Tex said in his book that the car was in the driveway when he arrived, i believe Mansons motivation was money at Waverly and Cielo was Tex and Lindas plan to get drugs

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brad B said...

Powerful statement by Mr. D. Grief can span generations in the DNA.

katie8753 said...

Dave, interesting argument, but if Cielo Drive was about drugs, why didn't they take any? Gibby had MDA in her room and weren't there drugs in Jay's car? Why not just ask for drugs and leave? And why take $72? Why kill everyone?

At Waverly, you think that Manson just wanted money? Why didn't he get into the money getting argument while he was there? Why go through all that hullabaloo with Tex, Pat & Leslie? He was right there. If his motive wasn't to kill anyone, then why did he leave it up to Tex?

And IF Tex & Rosemary went somewhere to get money, why put a dress on top of a nightgown? Why not just take the nightgown off and wear a dress? Wouldn't that look a lot more "normal" than putting a dress over a nightgown? Were they afraid they'd run into someone who might wonder why Rosemary was wearing a nightgown? Wouldn't that look even more suspicious wearing a dress OVER a nightgown? And if they weren't afraid of running into someone, why bother with the dress at all? Why not put on a robe?

This is the kind of stuff I like to discuss because so many people have so many different theories on why this happened. And I, for one, have not decided which one is right! Just trying to discuss!

katie8753 said...

Oh and one more question. If LaBianca was just about money, and if Tex and Rosemary went to get money, did they get any, or if not, why didn't they get any? And why did Tex, Pat & Leslie kill them?

Marliese said...

Ruth Ann was about 14...not exactly the age of consent.
And just curious, about the idea that Tex took Rosemary somewhere to get money since her hands were untied, and she had an "expensive" dress over her nightgown, when "everyone said her hands were tied at first"...who is everyone? The killer liars whose stories "changed like the weather" ? If Rosemary's hands were tied ("at first") then why would she need to have been secured with a lamp cord tied around her neck and a pillowcase over her head? And if Tex did take her somewhere,,.what did Leslie and Pat do while they were gone, or did they go too? You cannot make this stuff up.

Marliese said...

Hi Katie...will do.. an email...:)

katie8753 said...

Thanks Marliese!!

Dave1971 said...

Marliese they obviously werent in a hurry at the Labiancas with the showering and eating, what is so hard to believe about Pat and Leslie either staying behind with a dead or wounded Leno or going with Tex and Rosemary, despite what has been put forth about Waverly being "random" Charlie at one point knew EXACTLY where he wanted to go, either Harold True told Charlie that even though they werent living there the Labianca family owned the house and it was furnished and that they had money, i find it funny how people puck and choose what they believe from the killers who were the only witnesses to the killings, it seems to be common knowledge among people who research TLB that both Leno and Rosemary were tied up and somehow she ended up untied, then you have the dress and the car both of which are PROVEN by crime scene photos and police reports, Tex, Pat and Leslie have said before the car was in the driveway when they arrived

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave1971 said...

Sorry left out after the Harold True part that possibly Suzan tipped Charlie off as to when Leno and her mom would be home

Dave1971 said...

Katie the problem is that we dont know what Tex took from either Cielo or Waverly, i find it odd that Cielo wasnt ransacked and Jays watch was still on, Romans gun was still there, homemade porn in the loft closet, expensive video equipment, the small amount of drugs you mentioned, Jays Porsche, Abigails Firebird and Sharons rented Camaro left behind, Linda was overheard by at least 3 people saying shed been ripped off on a dope deal at Cielo probably with part or all of the 5 grand she swiped from her friends, remember Rostau had made a delivery of coke and mescaline the night of the killings, he later denied it when questioned by the cops but who would be stupid enough to admit that, sure they couldnt arrest him for admitting it but it would open him up to being surveilled by police, my theory is that Tex and Linda walked away with a sizeable stash of drugs that night

Dave1971 said...

Katie as for killing the Labiancas i think that was 99 percent Tex going apeshit like the night before, i think Patricia joined in the act with the fork in Lenos belly and the knife in the throat but its unlikely either Pat or Leslie actually initiated either killing, have you ever seen that 1970 or 1971 picture of Tex with the short hair, clean shaved and the icy stare into the camera? Those are the eyes Pat and Leslie saw that night and if he tells them to do something they sure as hell aint refusing, that was one crazy looking son of a bitch

Dave1971 said...

Marliese ive thought the exact same thing, why was Manson allowed to break the law with impunity for 2 and a half years on parole? His parole officer Roger Smith was even around Charlie and the girls socially and a bunch of 18-22 year old girls following a 34 year old unemployed ex con doesnt raise an eyebrow? Something very strange there, plus all the surveillance of Spahns with the stolen cars, the Lotsapoppa incident, Hinman, etc, cops knew about all this stuff

Dave1971 said...

Yeah Katie at some point youd think Patricias attorneys would advise her that parole boards look at constantly changing stories as being deceptive

Marliese said...

Dave, I respectfully disagree that it's common knowledge among TLB researchers that both Leno and Rosemary's hands were tied. Leno's hands were tied by Tex with Charlie's leather thong when they entered the house. Rosemary was in the bedroom asleep. I choose to believe Charlie's version that he went into the bedroom, said something like "you got company lady" threw the dress to her when she tried to cover herself, and took her out to the living room where Tex was with Leno. I know, I know...he's a story teller, and I'm one of the first to always say they're all liars, but I do believe that version is likely. They didn't need to tie her hands. Charlie had a gun! (Much like Jay...people say why didn't Jay do more to save Sharon...because Tex had a gun!) What was Rosemary going to do...? I don't believe Rosemary was restrained until she was attacked with a pillowcase shoved over her head tied with the cord of a lamp around her neck. (Leno had a pillowcase over his head too, gagged with a cord through his mouth.) How utterly terrifying that must've been for Rosemary...hearing her husband being killed, desperately trying to defend herself with a heavy lamp anchoring her down, I will never believe Rosemary was taken out of that death trap that night, certainly not because she was found with untied hands...I don't believe they were tied "at first" or because her car was in the driveway, or because she had a dress on over her nightgown...I think the "expensive dress" was actually a housecoat. There is no credible evidence she was taken out of there that night, just wild theory. I accept others feel and believe otherwise.

Marliese said...

Dave, I understand about the dress...the dress and the car "PROVEN" as you say, by police reports. But proof of what? Susanne, Suzan, however she spells it, says it was her mother's favorite dress...whatever, the only "PROVEN" thing about that is the dress she was found wearing over her nightgown when her body was discovered was identified as her own dress by her daughter. That information doesn't prove that she was taken somewhere because she was wearing it. And the car in the driveway...just guessing but I imagine Rosemary's car was frequently in the driveway of the house where she was living. And somewhere it was revealed...when I have more time, i'll try to find who said it...that Rosemary often left her car exactly where it was, and that she often left her keys in it as well. Again, that information substantiates her habits, and isn't proof of any theory she was taken somewhere the night she was murdered..

Dave1971 said...

Marliese im talking about the car Leno dove back from the lake pulling the boat, according to all 3 it was in the driveway when they got there and was parked on the street when the murders were discovered

Marliese said...

The only person I've ever read say anything about the boat and trailer is Rosemary's son, Frank Struthers. When questioned, I believe he said it was unusual that Leno had left the boat in the street all night because he usually put it away. And there was something...in one of the police reports I think...that the water skis, evidently out of the boat, had been placed up at the top of the driveway against Rosemary's car...perhaps to protect from theft while the boat was in the street?

Who are the "all three" that say Leno's car with the boat and trailer was in the driveway...of Tex, Charlie, Kasabian, Clem, Atkins, LVH, and Pat that were there that night? I doubt those freaks would even have known the uphill driveway from the curve in the road. You realize I'm sure that they parked in the street...a winding hillside street with slopes, deep lots on the up side, retaining walls, curves, trees, hedge landscaping etc? The so called "back door" through which Charlie and Tex first entered the house was on the True side of the LaBianca house. The boat was parked in the road at the retaining wall on the curve on the other side of the uphill lot...next to the entry of the Labianca driveway. This is not a flat grid residential neighborhood. Those freaks wouldn't have known if that boat was in the road or driveway if they were standing next to it! But just my opinion...

katie8753 said...

Dave why do you believe Tex when he says in his book that the boat was in the driveway, but you don't think it's strange that Tex didn't mention taking Rosemary anywhere?

Tex says this in his book about the dress over Rosemary's nightgown:

He sat the frightened-looking woman at her husband's feet. LaBianca had on pajamas, and I later found out that his wife had pulled the blue dress she was now wearing over her pink nightgown after Charlie had suddenly appeared in her bedroom.

He never says anything about Rosemary putting that dress on to go somewhere. In fact, none of the killers has EVER said anything about taking Rosemary anywhere that I've ever read.

Marliese said...

Hi Katie, I know you were asking Dave, but I was just thinking...if I'm not mistaken, get out of jail free Linda Kasabian seems to say they parked more in front of the True house on Waverly, though none of them are real specific exactly where they parked, or from which direction they came from. Some reports say they were across the road, another...like LK ...says she watched Charlie go up to the house till the driveway curved and he disappeared out of sight. But the LaBianca driveway doesn't curve...it's straight uphill while the True driveway does curve...toward the LaBianca lot.....so I think he went up the True driveway and crossed the yard over to Labianca, saw Leno through the window and went in the side door. My point is the car with boat and trailer attached could well have looked like it was in the labianca driveway when it was actually parked on the curve of the road next to the driveway. i don't care what Tex says...he's about as credible as a bag of dirt, he has also tried to take on some of what the girls did as his own doing...in his book. He claims he carved into Leno, not Pat etc, and that Rosemary was obviously dead etc. what a gentleman, right? Help out the girls since he knows he's never getting out...though I think hr was dumb enough and arrogant enough to think he might have had a chance in earlier years. Ok ... see you later!

katie8753 said...

Yeah Marliese, I've always had the opinion that Charlie walked up the True driveway, then headed for the LaBianca house. Looking at the pics of Leno's house, that driveway looks awfully narrow and steep. I think it would be easier to park a car/boat trailer either on the street, or drive all the way up the driveway to that level landing, assuming there's room at the top to turn around and go back down. That property is pretty rambling with hills and it would be easy to not see something clearly after midnight. Who knows if the moon was out that night?

I know Frank told the police that it was unusual for Leno to leave the boat out, but the police report also says that Leno kept that boat at his mother's house, and being so late at night, he probably just figured he'd take it over there in the morning and not disturb his mother.

I think Rosemary put something over her gown simply because she woke up and a complete stranger was leering at her. That makes more sense to me than her putting a dress on over her gown to go somewhere.

And I think it's awfully strange that no one has mentioned taking Rosemary anywhere that night. If that had happened, I would think that someone would have mentioned it. They admitted killing them, why not admit taking Rosemary somewhere? That doesn't add up.

katie8753 said...

Dave, this LaBianca killing just doesn't make any sense to me at all. If Tex took Rosemary to get money, and she did, then why kill them?

Saying Tex went "apeshit" doesn't really explain it.

BTW, Tex says in his book that Leno offered to go get money, and Charlie said "no, we'll just take what's here".

Assuming Tex is telling the truth, then when did that change?

As far as Cielo Drive is concerned, maybe Joel left drugs and maybe he didn't. I don't know. I wasn't there. But if it was drugs they were after, and they got the drugs, then why kill everyone? Including Parent, who didn't even know anybody involved.

katie8753 said...

And that $5000 Linda stole from her ex-husband's friend, I thought she gave that to the "family" to prove she was "loyal". Why would she complain she was ripped off at Cielo Drive on a drug burn if she didn't even have it?

beauders said...

I agree with you Katie that Mrs. LaBianca put the dress on out of modesty. I remembering reading somewhere that the safe at the LaBianca grocery store was discovered open the next day, was that something in Bill Nelson's books? If Nelson is the only source claiming that then it needs to be verified by someone else before I believe it.

katie8753 said...

Beauders, I've never read Bill Nelson's books so I can't say. Was that in the police report? You'd think that if Rosemary was the one who went to get money, that she would have gotten it from her dress shop.

Marliese said...

If I had to guess who and when the safe was opened, Suzan/Suzanne would come to mind. It didn't take her long to sell that boat....
And it's been said she didn't give so much as a photo of Leno to his daughter, Corina, out of the house...

katie8753 said...

Marliese I've said many times, there are only 2 people on Earth who would have known when the Labiancas got home that night...Suzanne and the newspaper guy.

People say that Charlie didn't make a phone call that night, but with all the STOPS he made to do various things, he could have been looking for a pay phone to call Suzanne's apartment to see when she was home all those times, and the perps in the car wouldn't know, because, by their own confessions, they were all "sleeping it off" the whole car ride.

If I'm not wrong, Suzanne was the executor of the LaBianca estate.

And of course, we all know that Suzanne tried to get Tex out.

katie8753 said...

Oh and BTW, one of his excuses was that he went and looked in somebody's window and saw pictures of children, and he went back to the car and said "we can't kill children".

Doesn't that PROVE that he was looking to kill SOMEONE that night??? Why do so many people let Charlie off the hook for the LaBiancas?

He was THERE. He was DRIVING. He was in CHARGE. He was directing the killers to the target.

Nuff said!!

Dave1971 said...

Again Katie youre going on statements of killers which i dont believe, were all welvome to our opinions, my opinion is that the looking in the house and trying to get into the church to kill the priest is bullshit, my belief is that Charlie contacted Suzanne when he left the car to find out when her parents would be home, no one will ever convince ne otherwise, Charlie had nothing to do with their murders, he was looking for money that he couldnt find on previous visits to that house, nothing about any of these crimes was "random" thats just Bugliosi self serving bullshit

Dave1971 said...

Even more evidence that Rosemary left with Tex that night

Dave1971 said...

Marliese why would Suzanne have the combo to Lenos safe? She was hus step daughter not blood daughter plus he knew she was a thief from getting her out of her credit card bullshit, i doubt hed have given her the combination

Marliese said...

Hi Dave, I'm honestly not deliberately being argumentative...just saying, there is no "evidence" Rosemary left with Tex, only theory. Same way it's not evidence, only my guess, that Suzan could have been the one to open the safe...because of what we know of who she was...

But is it known when the safe was last opened, and whether it was even after Leno's death? Leno could have opened the safe himself before they drove up to Lake Isabella again on Saturday, August 9, or at the close of business Friday, August 8. According to police interviews, the Finance Mgr/Controller for Gateway Markets stated that Leno was in the habit of taking 1500.00 dollars out of the safe once or twice a week, signing a voucher record of having done so.

Without evidence beyond doubt, we can only guess who, why, and when the safe was opened...

As for Suzan knowing the combination...i agree with you it does seem unlikely Leno would have given it to her, but if you want to talk blood relatives, her mother may have given to her, long before any troubles with Suzan, who knows, and who knows who else had the combination. Like so much of it, we don't know. If not Suzan, I'd GUESS it was Leno...before leaving for the lake Aug 9. Safes are often left open when they're empty.

Suzan was appointed executor of her mother's will by a judge after Rosemary's death. I suppose that's how she had the authority to sell the boat in October. Like everything else, it was financed...bought in the summer of '68 so only a year into a three year note...factual, also in the police and finance records.

As for Charlie, don't even get me started! Not being nasty, just saying...

Dave1971 said...

Marliese why would Leno leave the safe open before going to the Lake?

Marliese said...

Okay, I've tried, so If that's your line of thinking, I'm done now.

Empty safes, if indeed empty, like empty cash registers, are often left open when there is nothing in them. For example, an empty cash register tells a thief, there's nothing here, don't bother

And for the record I can't remember if the safe was left open, totally empty. Maybe you could look in your "evidence" of what Tex took when he took Rosemary there...did they clean it all out, and leave it open, or just take cash, and lock it up again?

Damn. I see now why people think Charlie had nothing to do with the murders of Leno and Rosemary.

Dave1971 said...

Why would anyone care if the door is closed or open if theres nothing in it? Human nature is to close doors when you leave

Dave1971 said...

By the way i never said i had "evidence" of Tex taking anything, its just theories just like yours

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marliese said...

Actually, you did.. six or seven posts up. "Even more evidence that Tex left with Rosemary that night". ~ Dave 1971 July 9, 2017, 2:27P

Dave1971 said...

Actually Marliese i wasnt speaking in a literal sense, i should have added "in my mind" its more evidence that he did

katie8753 said...

Dave if you don't believe the statements of killers, why do you believe Tex when he says the boat was in the driveway?

Why did NONE of the killers mention taking Rosemary anywhere?

And do you really think that Charlie didn't know that Tex, Pat & Leslie were going to kill the LaBiancas, knowing that he knew EXACTLY what Tex & Pat did the night before??

BTW, I don't think the TLB murders were random either. There's definitely a reason for these murders, we just can't agree on what that was.

Dave1971 said...

Like i said before Katie we all pick and choose what we believe from the killers because they were the only witnesses save Garretson but he died and refused to tell exactlyvwhat he saw anyway, Bugliosi fan boys and girls love to believe all the things that make Charlie and the killers look bad but refuse to believe anything they say that contradicts Helter Skelter, any experiemced homicide investigator will tell you theres NEVER anything "random" about murders, especially ones where theres 150 or more stab wounds, beatings, shootings, drugs all over the place, my theory is that Cielo was about Tex and Linda getting the dope delivered by Rostau and Tex going nuts at some percieved insult or disobedience to what he ordered the people to do and that Waverly was about getting some type of money that Charlie believed was there that he couldnt find at previous visits to the house or possibly royalties for the song Wilson ripped off from him, if you listen to interviews with Charlie he often mentions "new york and the black book"

Dave1971 said...

Look up some clips of people driving up to 10050 Cielo on youtube and ask yourself why would four people with small knives and a revolver that barely worked cut phone wires THEN drive down and park at the bottom of an extremely dark winding 1500 foot hill up to the house planning to butcher everyone inside then run all the way back down that hill covered in blood not knowing what neighbors will see them, if the cops had been called they were trapped with nowhere to go except either back to the house or over the side of the cliff

katie8753 said...

Dave I just agreed with you that the murders WEREN'T random.

I personally think that Cielo Drive was just about Charlie being mad at everybody who was more successful than he was.

And I agree, LaBianca must have been about money, but as I said before, Tex said in his book that Leno offered to go somewhere to get money, but Charlie said no.

But if Charlie just wanted money, why not just rob a liquor store or something? Who would think that people have Thousands of Dollars just lying around in their house? People keep money in banks.

Why would you think that Waverly Drive had anything to do with the Beach Boys' song?

Dave1971 said...

Hes mentioned before about a Beach Boys manager being involved with Leno as a supposed "money man", as for Cielo being about some type of revenge at the establishment in my opinion that's just Bugliosi bullshit, Cielo was a known party house where people went to engage in all types of behavoir, Dennis Hopper talked about it, too much weird shit went on at that house for it to be a random or "revenge" thing

Dave1971 said...

Also remember Patricias statements about how Sharon and Abigail werent supposed to be there

katie8753 said...

Well this is the FIRST I've heard of Leno being involved with the Beach Boys! Gotta tell ya!!!

As far as Cielo Drive goes, I'm not basing ANY opinion on Bugliosi, just my own thoughts. I know that Charlie was MAD that day, Bobby got arrested for Gary's murder, and Mary & Sandy got arrested for credit card theft. Plus he was mad about Melcher avoiding him.

I don't think he cared about Bobby, Mary or Sandy getting arrested, except for the fact that he was afraid that the cops would be on his doorstep asking questions, and he didn't want to go back to prison.

I think Cielo Drive was a cornucopia of reasons, among them, a distraction for the cops to not investigate anything to do with him, and instead focus on the brutal murders.

And I know that Pat said Sharon wasn't supposed to be there, never heard that Gibby wasn't supposed to be there. But that's a moot point. They WERE there. And they still got killed.

Waverly is a different reason, and I have yet to figure it out.

katie8753 said...

If Tex and Bruce are so RELIGIOUS why haven't they tried to help Charlie? Or Leslie, Pat, Bobby or any of the others?

I'm really tired of talking about this case. It's decades old and we're still arguing about it. They killed people. And that's a fact. Does WHY really matter after all these years? It doesn't change anything. They still killed them. And we can't change that.

Dave1971 said...

Katie Charlie has talked about it in a couple of interviews, the Nikolas Schrek one is one i know of for sure, listen for the "divorce courts that run through Denver" part if you listen to it, and Pat said "the women" were not supposed to be there not just Sharon

Dave1971 said...

Katie its because Tex and Bruce are interested in one thing, themselves, theyre no more "Christian" than Noam Chomsky

Dave1971 said...

Im not tired of discussing the case at all, i think its one of the most interesting things ever trying to put all the pieces together

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...

Dave can you post a link to that interview?