Leslie Van Houten, Manson murderess, was just denied parole again for the 15th time. Good. Throw away the key. She should never be let out. None of them should.
When Diane Sawyer interviewed Manson, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houton in 1994 – Leslie Van Houten (to my mind) was the one who put on the best show of “rehabilitation”.
Obviously, Manson is a lunatic, he jibbered at Diane about God and the DA and Satan, and “his girls” and how he “never told them to do nothing”, he said something about how good Diane Sawyer smelled, he was sniffing her … He’s insane.
Susan Atkins (who is now a born-again Christian, and also says that she wants to be considered a “political prisoner”) refused to be interviewed. The following anecdote from Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders
Patricia Krenwinkel (who, you will remember, stabbed Abigail Folger so many times that the cops who found Folger thought that she was wearing a red dress.) Judging from the interview with Sawyer, Krenwinkel, to my untrained eye, has realized the horror of what she has done. She is a woman whose soul writhes in torment. She has a look on her face of realization – she REALIZES what she did. I’m not saying she should be set free, or shown any mercy. I think she should be locked up forever, all I am saying is – in comparison to what I perceived in Leslie Van Houten – Krenwinkel is a woman who can FEEL the flames of hell licking at her heels. She will never be forgiven, she knows that. She can never forgive herself. As she shouldn’t.
But Van Houten, who looked like a cheerleader at the time of the murders – and was quite gorgeous, actually – like a pin-up – was very calm in the interview, very sensitive, very understanding: “Of course the Tate family hate me … I can completely understand that …” she said all the right things, everything that we (and her next parole board) would want to hear. “I think about Mrs. LaBianca every day … I think of Sharon Tate’s baby … I beg their forgiveness…” But she said all of this with dry eyes. It rang hollow for me. Not that tears mean anything. I wouldn’t shed a tear of sympathy for Leslie Van Houten – that’s not what I’m saying – and Krenwinkel’s tears could be crocodile tears (the thought has occurred to me, Krenwinkel is the most obviously self-pitying of the three, which is not a good sign).
Leslie Van Houten SCARED me in that Sawyer interview. Much more than Krenwinkel frightened me, although she scared me as well. There was something missing in Leslie Van Houten. A lack of … something. Patricia Krenwinkel, while most definitely a monster, who did monstrous things, has woken up to what she did, and literally will not have a moment’s rest until the day she dies. Good. It’s just punishment for what she did. Death would be better, in my opinion, but in lieu of that, she should suffer every day. If you see a picture of Patricia Krenwinkle now, you can see the horror there. Etched in deep lines across her face. Van Houten is still cool, still beautiful … she looks like an aging Julianne Moore. But I got the feeling, watching her interview with Diane Sawyer: This woman, although now elderly, is still a threat to society. If she got out of prison, and met some compelling Jim Jones-type who appealed to her on some level, who made her feel beautiful, special, she would follow him to the ends of the earth. She would do anything for him. There is something missing in this woman, there is no real understanding of what she did.
She said to Diane Sawyer at one point, “You weren’t there. You don’t know how magnetic Manson was. You can’t say that you wouldn’t have done just what I did.” And Diane Sawyer said, “Yes, I can Leslie. I could not plunge a knife into someone. I could not do it.” Van Houten shook her head knowingly, “You don’t know – unless you were there, you don’t know.”
That’s not quite true, Miss Leslie. Some of us have what is known as a moral compass, which keeps us from crossing certain lines. You do NOT have that moral compass. I know it’s hard for you to understand, then, those of us that do – but trust me: there ARE people on this planet who could resist Charles Manson’s overwhelming charms.
Van Houten reminded me of the monstrous Cathy from Steinbeck’s East of Eden
I don’t really believe that – that certain people are born BAD – I think it’s a mix of nature and nurture (although I haven’t made up my mind on this score yet)- but I also think Steinbeck was really onto something when he created Cathy. She terrified me when I read that book in high school. It scared me to think of a person who had no sense of good or bad, who felt that people who stood in her way had to be removed, even if they were her parents. Her husband. Her son. She was evil. Steinbeck uses that term very specifically. I do believe in evil. But in people being born evil? Perhaps there are certain people who are born lacking certain qualities. Like humanity. Like compassion for others. Empathy. Humor. Maybe it’s more of a mixture of environment and body chemistry. As infants, we all have the possibility of adding light to the world, as opposed to adding darkness. I don’t believe in bad seeds. Maybe some people have more of a predilection for violence than others, but it is only when that predilection is also paired with a terrible home life, or a violent upbringing – that a Leslie Van Houten can occur. But I just don’t know.
In talking about all of this, and in trying to understand Leslie Van Houten, I am not forgetting what she did. I do not think she should ever be granted parole, whether she is “rehabilitated” or not. She gave up her chance to live in this society when she did what she did. Sorry. You blew it.
Many people’s knee-jerk reactions to questions like this is: WHO CARES? SHE’S EVIL – who cares WHY? Well, I think the “why” part is where the conversation begins. SOMEONE had better be worried about “why”. This is the side of me fascinated with human psychology, with aberrations in human development. I will forever be interested in the question: what is it that makes a Leslie Van Houten?
Was she right when she said to Diane Sawyer: “You don’t know. Unless you had been there, you don’t know what you would do.”
I’m with Diane, instinctively. I resist the interpretation that we all are capable of everything (although, again, we cannot be sure, not totally anyway). I do question it, and wonder about it. I’m not CERTAIN about it. Examples like Patty Hearst … how did that happen? Could I be turned into a Patty Hearst? Is my Sheila-ness up for debate? Or is it not? This goes back to that interesting conversation we had here a while back, when I was reading Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith
Is it upbringing? Circumstance? Brain-wiring?
Standing in defiance of all of Leslie Van Houten’s cool and reasonable explanations (“How do you know what you would do? You could have been me!”) is hippie-girl Linda Kasabian, who became the primary witness for the prosecution. She was a member of the Manson family. She sat in the car during the murders in the Tate house. She was supposed to be a member of the murder-squad, but at the last minute she said, “No. I can’t do it.” When she was on the stand, she looked right at Charlie Manson and said, “I’m not like you, Charlie. I couldn’t kill anybody.”
Linda Kasabian, a messed-up kid no doubt, still had that moral compass operating. In the end, when push came to shove, she knew what she could and couldn’t do. In the end, there was a core in her – a voice whispering, insisting: Over this line, I must never cross.
Are some people just born without that line?
I know that Sharon Tate’s family (her sister, primarily) show up at all these parole hearings, and hold up the gruesome murder photos throughout the entire proceeding. As reminders. Of what these now “sweet little old ladies” did.
Good. It should never be forgotten. It doesn’t matter how long it has been since 1969, or how old they are now, or how repentant they seem.
Think of the victims. Think of all the victims – born and not-yet-born. What could they have been? What could they have accomplished? Who might they have become?
Throw away the key.
You know what haunts me the most? The stories about how they made Sharon Tate lay on her stomach despite the pleas of her and her friends. She was seven months pregnant and they felt no pity for her. None.
I can’t stand any of these criminal “psychologists” who describe Manson as a “genius,” either. For goodness’ sake, he collected a bunch of young and naive people by way of basically saying “we live on this ranch and all we do every day is take drugs and f*ck. Would you like to come stay with us?” Jeebus, not that hard to get a little death cult going on with that kind of invitation, espcially in the late 60’s.
Horrifying.
Yeah, and “genius” – please. Gimme a break. He was a cult-leader. Looking for damaged suggestible girls who would be easily led. Text-book cult stuff.
I think they should show pictures like this to the parole board as well. They’re smiling.
Look at Leslie. Lovely pin-up girl smile. Monsters. God, what a circus. I can’t even imagine the panic LA experienced.
Isn’t it interesting the differing reactions? For most of us the impulse is to side with the victim, to think, “Oh, how awful. What must it have been like to die in such a way?” while for most perpetrators (once caught) the impulse is to side with themselves, to think, “Oh, how awful. How is this going to affect me and the rest of my life?”
I think you’re absolutely right about there being a lack of something in the people that do such things. Maybe it’s empathy, for even absent a moral code it seems to me that a basic ability to relate to what another is going through should be enough to preclude most acts of intentional cruelty.
Hi Sheila,
Concerning the origins of violence and the process by which a person becomes evil, I highly recommend the works of the psychologist Alice Miller, particularly “For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child Rearing and the Origins of Violence,” “Thou Shalt Not Be Aware: Society’s Betrayal of the Child,” and “The Untouched Key: Tracing Childhood Trauma in Creativity and Destructiveness.”
I have friends who grew up in highly violent homes, filled with betrayal, abandonment, beatings, molestation – and these people have grown up to be beautiful loving human beings, capable of loving others, good members of society, etc.
I don’t know the explanation for that.
That’s why I wonder if … in general … there are things that some people just DO NOT HAVE, from the start. Like a conscience, or like empathy. Scott Peck’s book delves into those people.
I remember watching the Manson interview Tom Snyder did on his late night show… in the early 80s, I think. The thing that haunted me the most about it was how lucid and almost normal Manson sounded at first. But as he rambled, he sounded more and more whacked out. It was almost like Snyder was interviewing two different people at times.
Chrees, I once saw an interview with either Edmund Kemper or Herbert Mullin (I forget which, both were mass murderers in Santa Cruz, CA, in the early 70s). The frightening part was exactly how lucid and matter-of-fact he was when discussing how he murdered and dismembered several women.
This post also prompts me to relate one of the scariest true stories I ever heard. Author Jerzy Kozinski was on a flight from Europe to Los Angeles. His luggage was misplaced in New York, he missed his connection, and had to take a later flight. Because of this, he missed a major party at…Sharon Tate’s house.
I don’t know anything specifically about Kozinski, Ken, but at the time of the murders, there were so many people claiming that they were supposedly invited to the Tate house that night, but couldn’t make it because X came up that they probably would had to have rented neighboring properties just to accomodate all these would-be guests.
Not to mention, if as many people *had* shown up that claimed they were invited, they certainly would have had no trouble over-powering five doped-up hippies.
Every time you people talk against them being paroled you talk against your own rights and priviledges as citizens of the U.S.A. Unless you think what happened to them (being brainwashed and turned into psychotic killers) can’t happen to you. If that is so… think again!
Having these women, Krenwinkle and Van Houten in prison for 40 years is a moral monstruosity. They were fisically responsable for the crimes, not moraly. They were victims too.
(Please excuse my english.)
el superbrain
Oh, your English is fine. Not so sure about your thought processes, though.
And since I wrote this in 2004, I have had a change of heart about Patricia Krenwinkel. I think she has no concept of what she has done, and really feels like the victim in all of this. At her last parole hearing, she was asked who was most harmed by what she had done. Her answer? “Myself.”
Wrong answer, Pat, wrong effing answer.
The only Manson killer that takes full responsibility for his crimes is Charles Watson. He states clearly that Manson could be manipulative, but his actions were his own. Watson also acknowledges that he deserved the death penalty.
Oh, el supermoron is psychoblablaing again. Same on You Tube.
A killer groupie from P. R. No, nobody excuses your poor English.
Keeping people locked up for the rest of their life is not the civilised Christian way. They were very young, disenfranchised and were taken in by a manipulative monster.
They would be carefully monitored whilst under parole and the slightest cause for concern would place them under lock and key once more.
“disenfranchised”? How on earth was Leslie van Houten “disenfranchised”? Most of these girls came from privileged middle-class backgrounds. Your statement is untrue.
Also, what would be the “slightest cause for concern” and you’d lock them up again? Ever hear the story of Jaycee Dugard and the monster who abducted her? He was supposed to be “carefully monitored” as well but he got away with having a tent-city full of abductees in his backyard for 18 years.
You are incredibly naive. The system works the best that it can, flaws and all. Leslie van Houten, Susan Atkins, and Patricia Krenwinkle abdicated their rights to be free when they murdered those people. The key is tossed out.
It’s called justice, pal.
Oh, but why am I arguing with your silly naive comment. These monsters will never get out of jail. Leslie van Houten has shown herself to be increasingly unrepentant at each of her paroles, despite putting up a good smile-lie-face about how she “understands” the “mistakes” she made for many years. She is now starting to lash out at the parole board at her different parole hearings. See? She couldn’t keep up the lie forever. She is a stone-cold bitch who thinks the world owes her something. She’ll never get out.
Patricia krenwinkle said recently that the person she harmed the most back in 1969 was “herself”. That is a chillingly sociopathic response to give when you have stabbed people 100s of times.
Rethink that answer, Pat. Rethink that answer.
Do any of you really think to let leslie( out) would really mean any kind of freedom. She wouldn’t even be able to find her way to a car. For Christ sake she is a 60 something worn out woman who has for all reason been lost to time. What do you think she would do? Take her long grey braid down don a tiedyed shirt, go by the nearest tatoo parlor , pawn shop pick up a knife , map and start her new life as a 2nd generation murderess?? Are you thinking at all? I don’t personally care about this woman , but the choices she made as young girl in the 60’s no less, is not who she are any of us are today . Pitiful, is one word. Every scene. She saw ,heard ,was involved in, is all still there, in her HEAD. That my friends , is a Huge 44 yr daily something to deal with. Susan is dead and rest only breathing. Just saying….
// Are you thinking at all? //
Sure. I just happen to disagree with you. I am, however, “thinking’. It is a great great mistake to assume that those who disagree with you are somehow operating without thought.
I don’t care if she’s an old lady. That is immaterial to me. What she did cannot be undone. She deserves to die in jail for what she did. Life’s tough that way. But not nearly as tough as it was for Leno and Rosemary LaBianca who were unfortunate enough to meet the monstrous young lady.
Depending on what a person has done, the “civilised Christian way” is, indeed, to lock them up where they can no longer harm people. It is uncivilised and uncharitable to simply turn them loose under close supervision. Ultimately that means playing dice with every future innocent they come in contact with. Is this the day they get peeved at nothing and snatch a kid? Or get cut off at a light and follow the driver home and kill the entire family? How many of these things are required to skip the “careful monitoring” and go straight to the “rest of their life” part?
I’m mainly struck by the fact that “Harry Truman” would refer to them as “disenfranchised”. These girls were, for all intents and purposes, from the elite. His entire theory is based on being ignorant of the facts of the case.
besides, I wouldn’t approve of a “disenfranchised” person being released either.
There are plenty of disenfranchised people who would never behave the way these monstrous excuses for a human being behaved.
You murder people in such cold blood, you need to be locked up for the rest of your life, I don’t care how you boo-hoo at your parole hearing (Patricia Krenwinkel – the one who thinks the person who was MOST harmed by her actions is “herself”. Tell that to Abigail Folger, you fucking bitch. TOTAL lack of understanding of what she did. STILL! Even after 40-plus years in prison, she still doesn’t get it.)
also, just want to point out that this post was written in 2004 which means – my God, have I been blogging that long? Every time those two wastes of space (well, it used to be three, before Atkins died) come up for parole, people emerge from the woodwork and find this post.