Chapter 35

The End of the Manson Family

The ultimate fates of the Manson Family have yet to be completely played out. Although Manson, Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkel, Van Houten, Beausoleil and Davis were all found guilty and condemned to death, the United States Supreme Court voted in February 1972 to abolish capital punishment. The convicted killers were thus spared the gas chamber.

Immediately after the Tate-LaBianca verdicts, Manson, Bruce Davis and Steve Grogan were tried for the murder of ranch hand Donald Jerome “Shorty” Shea. All three were found guilty of first degree murder, and sentenced to death. After reviewing his psychiatric evaluations, however, the presiding judge reduced Grogan’s sentence owing to his admittedly diminished mental capacity. Charles “Tex” Watson, who had also assisted in Shea’s murder, was never tried for his participation.

During the Shea trial, a group of Manson’s followers robbed a gun store in Hawthorne, planning to steal a cache of weapons with which to both rescue their leader and kidnap the judge. The robbery attempt ended in a vicious gun battle with the police, who arrested several former Family members, including Catherine Share and Mary Brunner. The latter, having participated in the murder of Gary Hinman, had been granted immunity in exchange for her testimony against Manson, Atkins, Davis and Beausoleil in their trial on that charge, and had, until this time, been free to wander the streets.

The intricacies of the Manson Family’s crimes after the murders in the summer of 1969 would fill many pages. It is alleged that several of the Family members murdered defense attorney Ronald Hughes. Numerous other murders have taken place over the last few decades, most in the years surrounding the Tate-LaBianca trials, which have been either attributed to the Family or suspected of having been carried out by its surviving members. Certainly, several of the Family members have at times bragged of up to thirty-five murders; it is impossible to either prove or disprove such statements, and the claim remains an open—if rather unsettling—possibility.

Bobby Beausoleil, convicted of the murder of musician Gary Hinman, remains incarcerated. In prison, he has pursued his musical interests and developed a new prototype combination guitar/synthesizer. Bruce Davis, convicted in the murder of Donald Jerome Shea, converted to Christianity, and works in the prison ministry program at the California Men’s Colony at San Luis Obispo, where he is incarcerated.

Steve Grogan, who had been found guilty in the murder of Donald Jerome Shea, is the only member of the Manson Family convicted of murder to be set free. In prison, Grogan maintained a good disciplinary record, married and fathered a child. In 1977, worried that he might never be released, Grogan contacted the authorities and offered to show them where he had buried Shea’s body. Shea’s remains were discovered intact: he had not been decapitated nor cut into pieces and buried in separate graves, as Manson Family lore had related.

Grogan’s cooperation undoubtedly stood him in good measure with the Board of Prison Terms. His development and maturity were also noted during his regular parole hearings. In 1978, Dr. Melvin Macomber, the psychiatrist who examined him, declared: “For the last several years he has been quite confused, guilt ridden and fearful. He has shown considerable improvement at this time and there is no evidence of psycho-pathology which would indicate a potential for violence in the future. Grogan is not in need of psychotherapy. Violence potential appears to be below average. Prognosis for successful adjustment in the community appears to be very good.”¹ Such evaluations worked in Grogan’s favor, and he was eventually released on parole in the 1980s. He presently resides in California.

The lives, and attempts to gain their freedom through parole, of those who gave themselves willingly to the murderous abandon of the summer of 1969 continue. In 1978, all of the killers became eligible for parole. Even though the State of California has since voted the return of the death penalty, it cannot be applied on a retroactive basis. Thus, the Manson Family members and their leader were once again spared the verdicts of the courts.

Of those imprisoned, only Charles Manson appears unrepentant. “I did not break the law,” he has repeatedly declared, “either God’s law, or man’s law.”² Manson has had a relatively high-profile incarceration. He has been transferred from institution to institution due to disciplinary infractions and violations, including possession of weapons and illegal drugs. On 25 September, 1984, while incarcerated at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville, a fellow inmate sprayed him with paint thinner and set him afire; as a result, Manson suffered second and third degree burns on his face, hands and scalp.³ He is currently housed in a special unit at the State Prison at Corcoran, California; among his notorious fellow inmates also kept under protective custody are Sirhan Sirhan and Juan Corona.

Even in prison, Manson has not shied away from the bizarre thirst for his attentions on the part of the media. He granted a five-part interview in 1975 to the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles, but, disliking the result, decided not to talk again. In 1981, he broke his self-imposed silence to appear on the NBC-TV talk show Tomorrow with host Tom Snyder. The interview was intensely controversial, not for the content, but because many were offended that television was now giving the convicted mass murderer a stage upon which to glory in his fame. He followed this with something of a media blitz, appearing, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, on NBC-TV’s Today Show, on Nightwatch with Charlie Rose, ABC-TV’s Turning Point with Diane Sawyer, and several specials hosted by Geraldo Rivera. Throughout, Manson appears in complete control, manipulative as always, alternately rambling incoherently and then making threats directly at the camera. As always, Manson is an effective actor, playing the part of madman which history has permanently assigned. “Manson,” said Vincent Bugliosi, “has become adept at playing the lunatic. He isn’t insane. He’s a good actor. But he’s evil. He managed to manipulate a group of misfits and nurture their own instincts for violence.”⁴

Former Family member Bruce Davis concurs with Bugliosi’s assessment: “I would describe Manson as an instrument of the evil supernatural. The crimes are just sort of the fruit of the tree. The crimes are just the parts you can see, and they’re not the most—although they’re the most tragic consequences interpersonally, they’re not the most, what do you say, not the most threatening part of the situation. The most threatening part is what causes that destruction. And what we saw was the destruction, but that’s not as important as what caused it.”⁵

Manson remains a mass of contradictions, at times erratic and incoherent, at others, seemingly reasoned and logical. The interview conducted by Diane Sawyer for the ABC News magazine Turning Point in 1994 revealed a man who is keenly aware of playing the part expected of him, but perhaps growing a little weary of the charade. At one point during the broadcast, Patricia Krenwinkel declared that Manson knew exactly what he was doing with the media; watching her comment on a monitor, Manson smiled, looked Sawyer in the eye and said, “All the time.”⁶

There were also sharp flashes of wit. “Is Charlie Manson crazy?” Sawyer asked him.

“Whatever that means,” Manson answered. “Sure, he’s crazy, he’s mad as a hatter. What difference does it make? You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something, nowadays, everybody’s crazy.”⁷

Although he first went up before the parole board in 1978, Manson has consistently been denied release. He himself must know that it is a hopeless cause, and he appears to take the process as a simple joke. At one parole hearing, he declared he wanted to parole to Mars; at another, he sent the board members Monopoly money as a bribe. His position, when he chooses to state it, has always been clear. “I was never on the scene when anyone was killed,” he declared at his 1992 parole hearing. “I think the law says you can only keep me seventeen years or eighteen years if I was never on the scene when anyone was killed. I was never on the crime scene of anything. The closest I came to the crime scene is I cut Hinman’s ear off in a fight over some money.”⁸

Only occasionally has he admitted to any responsibility for the crimes, and then, only in an indirect fashion. “I influenced a lot of people, unbeknownst to my own understanding of it,” he has said. “I didn’t understand the fears of the people outside. I didn’t understand the insecurities of people outside. I didn’t understand people outside. And a lot of things that I said and did affected a lot of people in a lot of different directions. It wasn’t intentional and it definitely wasn’t with malice or aforethought.”⁹ Almost no one, including Manson himself, can ever envision circumstances favorable to his release. In August, 1969, Manson was thirty-four years old; in prison, he has become a graying, slight, wrinkled inmate. Saved from death twice by the decisions of the California State Supreme Court when they pondered the issue of capital punishment, Charles Manson, mass murderer, symbol of evil for millions of people around the world, will undoubtedly end his days in an environment which he has frequently declared he finds hospitable: jail.

The Manson women—Van Houten, Krenwinkel and Atkins—were all incarcerated at the California Institute for Women at Corona. All were part of the general prison population, and, unlike Manson, interacted with their fellow prisoners on a daily basis. All expressed remorse for their crimes, and strongly lobbied to achieve parole.

If any of the former Manson Family members is released, it is most likely to be Leslie Van Houten. Having initially been convicted of the LaBianca murders in 1971 and sentenced to death, in 1976, a California Court of Appeals dismissed her conviction and ordered a new trial on the grounds that she received inadequate representation due to the disappearance of her lawyer Ronald Hughes. In March, 1977, she underwent a second trial, prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Stephen Kay. The jury was hopelessly deadlocked, however, and a new trial was ordered. During the interval, Van Houten, with the support of friends and relatives, managed to raise her $200,000 bail and worked for a time as a legal secretary.

Her third trial began in March, 1978. While Van Houten had hoped for a verdict of manslaughter or second degree murder, Prosecutor Kay managed to convince this jury of her guilt, and, on 5 July, 1978, she was again convicted of two counts of first degree murder. Van Houten was devastated by the outcome. Yet, in spite of her frequent claims that she had only stabbed Rosemary LaBianca after she was dead, the jury believed that there was room for doubt. Her intent, whatever the status of Rosemary LaBianca, had been clear that night. She had helped hold the struggling woman down, so that Krenwinkel and Watson could stab her, and then herself joined in the frenzy, declaring later that she had enjoyed herself. Van Houten was not a passive observer at the LaBianca murders, but an active, and enthusiastic, participant.

In prison, Van Houten has taken full advantage of the opportunities provided for inmates, obtaining a BA degree in English literature, as well as editing the prison newspaper and working as a secretary. Subsequently, she has been turned down for parole on numerous occasions. Although several psychiatric evaluations determined that Van Houten posed no danger to society, Stephen Kay had his doubts. An episode in 1982 reinforced his belief. Van Houten had married while in prison; in 1982, her husband was arrested for writing bad checks, and was found to have a women’s prison guard uniform at his house. The presence of the clothing suggested that he—with or without Van Houten’s knowledge—was contemplating smuggling her out in the future. Van Houten divorced him, but Kay felt that the entire episode demonstrated her bad judgment, and continued to rally against her at parole hearings.

Van Houten allied herself with Susan Atkins, and the two shared a website, dedicated to promoting their eventual release. An organization, Friends of Leslie, works tirelessly on her behalf, to gain her freedom. Her parole hearings have focused on Van Houten’s psychological profile, which has alternated wildly. Severe depression, coupled with anorexia, has led to doubts concerning her ability to cope with the pressures of life beyond the institution. Although she has recently come close to being paroled, California Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed her release.

Of all the former Manson Family members still incarcerated for the Tate-LaBianca crimes, perhaps the most accomplished, and the most changed, is Patricia Krenwinkel. In prison, she received her Bachelor of Sciences degree, and completed a course in vocational data processing. She has been an active participant in drug counseling programs, worked extensively as a volunteer and helped train female fire-fighters in the Los Angeles area. Unusually, throughout her years of her incarceration, Krenwinkel has never received a disciplinary write-up or infraction, and has been a model prisoner.¹⁰

Unlike Van Houten, Atkins and Watson, Krenwinkel has not claimed that any religious experience while in prison entitles her to freedom. Instead, she appears to have accepted her sentence, knowing that it is unlikely she will ever get out. At her 1993 Parole Hearing, she had no plans to present to the Board should she be released, saying simply that she herself recognized she would not be receiving a date.¹¹ She is now very apologetic about the criminal period of her life, and very anti-Manson Family.

Uniquely among the former Manson Family members, Krenwinkel genuinely seems to pose no threat to society. One prison psychiatrist defined her as “a person who responds rather conventionally to questions, who uses her intelligence to control her rebellious past, and who has achieved a good balance in her emotional functioning, neither given to depression nor being overly-active. She is able to lead a rather stable life and has developed appropriate feminine interests and guides her progress. Overall, no mental disorders expressed in this profile, and it has been stable over the years.”¹²

Although her fellow Manson Family members continue to insist that they accept responsibility for “their part” in the crimes, only Krenwinkel has assumed complete blame, without excuse, for her actions. “It is apparent,” wrote one prison interviewer, “that the understanding of her role in the Manson Family has helped inmate Krenwinkel to clearly see her dependency on this manipulator and her subservient role at the time. Her improved understanding and newly found assertiveness and activities have helped her to change her understanding of her responsibility of her shocking and horrendous criminal activity, especially as her victims are concerned.” She is, according to reports, “Fully aware of her totally unwarranted and senseless crime. As a matter of fact, when describing her crime, she became emotionally involved in a manner which proves her remorse and understanding.”¹³ Psychologically, Krenwinkel has been found to have “no sign of mental disorder,” and been deemed to be “functioning on a higher than average intellectual level,” with an “emotionally well-balanced” personality. Her violence potential has been estimated to be “well-below average.” Although examining psychiatrists told Krenwinkel in 1993 that “you are a violent criminal only by history, and you do not pose a threat at the present level of functioning in this setting, and it is predicted that you would not pose a threat in an uncontrolled setting if released into the community at this time,” she has consistently been denied parole.¹⁴

The brutality of her crimes, her willing participation, and her ability to be easily-influenced remain obstacles which Parole Board members have found insurmountable to her imminent release. “Every day I wake up,” Krenwinkel has said, “and know that I’m a destroyer of the most precious thing, which is life, and living with that is the most difficult thing of all, and I do that, because that’s what I deserve, to wake up every morning and know that.”¹⁵

Both Charles “Tex” Watson and Susan Atkins regularly appealed for release before parole boards. They have always been denied. In 1974, Manson follower Bruce Davis, who, in 1973, became a born again Christian, began a lengthy correspondence with Susan Atkins. She was receptive, and listened as other religious groups in her prison reached out to her. According to her own account, she became a born again Christian in September, 1974. Interviewed a year later, she broke down and cried, declaring that she now felt remorse for what she had done. She had acted, she said, under the powerful influences of both drugs and Manson. She even wrote a book, Child of Satan, Child of God, outlining her life with Manson, the crimes and her conversion.

According to Dr. Clara Livsey, who interviewed and examined many of Manson’s female followers, Atkins “became a Born Again Christian in a grand manner. She is not one of thousands who quietly have converted and lead lives guided by the Bible’s Christian principles. Instead she made it clear from the moment she suddenly embraced Christ that she regards herself as a leader, a person endowed with great spiritual qualities who is to preach the Word and minister to others. She does not hesitate to compare herself with great Biblical figures.… There can be no doubt of Susan’s aggrandized view of herself.… One gets the clear impression that Susan does not worship God, but herself. She believes that today she is up front where she always wanted to be, where the action is, leading, and that is the reason, I would judge, why she feels at peace. Obviously she has decided that in her circumstances she can feel better and live better by relating to people who have a modicum of power and who admire and support her.”¹⁶

In common with both Van Houten and Krenwinkel, Atkins while incarcerated, took college classes, obtaining an Associate of Arts degree. She also completed courses in data processing, and to become a paralegal secretary. She married twice while incarcerated. Her first marriage, to Donald Lee Laisure, a man twice her age posing as a wealthy Texan, ended in divorce in 1982. In 1987, she married law student James Whitehouse, fifteen years her junior.

Unlike her fellow female Family members, however, Atkins consistently received unfavorable psychiatric evaluations. Part of the problem was her selective memory and revisionist history of the crimes. While she gleefully admitted to anyone who would listen that she not only stabbed and chased Voyteck Frykowski but also helped kill Sharon—even going as far as to taste her blood—such admissions undoubtedly harmed her chances for a successful parole. In her book, she declared that she had killed no one, and even claimed not to have stabbed anyone except Voyteck, and then, just in the leg. Even this admission was subsequently altered to reflect her position that she inflicted no stab wounds to any of the victims. In her 1981 parole hearing, she declared flatly she had lied at the time of the murders because she “felt guilty” at not having been more responsible.¹⁷

At her parole hearing in 1996, things did not go well. Presiding Commissioner Carol Bentley began the meeting on an ominous note: “It struck me today, the number of murder victims that I had to write down. It was really kind of appalling to me. It sort of had a chill over me, because I do these all the time, and most usually we just have one victim, and here we have all these victims.”¹⁸

Throughout the hearing, Atkins denied both her prison statements to Graham and Howard concerning her active participation in the deaths of Gary Hinman and the Cielo Drive victims; claimed she lied at both her Grand Jury testimony and during her murder trial testimony; and was only now telling the truth that she had stabbed no one nor helped kill them. The Parole Board members seemed hesitant to accept this explanation, especially in view of the multitude and enthusiastic abundance of Atkins’ statements in the past to the contrary.¹⁹

By 1996, Atkins had several other problems which caused Board members concern. She had been found guilty of attempting to illegally use one of the institution’s computers to compose a letter protesting legislation which would end inmates’ conjugal rights, then lying about her violation. Members were also concerned that she had been dropped from her group psychotherapy class for lack of attendance. In both cases, Atkins attempted to blame her counselors and those at the institute.

This refusal to accept responsibility for her own actions, in addition to her selective memory where her crimes were concerned, led to unfavorable psychiatric reports. Dr. Robert B. McDaniel, Staff Psychiatrist, noted Atkins’ “inclination to overcompensate,” and “tendency to minimize” her participation in the crimes. The doctor further noted that Atkins “maintained what appeared to be an artificially cheerful demeanor.”²⁰

The psychiatric report noted both a “history of polysubstance abuse” and “anti-social personality disorder” present in Atkins. “While drug abuse and anti-social personality would set the stage for someone involved in criminal behavior,” the psychiatrist wrote, “it does not explain, in my opinion, the extreme cruelty and viciousness involved in the crime.” Summarizing McDaniel’s report, Board Member Carol Cantu declared to Atkins: “When he questioned you about some of your feelings, he said that you tended to view this in other terms rather than her instant crime, and rather reluctant to describe it in any detail. ‘The most she would describe was feeling that while she did not stab anyone, that she was guilty of not somehow halting the senseless slaughter that was to ensue.’ And the doctor felt that upon review of the C-file [Atkins’ incarceration history], that you were more involved than you’re willing to discuss. He also felt that you; in some situations, some instances, you tended to minimize or completely avoid certain topics.… And he feels that your tendency to minimize and avoid discussion of the crime and certain aspects of the crime is indicative of a pattern in which you rather skillfully and deftly deflect away from sensitive topics, that this would suggest that you’re very adroit in conversation, diverting attention away from sensitive issues, that this would obviously reduce your level of discomfort, but may slow down your progress in psychotherapy. Psychiatric conclusions, he feels that the diagnosed psycho pathology, such as anti-social behavior, drug abuse, is related to your criminal behavior, that you have psychiatrically deteriorated slightly in the interval of three years ago. However, he does comment that you have matured considerably in the last twenty-five-years of incarceration. And in a less-controlled setting such as a return to the community, you can be considered at risk for deterioration for the following reasons. He believes that you continue to deny the seriousness of your crime, and that you do not deal with problems directly, but deflect them away during conversation.”²¹

After the trials, when it became obvious that she faced the remainder of her life in prison, Atkins changed her stories, blaming all of her actions on Manson and on the drugs she took at the ranch. The simple fact is, even before she met Manson, Susan Atkins was a heavy drug user, with a criminal record. Whatever her protests, she possessed enough free will to flaunt her participation in the crimes while incarcerated in Sybil Brand Institute for Women, at a time when she was no longer under Manson’s control, and continued to do so for several years thereafter. Numerous psychiatric reports have declared that she remains a probable danger to society, and that she demonstrates strong anti-social behavior.

Atkins’ later version of events stood in dramatic opposition to both her previous accounts and those of the other participants in the crime. According to Atkins, as she and Watson stood in the living room with a terrified Sharon Tate, they began to argue whether to kill her or take her with them to have her baby. When Atkins protested against ending her life, Watson screamed, “Get the fuck out of the house!” and Atkins fled, standing alone on the front lawn as Watson himself stabbed the pregnant actress to death.²²

As manipulative and selective as Atkins was with her memory, it is nothing when compared with Charles “Tex” Watson, the man who admittedly stabbed Sharon to death. Watson never once expressed remorse for the crime, until it became convenient to do so under the guise of his own religious experience. Incarcerated at Folsom Prison after his trial, he began to work in the dispensary. In 1975, he declared that he underwent a religious experience and was born again. Conveniently, he managed to get his autobiography, Will You Die for Me?, into bookstores just before his first parole hearing in 1978.

Watson has continued his prison ministry in the various institutions in which he has been jailed. He participated in the prison chapel programs, trying to convert the criminal populations at Folsom and San Luis Obispo. Eventually, he received his own credentials as a minister. None of this has mattered to the parole boards. He has consistently sat before them and pleaded his case, declaring that, although he was guilty of the murders, he committed them only because of the influence of both drugs and of Manson. During one of his parole hearings, he admitted, “As far as me taking the lead role, I was the male at the crime, but at that time I did not consider myself a leader, I considered myself a follower of Charles Manson, carrying out his orders.”²³

Such an assertion stands in stark contrast to the evidence of Watson’s crimes. His own narrative provides a stunning indictment of his culpability as leader. The pages of Will You Die for Me? reek of his responsibility on the night he killed Sharon: “I told the girls …,” “I shot him …,” “I told Linda …,” “I crept to the front door …,” “I kicked him in the head …,” “I ordered Sadie …,” “I stabbed him.…”²⁴

No one that night acted except on Watson’s instructions. He cut the telephone lines; he killed Parent; he told Kasabian to search for an open window; he cut the screen to the dining room window, crawled inside and let the girls in; he ordered them to search the rest of the house; he killed Jay; he ordered Atkins to kill Voyteck; he killed both Frykowski and Abigail Folger; he stabbed Sharon Tate. Her personally killed both Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Parole boards have always found the manner of the crimes, as well as Watson’s eager participation in them, sufficient grounds for his continued incarceration. In addition, his denial of ultimate personal responsibility for his actions, as Susan Atkins has continued to do, does not bode well when examined by the board members. The fact that Watson, like Atkins, came into the Manson Family with a heavy previous involvement with drugs and a predisposition toward criminal acts, has mitigated against his pleas of innocence. Similarly, the fact that, after the murders, Watson left the Family on his own, without informing Manson, because he had simply had enough, speaks volumes about his ability to control his own actions at the time when the crimes were committed.

In 1990, a psychiatrist wrote that it had only been “during the last three years of one-on-one therapy that he began to truly experience a sense of deep remorse, both for the crime victims and for the families of the crime victims.” When a troubled parole board member asked Watson what, then, he had been feeling the previous eighteen years, he replied, “Well, its not that I haven’t experienced that before, but there’s been things happening in my life over the last few years that have really brought it home more so.” He said that, since becoming a Christian in 1975, it had been “great to know that I have been forgiven by God for what I’ve done. But I think sometimes we can hide behind that, and the last three years I’ve had the opportunity to really see myself in a new light in the sense that I’ve opened myself up to really look at the crime through other people’s eyes other than just my own.”²⁵

This devastating revelation made the board members uneasy. They kept prodding him for answers, asking why it had taken eighteen years for him to begin to feel real remorse. Clearly irritated, Watson replied that, “At the time of the crimes, the people we killed weren’t human beings to us.” “I’m sorry,” one of the board members said finally, “but you talk as if you’re from another planet.”²⁶

While he campaigns for release, Watson remains a dangerous man. Continued psychiatric reports have declared him a potential threat to society. A 1982 report referred to him as “a walking time bomb,” with an incredible degree of repressed hostility and a high potential for violence.²⁷ Five years later, another psychiatric report declared that he was “able to demonstrate no real responsibility for the offenses and cannot comprehend at an effective level feelings of remorse.”²⁸ His 1990 report flatly asserted that he suffered from a borderline personality disorder with an unpredictable level for potential violence.²⁹ In 1993, rather than submit to questions from a new hearing board concerning his financial dealings and fearing that he would be relocated to another prison, Watson voluntarily waived his right to parole, stipulating to his unsuitability.³⁰

In prison, Watson has married, and, through conjugal visits, fathered four children. His wife and children are financial dependents of the State of California. Additionally, he founded a corporation, Abounding Love Ministries, or ALMS, through which he allegedly funneled much of the money he receives in donations back to his wife. This led to a California State Fraud Investigator’s raid on the house where Watson’s wife and children lived. The state suspected that Kristen Watson had lied to authorities about her income from ALMS, committed perjury and filed false applications for financial aid in a deliberate attempted to defraud the Medi-Cal fund from which she received regular payments each month.³¹

Watson has kept himself carefully insulated, refusing to do interviews and cooperating only with members of the Christian community who have embraced him. On his website, he has recently declared, “I’ve learned that it doesn’t do any good to beat myself up with guilt.” On the question of forgiveness, his position is clear: “I’ve been marked in the eyes of man as a murderer and God has protected me. But the mark has been removed in God’s eye, and in the eyes of all those who love Him.”³² With this deft move, Watson managed to shift the onus of forgiveness from himself to the grieving families of the victims.

Rather than accept responsibility for his actions and the consequences, he has manipulated the issue of repentance to suit his own ends. According to Watson, it is he who is enlightened, forgiven by God; he prays that the families of those he killed can be similarly imbued with the spirit of forgiveness. If they do not forgive him, they have somehow fallen short of the beatific grace he himself claims, and do not share in the Christian fullness he promotes.

“The Mansonites and their supporters,” writes Dr. Clara Livsey, “continue to try to convey the idea that a great injustice has been inflicted on them, that they really have gotten an unfair deal from the judicial system. Their idiom is cautious, but listening to them one gets the impression that they believe society is the loser because they are in prison instead of being free, leading normal and constructive lives.…”³³ She points out the subtle attempt to re-direct the finger of guilt away from those responsible: “It has been said of the Mansonites who participated in the Tate-LaBianca murders that they have suffered enough, that they will bear a stigma for the rest of their lives. In other words they are thus presented as the victims of their own actions.”³⁴

Whether Watson or Atkins converted to Christianity, whether Krenwinkel now realizes the errors of her past, whether Van Houten feels genuine remorse for her participation in the murder of Rosemary LaBianca, the needs of society—and the desire of society for retribution in the deaths of the innocent victims they killed—have not, according to Doris Tate, been met. The justice system exists to serve four distinct purposes: to remove from society those who pose a threat to the safety and well-being of others; to impose a deterrent factor on society which would mitigate against the commitment of any future crimes; to rehabilitate criminals if possible and address the reasons for their crimes; and to provide retribution on behalf of society against those who have transgressed the established laws. “I don’t care what lawyers for Atkins or Watson argue,” she said. “I don’t believe or care that their clients no longer pose a threat to society. They still owe a debt to society, and that debt is retribution. That’s all society has left to take from them. Society didn’t take their lives, like they took my daughter’s life, and for that, they should be grateful.”³⁵

Writing of Watson and Atkins, Dr. Clara Livsey declared: “The way in which these two prostitute religion is shocking, yet it has served them well in attaining a great deal of publicity and good connections. Each has written books that tell their own self-serving account of their lives and their criminal activities. The pair, who have no qualms in proclaiming that Jesus is their attorney, work assiduously towards being paroled not just—they claim—to enjoy a free life, but because humanity is awaiting their ministrations.”³⁶

Manson himself has been cynical of the jailhouse religious conversions of his former Family members. “If, in fact, they are as sincere about Christianity and as strong in religion as they were sold on drugs and deceit during the time our lives ran parallel,” Manson wrote, “then God has got two very devoted disciples. But if, on the other hand, they are with their God as they were with me, they are still going to do just as they please.”³⁷