|
EXCLUSIVE:
SUSAN ATKINS
PAROLE
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
JUNE
1. 2005.
SUBSEQUENT PAROLE
CONSIDERATION HEARING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BOARD OF PRISON
TERMS
In
the matter of the Life
Term
Parole
Consideration CDC Number W-08304
Hearing
of:
SUSAN ATKINS
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR
WOMEN
CORONA, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 1, 2005
2:24 P.M.
PANEL PRESENT:
MARGARITA PEREZ, Presiding Commissioner
DIANE LUSHBOUGH, Deputy
Commissioner
OTHERS PRESENT:
SUSAN ATKINS, Inmate
JAMES WHITEHOUSE, Attorney
for Inmate
PATRICK SEQUEIRA, Deputy
District Attorney
KAY STAFFORD, Deputy
Commissioner/Observer
DEBRA TATE, Victim's
Next of Kin
ANTHONY DIMARIA, Victim's Next of
Kin
MARGARET DIMARIA, Victim's
Next of Kin
ANTHONY DIMARIA, Victim's
Next of Kin
MARIE FORD,
Victim's Next of Kin
JUNE JONES, Victims'
Witness Advocate
TIP KINDEL,
BPT/Observer
A. FUNCHESS, Correctional Officer
KABC Television:
BOB BANFIELD,
Reporter, KABC. News
BOBBY HOLT, Camera operator, KABC
News.
CORRECTIONS
TO THE DECISION HAVE
BEEN MADE
No See
Review of Hearing
Yes Transcript Memorandum
P R O C E E D I N G S
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LUSHBOUGH: We're on record.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Good
afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon, Ms. Atkins.
INMATE ATKINS: (Inaudible).
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: This
is a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing for Susan Atkins, CDC number W-08304.. Today's date is
June
lst, 2005.
We are located at the
California
Institution for
Women. The time is
2:24 p.m. According to the record, ma'am,
you were received by the Department of Corrections on April
23rd 1971, out of Los
Angeles County, case
number 253156, for counts one through seven for murder first, Penal Code Section
187 and count eight, Penal
Code Section 182.1, conspiracy to commit murder; case number A267861, out of Los Angeles County, in which all counts are to run
concurrently. This hearing is being
tape recordedd and for the purposes of voice identification, we're going
to go around the room
and ask everyone to identify themselves, stating
their first name, last name,
spelling our last name. When we
get to you,
ma'am, I'd like to.ask you to provide us with your CDC number as well.
INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am..
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I'll
start with myself,
go to my left.
My name is Margarita
Perez,
P-E-R-E-Z, Commissioner with the
Board of Prison Terms.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Diane Lushbough,
L-U-S-H-B-O-U-G-H, Deputy Commissioner,
Board of Prison Terms.
DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Patrick Sequeira, S-E-Q-U-E-I-R-A, Deputy
District Attorney, County of Los Angeles.
MS. TATE:
Debra Tate, T-A-T-E, victim's next of
kin.
MR. DIMARIA:
Anthony DiMaria, D-I, capital
M-A-R-I-A,
victim's
next of kin.
MS. DIMARIA: Margaret
DiMaria, D-I,
capital
M-A-R-I-A,
victim's
next of kin.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank
you.
Sir. ~
MR. DIMARIA:
Anthony DiMaria,
D-I-M-A-R-I-A, husband
of Margaret
DiMaria.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Ma'am. ~
MS. FORD: Marie
Ford, F-O-R-D, victim's
niece.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STAFFORD: Kay Stafford,
S-T-A-F-F-O-R-D, Deputy Commissioner,
Board of Prison Terms, observing.
'
MS. JONES: June Jones, J-O-N-E-S, Victims'Witness
Advocate..
MR. KINDEL: Tip Kindel, K-I-N-D-E-L, Board of Prison Terms,, observing.
MR. BANFIELD: R.
Banfield,
B-A-N-F-I-E-L-D, Channel Seven News.
CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER FUNCHESS: A. Funchess,
F-U-N-C-H-E-S-S, Correctional Officer, Board
of Prison Terms
security.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Ma'am.
INMATE ATKINS: Susan
Atkins, A-T-K-I-N-S, W-08304.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: James
Whitehouse, W-H-I-T-E-H-O-U-S-E, Attorney for Ms. Atkins.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Sir.
MR. HOLT: Bobby
Holt, camera technician, KABC Television,
H-O-L-T.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER
PEREZ: Thank you. Did I miss anyone? Ma'am, before we begin, I'd like
to ask you to
read the ADA
Statement that's sitting in front of you.
It is the document -Specifically where I
want you to read is that area
that's highlighted. If I could
get you to
read it out loud, please.
INMATE ATKINS: The Americans with
Disabilities Act, ADA,
is a law
to help people with disabilities. Disabilities are problems that make it harder for some people to see, hear,
breathe, talk, walk,
learn, think, work or
take care of
themselves than it is
for others. Nobody can be kept
outt of public places or activities because of a disability. If you
have a disability, you have the right
to ask for help to get
ready for your
BPT Hearing, get to the hearing, talk, read forms and papers
and understand the hearing
process. BPT will look
at what you asked for to
help make sure that you have a disability that is covered by the ADA, and that you have asked for the right kind of help. If you do not
get help or
you don't think
you got the kind
of help you need, ask for a BPT 1074 Grievance Form. You
can also get help to
fill it out..
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you understand what that means, ma'am?
INMATE
ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER
PEREZ: Can
you tell me what it
means in your own
words?
INMATE
ATKINS: It means
that if I have
a disability, that the Department
of Corrections is to make
sure that whatever help that
I need with the disability will be made
available to me so
that I can participate in this process (indiscernible).
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you.
Ido note
for the record that on
April 19th, 2005, you
did sign the BPT
1073 indicating that you have a
hearing impairment.
INMATE
ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And that you
wear
a hearing aid as a result.
INMATE
ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And do you
have
your hearing aid -
INMATE
ATKINS: I don't.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- on at this
time?
INMATE ATKINS: No,
I elected not to wear it because of the
air conditioners. It makes it very very
difficult for me to understand everything that's
going on, so I believe I'll be able to hear everything.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And you can -- You
can hear me well?
INMATE
ATKINS: I can hear you well today. You're close
enough that I can hear you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, if at any
point during the hearing you're having difficulty
with hearing because you do not have your
hearing aid, then we may look at providing you
with some other kind of accommodation. And I understand
that there are listening devices thatre
available to
assist you as
well. But
if you find that you can hear everyone well
and you understand everything that
is occurring, then just let
me know either way.
INMATE ATKINS: Okay, thank you.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: If
you need any
other assistance. Okay.
INMATE
ATKINS: Thank you.. ~
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And I do note
that you wear glasses. Those are reading glasses?
INMATE ATKINS: They are reading and distance
glasses. Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And are
you currently on any kind
of psychotropic medications?
INMATE
ATKINS: No, Ma'am.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Are
you on any kind
of medication?
INMATE
ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Are
you on any kind of
medication
that would make it
difficult for you
to fully participate in today's
hearing?
INMATE
ATKINS: No, Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: So you're not on
any kind of
medication that makes
yousleepy or -
INMATE ATKINS: No.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay,
and I
do note that you have an AA
in Arts..-.
INMATE
ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And
then
you
-
INMATE
ATKINS: Well I have
an Associate of
Arts Degree in General Education.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: General
Education.
INMATE
ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, and for
the
record, you, when
you read, you
don't
have
difficulty
understanding what you read?
INMATE ATKINS: No,
I have no difficulty
comprehending.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, Counsel, have all ADA issues
been addressed to the best
of your knowledge?
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE:
Yes.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank
you. Ma'am, this hearing is being conducted
pursuant to Penal Code Section
3041 and 3042 and the
rules and regulations of the Board of
Prison Terms governing Parole Consideration Hearings.
During today's hearing, if I speak
too fast or
if we speak toofast and you
have difficulty understanding what we're trying to convey,
just let me
know. We'll stop, we'll back up, we'll slow down, we'll make sure
you understand before we proceed.
INMATE
ATKINS: Thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you understand?
INMATE ATKINS:
Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The purpose of today's hearing is to once
again consider your suitability for parole. In doing so, we will consider the number and nature of the crimes that you were committed
for, your prior criminal and social
history and your behavior
and programming since your arrival within the California
Department of Corrections. Commissioner Lushbough and myself
have had the opportunity to review your prior transcripts and your Central File, and throughout today's hearing you will have
the opportunity to correct
or clarify the record. We will
consider your progress since your last hearing, your psychological report,
your counselor's report and any new
information that may
have a bearing on your suitability for parole. We will reach a -- reach a
decision today and inform you of that decision. Before we recess for deliberations, the District Attorneyy and yourat torney will have -- and the Commissioners will have the opportunity
to ask you
questions. Before we recess for deliberations, as well, the District Attorney, your attorney,
you -- and you and the
victim's next of kin will
have the opportunity to make a closing
statement relative to your suitability for parole. Your statement shall be limited
to why you feel that you are suitable for parole. Okay, we will then
recess, clear the room
and deliberate. Once we conclude our deliberations, we will resume the hearing and announce our decision. The California
Code of Regulations
states that regardless of time served, a life inmate shall be found unsuitable for and denied
parole, if in the
opinion of the Panel, the inmate would pose an unreasonable risk of danger
to society. Ma'am, you have
certain rights during
today's hearing. You have
the right to review your Central File. You have the right to present
relevant documents and you have the right to a timely notice
of this hearing. According to
the record, around February 8th, 2005, you were provided the opportunity to review
your Central File. Is that correct?
INMATE
ATKINS: That is
correct. PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Did
you review it?
INMATE ATKINS: Yes,
Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Did you
have
sufficient time
to review
the file?
INMATE ATKINS: Yes,
Ma'am. PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay,
Counsel,
have all your client's
rights been met to
the
best of your knowledge?
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE:
Yes.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER
PEREZ: Thank you. Ma'am, you have an additional
right. And that is
the right to beheard
by an impartial Panel.
Do you have any objections
to today's Panel?
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE:
Yes.
INMATE ATKINS: Yes.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: We
filed a writ of habeas corpus. This was on
the last hearing and the Attorney General's Office said that we should have objected to the BPT on
all possible grounds that we brought up in our appeal. I don't believe that's
true. I think that this
has to do with
what you're asking, it has
to do with Section 2254, (indiscernible)
impartial, unbiased
hearing. But nonetheless, to satisfy the Attorney General, I wrote down two of the things
that I'd like
to read in
just for the record,
if that's okay.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Are
you objection to this
particular Panel or you'reobjecting to anyone that's appointed
to the Board
of Prison Terms in conducting
this hearing?
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE:
Both.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay,
and what is
your grounds, sir? What
are
your grounds?
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: That's
what the Attorney General
said that we should
have done.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, go ahead and read it into the
record, sir.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE:
First, on the ground
that the BPT has a 20 year history of conducting Susan's
hearings in deliberate and an intentional violation of the
law. Second, on the grounds that the
BPT's decisions over the last third of a century have been
unconstitutional and arbitrary
and capricious, meaning that the BPT
contradicts itself from year to year. Third, on the grounds that these are unconstitutional
pro-formant hearings which produce a post-hoc justification for their predetermined decisions.
Fourth, on the grounds that these Commissioners have very little legal education, so they aren't in the
position to make legal determinations that arise
in these hearings, which won't be
the end of
the world, except for the fact that fifth, there's absolutely no process in the California
legal system forr appealing, correcting or challenging
the actionsor legal determinations of the Board Members. Sixth, because the BPT
use criteria in their BPT Form 1000, they know
contradict the statutory language as -- in
Title XV. And finally, on the ground that the BPT Commissioners do
not present a cross section
of the community
in they are appointed by
the Governor.
At least in the case of Governor Davis, he expressed -- expressly stated that he had intent and policy in violating
the Constitutional rights of life inmates
by denying any chance of parole.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank
you. I will overrule your objection and we
will continue with this hearing.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I would like to, if it's okay,
I'd like to -- There's
a couple of problems we had at the
last hearing having to do with legal questions.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I will not entertain them at this point, sir, with (indiscernible). I will -
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE:
Is there a time we
can?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I will
proceed with the hearing and at
the very end
of the hearing,
if you'd like to bring those up, then that would be fine. ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: But then we go
through the entire hearing without addressing issues that may have a bearing on how we
carry this out. At the
last hearing there were very several violations of law
and I thought if we brought
them up, you could say that
I was misinformed or you could agree
with me and then assure me that
you weren't going to do that. It doesn't
seem to make
sense to have a hearing today and then decide at the end that
it was carried out in violation of California state law.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: There is an established
process that we have in
conducting these hearings. As I go through that established process
is if there are pieces
and parts that you object to, then you can
object to them at that
point.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Part
of the problem
I have with that is that
Title XV, 2030(d)(1)
states that the hearing officers, you two, shall ensure throughout the hearing the comments made by
the District Attorney, made by everybody
are not -are relevant
and necessary testimony and statements. That means
that I don't want to have to
interrupt what the
District Attorney says every 30 seconds like I did at the last
hearing to challenge
what he's saying
on the grounds that itwasn't in the Central File, when the law says
that you two are supposed to do
that.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Exactly. It is up to
the Commissioners during our deliberations to take into
consideration and determine
that which we
feel is relevant in making our decision.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: If
we wait
until after he makes
his statement, then he's already said it
in the record and over
national television and it
hasn't been excluded.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It is the job, it is the objective, it is the responsibility of this Panel to take into consideration those statements that are relevant to this hearing
during our deliberations. So if statements are made during today's hearing that are not relevant to this case, then we will
note that and we will only consider during our deliberations that which we consider to be
relevant. Sir, at this
point I'm going
to proceed with the hearing. Ma'am, you
will receive a copy of our written tentative decision today. That decision
becomes effective within 120
days. As of May 2004,
the Board of Prison Terms abolished it's appeals process as it relates to discretionary
decisions. So what that means is if there -- if there is something thatoccurs
during today's hearings that you
do not agree with that is
discretionary, you have
the right to go directly to the court with your complaint. Do you understand?
INMATE ATKINS:
Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ:. Okay,
during today's hearing you're not required to admit the offense nor are
you required to discuss the offense. However, it's important for you to understand that this
Panel does accept true the findings of the court. We are not here to retry your case. Okay.
INMATE
ATKINS: All right.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Commissioner Lushbough, will we be
utilizing any confidential information during today's hearing?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LUSHBOUGH: The only confidential,
Commissioner, we'll be reviewing would be approximately 110 -- I'm sorry,
120 letters in opposition to parole that were in the confidential file. Of those, I believe at least four were redacted and presented or made
available to Ms.
Atkins. And that
would be the
only confidential we'd be
reviewing today.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay,
thank you.
Ma'am, I have passed
a hearing checklist marked
Exhibit One to your Counsel
to ensure thatwe are all
operating off of the
same documents. And at
this time I'll
ask him to verify
the accuracy of that document.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: It
appears
that we have all these.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And
I'll
ask the same question of the Deputy
District Attorney.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SEQUEIRA: I'm sure I've received the documents. Yes, I've received these documents. Thank you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. Counsel, are there additional documents to be
submitted to this Panel?
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I guess Susan just got
this. I wanted to double-check
on some of the
letters. I sent copies
of letters to the C&PR here to ensure we were -- they would be made available
to you.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And we were
-
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: And
they
are.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And we -ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Quite perfect. Good. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Yes. PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We have
numerous.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: All right, good.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And
we'll
discuss those when we get
to that portion of the
hearing.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: There are approximately 425 that you did send.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Does that sound accurate?
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE:
425 pages.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you have
any preliminary objections
other than what you've already noted?
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE:
Not that
I can think
of
.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, will Ms. Atkins
be speaking to the Panel today about the crime?
INMATE ATKINS: No.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, will
she be speaking to us about
anything else in regards to employment plans,
parole plans, personal factors, criminal history; all the other areas that are
covered in previous hearings?
INMATE
ATKINS: I don't think so.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, when we get
to the portion -- those sections, I'll ask you again.
INMATE ATKINS: All right.
Thank you,
Ma' am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, at this time
I'd like to swear you in, so if I can get you to raise your right hand to
the best of your ability. Do you solemnly swear
or affirm that the testimony you
provide today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
INMATE ATKINS: I
do.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank
you. I'd like to start off by
incorporating into the record a brief summary of the crime, as noted in the
latest correctional counselor's report dated March 2005. This document was authored by Correctional Counselor I P. Florence, F-L-O-R-E-N-C-E.
Reviewed by Correctional Counselor II J.
Cremer, C-R-E-M-E-R, and Classification
and Parole Representative P. Clark, C-L-A-R-K. And I will be reading into the record the summary of the crime, which starts on page
one and partially goes into page
two. I will also be reading into
the record the prisoner's version as noted on page two, three and partially four of the same Board report. And the record states: On
August
9th,
1969, at the Polanski residence,
Abigail Ann Folger died from multiple stab wounds to the body. Voityck Frykowski's death was causedby a gunshot
wound to the left back
and multiple blunt force traumas to the head. He was also stabbed. Steven R. Parent's death was caused by multiple gunshot wounds. Sharon Marie Polanski's
death was caused by multiple
stab wounds to the body and Thomas
Sebring's death was caused by multiple stab wounds. On August 10th, 1969, at the
LaBianca residence, Leno A. LaBianca
and his wife,
Rosemary LaBianca, were killed. Leno LaBianca's cause of death
was multiple stab wounds
to the neck and
abdomen. Rosemary LaBianca's death was caused by multiple stab wounds to the neck
and trunk. Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten and Charles Manson were taken into custody by Los
Angles Police on October 13th, 1969, November 25th, 1969, and December
9th, 1969, respectively, and
were
booked
into the county jail on suspicion
of murder. Defendant Patricia Krenwinkel was arrested on a fugitive warrant
by Alabama Police on December 5th,
1969, in Mobile, Alabama, and extradited to Los
Angeles. Charles Manson, Patricia
Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins were subsequently convicted
of seven counts of Penal Code Section 187 and
one count of Penal Code
Section
182.1, conspiracy to commit murder on
January
25th, 1971. The jury
returned with a penalty of death. On December
17 th, 1972, Susan appeared in court and the
sentence of death
for each count imposeAtkinsd on April 19th, 1971, was vacated and set aside. Ms. Atkins was sentenced to state prison for life, concurrently on each
count. The prisoner's version states: Ms. Atkins
indicated she would like
to update the prisoner's version of her
commitment offense. The following
is a summation of Ms. Atkins'
version. Ms. Atkins states that she had
very low self-esteem
when she was younger.
This was -- This was due to the death of her mother,
her father's drinking and the
inability to hold down a job, a lack of
interest in school, being sexually molested and her
association with drug users. These factors made her particularly
susceptible to the
community setting that the
1960's culture provided. This is how she ended up in a commune relationship with Charles Manson. Ms. Atkins states that she
had a very cynical
view of contemporary
social values due to her family denigration, and as a result,
had early brushes with the law. She was arrested at an early age for grand theft auto in
violation of the Dyer
Act, because she unknowingly
hitched a ride with
two men who had
stolen a car. As a result
of this early arrest, Ms. Atkins developed
a mistrust of police in general. Ms. Atkins states she became involved in drugs
-- in drug usedue to the
fact that she
had no family support while growing up. She did, however,
receive a lot of social
support from other drug users. They contributed to her
belief that the
government was hypocritical and reinforced her mistrust of the government and disrespect of the law in general.
Once she became involved with the communal setting of The
Family, it was very
hard to leave.
The only friends she had were in
The Family. The communal
setting didn't allow for her
to possess money and
there was no
housing of her own.
The Family moved frequently, and therefore, was always isolated
from the community. There was no
time to make friends
outside The Family and it was not encouraged unless these people could be persuaded
to join. Shortly thereafter, The Family
settled down in the Topanga Canyon and Ms.
Atkins had a son. It was in
the commune that he was well taken care of. Due to
her lack of
education and job
skills, it would
have been difficult to support
herself, let alone
her son. Despite the fact that the relationship within the commune was generally dysfunctional and abusive,
Ms. Atkins' experiences produced a person who was
more comfortable within the familiar structure of dysfunctional
interactions than an
unfamiliar setting of a healthy relationship. Ms. Atkins states that shecontinued to gravitate towards the abusive relationships rather than the unfamiliar
setting of a healthy relationship due to low self-esteem.
Ms. Atkins adds once the commitment
offenses began it was a shock
to her because Charles Manson talked about death so much,
but never gave any indication that he was going to do something like that.
He would continually test members of The Family by asking them to perform a task. If they refused
to do the
task, he would tell them that they were still bound up with
social inhibitions. If they
did the task, he would say forget
it and that was the end
of it. So when he
talked about killing
establishment people, it just
sounded like one of
his rants or one of his
tests. Ms. Atkins states while in hindsight, Manson's preoccupation with a class struggle
seems like a foreshadowing of what was to come.
During that time there was a lot
of talk about
social revolution and change
and much of the talk
used violence in a figurative
sense. Once the commitment
offenses began, Ms. Atkins states there was no way
to get away from The
Family and there
was nowhere to go. She feared for her life and
feared for the life of her son, due to
the fact that she
acknowledged that Shorty
Shea had been killed
simply because Manson thought
he might talk. Ms. Atkins
states due toher
dysfunctional upbringing and her
drug use, she eventually developed a misguided sense of loyalty to the family. She states that there were physical
factors that made it especially
hard to turn to the police after the crime had
been committed. Topanga Canyon was 20
miles from anywhere and she didn't have a
car. The only way of
leaving was -- The
only way of
leaving Spahn Ranch was if someone else was with her, and
she was being watched constantly. Ms. Atkins concludes that the time that --
that the time that the crimes were committed, she was
seriously disturbed, mentally
ill and having delusions, psychotic
paranoia and suffering from
chronic LSD use. At
this time I will
proceed with a review of your criminal history. And the document that I will specifically
be referring to is
-
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: I think
we need to have a
reading of the Statement
of Facts on the eighth murder too, the Gary Hinman killing. It's not included
in the Board packet, and it's
case number A267861 that occurred on or about July 25th, 1969.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER
PEREZ: And where do you find that?
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: Well it's mistakenly omitted in the Board packet that she was
actuallysentenced on two separate cases. The case number is referenced in the first
paragraph, A267861. That is
the killing of Gary Hinman, although Mr. Hinman's name is not
mentioned in the first paragraph.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, I will ask -
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: And
in the summary of the crime, it
omits the facts -
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: -- surrounding
Mr. Hinman's death. I do find when I was looking for a Statement of Facts regarding that killing,
and I found one actually further back if the Panel wants
to use it, and their prior decisions. And this
would be the -- It
is the decision of -- I'm having trouble
finding the date.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ:
Well I'll tell
you what, I'll ask Commissioner Lushbough to locate that for me, and in the meantime, I will -
ATTORNEY
WHITEHOUSE: Or actually I can -
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- proceed
and -- proceed and -
ATTORNEY
WHITEHOUSE: I can -
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ:
-- review
the criminal history.
ATTORNEY
WHITEHOUSE: I can just pass it --pass my (indiscernible) copy
to Commissioner
Lushbough.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Thank
you. ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: And it's -PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And
specifically
-
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: --.the
next -- it might
be the next page. It says the Statement
of Facts.
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SEQUEIRA: Why don't
we use the court transcripts from the plea
agreement?
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, I'm going to review this and I'll make
the decision, sir. Okay,
again, I'm going to allow Commissioner Lushbough to page
through this.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE:
Okay.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And locate
what she believes to be the
best version for me
to use at
this point. And in the meantime,
what I will do
is I will review the criminal history.
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE: That's fine.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay.
What I don't want to
do is sit here and
page through -
ATTORNEY WHITEHOUSE:
No, I understand.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER.. PEREZ: -- files and take
up additional time, because I know this isgoing to
be a long hearing.
ATTORNEY WHITESOUSE: Well
I understand. I don't -
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER
PEREZ: Okay, so at
this point I will review Ms. Atkins' criminal history and in
the meantime, Commissioner Lushbough will locate the Statement of Facts as it relates to count eight. The document that I
am referring to is page
four, which is the probation officer's report. And
it will be under the legal tab, legal documents: And I will read in to
the record the information as presented. The record states that in 1966,
in Salem, Oregon, Ms. Atkinss
was charged or arrested for possession of concealed
weapon and receiving stolen property. On September
1966, she was again charged with the Dyer Act. I think you were charged with the Dyer
Act
on the 29th and another one on the 30th, and I
believe that one of them was for hitchhiking a ride with a couple
of individuals that had stolen a vehicle.
INMATE
ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And I believe the second one was for
something having to do
with a tax collector. Is that correct? It's not
real clear.
INMATE ATKINS: Having to do with what? PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: A tax collector.
It's not real clear in the record. INMATE ATKINS: No.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ:
Does that sound accurate?
INMATE ATKINS: No, I don't know anything about
a tax collector.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Do you know what
the second Dyer Act issue is about?
INMATE ATKINS: I
believe that we had received stolen property when I was with the two
gentlemen and the car passed across state lines.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay. The record
just reflects tax collector, Portland, Oregon
Dyer Act, and there are no additional details.
INMATE ATKINS: Yeah.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ:
You don't recall
that?
INMATE ATKINS: No, Ma'am, I do not
recall anything about a tax collector.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER
PEREZ: In terms of the hitchhiking,
the record reflects that while working as a waitress in San
Francisco, defendant met two flashy types who offered to take her to Oregon
in their new car. It turned out later that the car was stolen and the two
men made theirliving by a means of a series of robberies;
usually armed. Although she was
somewhat fearful, particularly when the
ex-convict put a gun on
her, she agreed
to go along
with them as she
was attracted to the other man. The two men subsequently learned that they were
being sought by Oregon
State authorities and went
into hiding camping out. They survived by stealing
supplies from other campers in the area where they were hiding. They were
eventually apprehended and after
three months in jail
in Salem, the defendant was convicted, placed on probation andd allowedd to return to California under interstate probation and parole compact. The record also reflects that in 1968,
you were arrested for reproduction for possession
of facsimile driver's license.
In other words, fake
driver's licenses. And the
record states the defendant -- the defendant
along with ten
others were found
on private property camped out at
Deer Creek Road and Highway One. Upon request for identification, they
produced driver's licenses that had
been fictitiously and fraudulently prepared.
This defendant had no
proof of age.
Does that sound
accurate?
INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay. And on June 22nd of 1968, you were arrested or chargedith possession of dangerous
drugs with prior
possession of marijuana,
use of minor. You subsequently entered a plea of guilty to the possession of marijuana.
The court suspended pronouncement of sentence
for a period of three years and placed you on probation. Is that
accurate?
INMATE
ATKINS: That's correct.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, and then in June of 1969, probation
was reinstated and modified and subsequently
terminated. The Sheriff's Office in Boonville,
California was notified June 21St,
1968, by Mrs. Walkenthall -Wassenthall, that she believed someone had given her
son, age 17, some LSD. Officers investigated
and found the boy
to be shaking,
nervous and complaining
of seeing things, hallucinations. He told
the officers that he had received a blue tablet from a girl
at a hippie house. He pointed out the location to where Sheriff's
deputies were dispatched. They found the house to be occupied by five females, three males and an infant.
Among the females
was the defendant
and co-defendant -were the defendant and co-defendant, Patricia Krenwinkel, going
under the name of
(Indiscernible)
Patricia Smith. A search was made
of the house and surrounding
buildings whichevealed
pills, marijuana, seeds and some LSD. Do you recall that?
INMATE
ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay. And
then in August of 1969,
you were arrested for
grand theft auto. Is that accurate?
INMATE ATKINS: That's accurate.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: What was the
disposition
on that?
INMATE ATKINS: It was the
charges I believe were dropped.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The charges
were
dropped?
INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, and you were also charged with homicide and you were
subsequently released to Los Angeles County on that charge.
INMATE ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay,
having to do with
the current offense.
INMATE
ATKINS: Yes, Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, is there anything else that you'd like to add or
correct for the record relative to your criminal history?
INMATE ATKINS: No, Ma'am.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LUSHBOUGH:
Commissioner, I have the
probation officer's report
with -- which describes on the
second page, the facts of
the Hinman case, which is A267861.
And in addition,
I did locate the decision that the
Board had, which apparently (inaudible) mentioned. And that was
dated 12/16/82. Both of them are brief.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, (inaudible).
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUSHBOUGH: Okay. PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Okay, (inaudible). | 
