37 replies to this topic

[TooLate]

Birds, on 28 July 2010 - 07:14 AM, said:

I don't recall reading anything that would support her having a lower than average IQ.

Saw it in a psych report or parole hearing somewhere. And it seems to fit the cap.

[Jean Harlow]

Attyla, on 28 July 2010 - 08:13 AM, said:

well, you definately have to have some wires loose to do what she did, but I am curious to know if there is any documentation of any intelligence testing done on any of them as part of the phychological profile. I would safely say such testing would be done, but documentation would be interesting.

I have viewed as many of the interviews with her as I can, and do not find her overly unintelligent sounding, but more just emotionless unless the situation calls for her oscar worthy tears on demand

ok, I am confused now. We are talking about Pat right? not Leslie? Because I find Leslie really flat talking when she discusses her crimes and a lot of other things ... of course no one has interviewed me for tv either...

[Attyla]

Jean Harlow, on 28 July 2010 - 03:58 PM, said:

ok, I am confused now. We are talking about Pat right? not Leslie? Because I find Leslie really flat talking when she discusses her crimes and a lot of other things ... of course no one has interviewed me for tv either...

Pat is a much better actor, but I find almost all the interviews with the principles to be somewhat staged and deliberate

[TooLate]

mahlerfan, on 26 July 2010 - 08:49 PM, said:

"In 1988, while stating her deep remorse for the murders, Krenwinkel nonetheless told her prison psychiatrist that Abigail Folger, the person she murdered on the night of the Tate murders, 'could have been something more then she was, a drug abuser.'" (Helter Skelter, 1994 ed., p 690).

It's actually the only self-serving quotation I've heard attributed to her as a mature woman.

And it's also hard to know if she was putting her victim down or raising her up without context. She may have been attaching no judgement to Folgers drug using status and actually meant by that comment "Folger was a trouble drug user just like many of us. I'm sorry I got in the way of Folgers ability to fully develop into the best person she could have been". PK is not a good communicator and some of the prison report writers have had agendas to spin reports to paint prisoners bleakly. Twisting their words etc - thats why some Family have declined assessments.

Also in saying that; was she dropping a hint at the family knowing Folger and having some drug related connections. It's out of place the comment, just like PK saying Tate wasn't meant to be there. Could be that the least bright cookie has slipped her tongue about some of the offence background, just by accident.

[joe25]

TooLate, on 02 October 2010 - 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

And it's also hard to know if she was putting her victim down or raising her up without context. She may have been attaching no judgement to Folgers drug using status and actually meant by that comment "Folger was a trouble drug user just like many of us. I'm sorry I got in the way of Folgers ability to fully develop into the best person she could have been". PK is not a good communicator and some of the prison report writers have had agendas to spin reports to paint prisoners bleakly. Twisting their words etc - thats why some Family have declined assessments.

Also in saying that; was she dropping a hint at the family knowing Folger and having some drug related connections. It's out of place the comment, just like PK saying Tate wasn't meant to be there. Could be that the least bright cookie has slipped her tongue about some of the offence background, just by accident.

I agree with the issue about context........however, looking at it from an another angle, "more than she was, a drug abuser"......we don't know for sure who PK was referring to.

There is an ongoing assumption she was referring to Abigail Folger. Perhaps she was referring to herself (Krenwinkel). The statement could reflect PK's self-centered, lack of empathy view. How would Krenwinkel know with certainty that Folger was a 'drug abuser' not a recreational or once in awhile user? Who or where would Krenwinkel's source of information about AF come from; PK's legal team, cell block friends (VanHouten?), and/or studying trial transcripts? Furthermore, Krenwinkel did not have the training to assess whether AF was a 'drug abuser' or not.

Krenwinkel's extracted statement makes more sense if she referred to herself. Pat K. would know with certainty that she (P.K.) was an abuser of drugs.

[Birds]

joe25, on 03 October 2010 - 06:26 AM, said:

I agree with the issue about context........however, looking at it from an another angle, "more than she was, a drug abuser"......we don't know for sure who PK was referring to.

There is an ongoing assumption she was referring to Abigail Folger. Perhaps she was referring to herself (Krenwinkel). The statement could reflect PK's self-centered, lack of empathy view. How would Krenwinkel know with certainty that Folger was a 'drug abuser' not a recreational or once in awhile user? Who or where would Krenwinkel's source of information about AF come from; PK's legal team, cell block friends (VanHouten?), and/or studying trial transcripts? Furthermore, Krenwinkel did not have the training to assess whether AF was a 'drug abuser' or not.

Krenwinkel's extracted statement makes more sense if she referred to herself. Pat K. would know with certainty that she (P.K.) was an abuser of drugs.

I think assuming she was referring to herself in the third person might be a stretch.

[Attyla]

joe25, on 03 October 2010 - 06:26 AM, said:

I agree with the issue about context........however, looking at it from an another angle, "more than she was, a drug abuser"......we don't know for sure who PK was referring to.

There is an ongoing assumption she was referring to Abigail Folger. Perhaps she was referring to herself (Krenwinkel). The statement could reflect PK's self-centered, lack of empathy view. How would Krenwinkel know with certainty that Folger was a 'drug abuser' not a recreational or once in awhile user? Who or where would Krenwinkel's source of information about AF come from; PK's legal team, cell block friends (VanHouten?), and/or studying trial transcripts? Furthermore, Krenwinkel did not have the training to assess whether AF was a 'drug abuser' or not.

Krenwinkel's extracted statement makes more sense if she referred to herself. Pat K. would know with certainty that she (P.K.) was an abuser of drugs.

OK, lets look at context. When exactly did Patty say this little gem about Abby? Years later when Abigail's drug use was in the public. There were many available sources for her (and please note, I am not disparaging the dead in saying this) regarding her drug use, and excesses. It was pretty well documented after her death that she and Voytek were using a lot of drugs, and that her concern for the level of his use was bringing her to the conclusion that she might part with him.

So, contextually speaking, it makes more sense that someone who had that knowledge after the fact could make this claim and not, as so obviously mentioned in the post above, go third person for the first and only time during the interview. People who speak in third person, do so repeatedly...just watch any Terrell Owens interview where he resorts to this kind of self naming.

[joe25]

Attyla, on 04 October 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

OK, lets look at context. When exactly did Patty say this little gem about Abby? Years later when Abigail's drug use was in the public. There were many available sources for her (and please note, I am not disparaging the dead in saying this) regarding her drug use, and excesses. It was pretty well documented after her death that she and Voytek were using a lot of drugs, and that her concern for the level of his use was bringing her to the conclusion that she might part with him.

Quote

So, contextually speaking, it makes more sense that someone who had that knowledge after the fact could make this claim and not, as so obviously mentioned in the post above, go third person for the first and only time during the interview. People who speak in third person, do so repeatedly...just watch any Terrell Owens interview where he resorts to this kind of self naming.

Your logic and analyses of the context is logical and makes sense, then again there is an assumption being made (and a few pages of posts).....about Krenwinkel and her comments. Especially as TL has stated in posts about PK's intellectual abilities (which I don't know what her Full Scale IQ and subscales are reportedly to be)......perhaps she isn't the 'sharpest tool in the shed'.

However, if she was referring to Abigail F., I would wonder why such a reductionistic comment (drug abuser) would be used. It seems Krenwinkel was selective in her thinking and commenting......Folger was much more than "just" or "only" a drug abuser. If PK was truly talking about Folger, there was a disparaging tone to it, akin, to Beausoleil, killing a drug user and pusher (less worthwhile as a person). Perhaps you're right and maybe Krenwinkel was fully aware of what she said and why she said it.

[catscradle77]

joe25, on 04 October 2010 - 06:14 PM, said:

Your logic and analyses of the context is logical and makes sense, then again there is an assumption being made (and a few pages of posts).....about Krenwinkel and her comments. Especially as TL has stated in posts about PK's intellectual abilities (which I don't know what her Full Scale IQ and subscales are reportedly to be)......perhaps she isn't the 'sharpest tool in the shed'.

However, if she was referring to Abigail F., I would wonder why such a reductionistic comment (drug abuser) would be used. It seems Krenwinkel was selective in her thinking and commenting......Folger was much more than "just" or "only" a drug abuser. If PK was truly talking about Folger, there was a disparaging tone to it, akin, to Beausoleil, killing a drug user and pusher (less worthwhile as a person). Perhaps you're right and maybe Krenwinkel was fully aware of what she said and why she said it.

What line struck me from Pat was "What do I have to do to get out of here?Die?".

Or something to that effect. I think shortly after that showing, she stopped attending the parole hearings.

[tremain]

catscradle77, on 04 October 2010 - 06:22 PM, said:

What line struck me from Pat was "What do I have to do to get out of here?Die?".

Or something to that effect. I think shortly after that showing, she stopped attending the parole hearings.

Wasn't it along the lines of (adopts terrible speaking voice and turns on crocodile tears) "I can't change anything that happened in my life, apart from being dead, I am sorry but I can't change it"? Something like that?

[Attyla]

catscradle77, on 04 October 2010 - 06:22 PM, said:

What line struck me from Pat was "What do I have to do to get out of here?Die?".

Or something to that effect. I think shortly after that showing, she stopped attending the parole hearings.

i understand her point to a degree. she has tried everything on the inside to turn it around, and all reports are that she has done so.

what she misses is that what she has to do is actually pay the full penalty, and given she directly killed two people in a most violent fashion and the board feels she has not.

i know you cannot quantify the two, but that is the job of the board, to attempt to do just that.

is there some merit to the claim of political prisoner? perhaps

[Franksta]

Political prisoner? That's funny. I remember her saying during an interview about how people should feel compassion, towards her of course.

[Attyla]

oh dont get me wrong, I fully think they are living a sentence they deserve. I do also know that obviously there are some political issues to contend with.

Fact: the amount of public pressure to keep them on the inside is huge every time they go up for parole
Fact: the parole board is representing the will of the people
Fact: the parole board work for the state of California

conclusion: a politically based group are deciding the fate of these people

does that make them political prisoners? perhaps to a small degree

[joe25]

Birds, on 04 October 2010 - 10:34 AM, said:

Quote

I think assuming she was referring to herself in the third person might be a stretch.

You are probably right. The wording caught my attention. The longer I'm reading these posts the more I tend to pick up on stuff like this, i.e, contradictions, polarities, assumptions, etc. I'm not judging,..... simply stating observations.

For example, how many times have you read someone (I've done this as well) make reference to the truthfulness of one of the Tate-LaBianca killers/participants. My pat statement is, "sometimes murderers are pathological liars"..... With this in mind, how and when do we decide when truth is told by one of the killers.

Also, what about the comment Tex supposedly made when he confronted VF, "I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's work". Or Krenwinkel's statement about Abigail F., who reportedly said, "I'm already dead" (my paraphrase) while being stabbed to death. Reading the posts here, members respond as if they did, didn't, don't know, or don't respond. We simply don't know what was said for sure, do we? We believe this and/or we believe that......

[bobbysands]

They will never be let out. There will never be a gov in this state that will let that happen. I myself do not agree with every one of them rotting behind bars, but the political reality is that they will never be released.

In terms of them being thought of as political prisoners, they can only dream.

Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner. Tex and the rest of them are criminals, plain and simple.

[ghrtt3]

Sebring's sister was NOT saying anything nice about Susan. That statement was made in expressing her outrage at all the things Susan was allowed to do in prison. The scum husband neglects to mention that and tries to make it sound like the woman was acknowledging Susan had changed. If he posted the entire transcript of her remarks the truth would be obvious, she wanted Susan executed. Hope he joins his wife in hell.

[briandavisradio]

ghrtt3, on 03 December 2010 - 12:39 PM, said:

Sebring's sister was NOT saying anything nice about Susan. That statement was made in expressing her outrage at all the things Susan was allowed to do in prison. The scum husband neglects to mention that and tries to make it sound like the woman was acknowledging Susan had changed. If he posted the entire transcript of her remarks the truth would be obvious, she wanted Susan executed. Hope he joins his wife in hell.

Thanks, that is what I thought as well. And after I read more in depth of James W, I am of the opinion that he is somewhat sick.