.
Feedback

Chowchilla Kidnapper Released from Prison

Richard Schoenfeld, who grew up in Atherton, was released to an undisclosed location Wednesday night.

One of the three men who kidnapped a busload of Chowchilla schoolchildren in 1976 and buried them in a quarry in Livermore has been released from state prison after serving more than 35 years behind bars.

Richard Schoenfeld, 57, was released to an undisclosed location from the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo on Wednesday night, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Luis Patino said.

A state parole panel last year upheld a previous ruling that granted parole to Schoenfeld, but set a release date of November 2021. However, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled in March that he must be released immediately.

State prosecutors appealed that ruling, but on Thursday, the California Supreme Court declined to review the matter, paving the way for Schoenfeld's release.

Schoenfeld, his brother James, and Frederick Woods were in their early- to mid-20s when they ambushed a busload of schoolchildren from Dairyland Union School in Chowchilla, a small farm community about 35 miles northwest of Fresno in Madera County, on July 15, 1976.

What do you remember about this crime? (Please leave a comment)

The men left the bus camouflaged in a creek bed and drove the children and bus driver, Ed Ray, to the California Rock and Gravel Quarry in Livermore.

They sealed their victims in a large van that had been buried in a cave at the quarry and fitted to keep the children and driver hostage.

The kidnappers, all from wealthy families in the Peninsula communities of Atherton and Portola Valley, then demanded a $5 million ransom for the return of the group.

The hostages escaped from the buried van a little more than a day after they were first kidnapped when Ray and the two oldest children piled mattresses to the top of the van and forced their way out.

The three men received life sentences after pleading guilty in Alameda County Superior Court in 1977 to 27 counts of kidnapping for ransom.

But an appellate court ruled in 1980 that they were eligible for parole, finding that the victims didn't suffer any bodily harm.

Richard Schoenfeld was denied parole more than 20 times, but in October 2008, a parole panel ruled that he was suitable for release. However, the panel didn't set a release date for him.

But in August 2009, a second panel decided against granting parole to Schoenfeld, saying that a third panel should consider whether granting parole would be "improvident."

On April 5, 2011, the third panel held a hearing on the matter at the California Men's Colony, where all three kidnappers have been held, and it ruled that parole would be appropriate for Schoenfeld.

But the panel said that, based on its calculations, Schoenfeld shouldn't be released until November 2021.

However, the First District Court of Appeal said the parole panel erred because it violated its own rules and lacked authority to increase Schoenfeld's sentence after finding him suitable for parole.

Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Jill Klinge, who has attended parole hearings in recent years for all three kidnappers, couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

At Richard Schoenfeld's hearing last year, Klinge said she didn't think he was eligible for parole, in part because of his participation in a scheme in which inmates falsified their prison work time cards in an effort to get more pay and another incident in which he used a computer without authorization.

She also said she thinks Schoenfeld "has a propensity to be a follower." Klinge said earlier this week that the victims in the case "are still affected by the kidnapping on a daily basis."

She said many of the victims still have difficulty sleeping and some of them have led troubled lives.

Woods and James Schoenfeld haven't yet been found suitable for parole but will have parole hearings later this year.

-- Bay City News

Gayle Collins June 22, 2012 at 01:27 am
At what point do you stop punishing people? Please also remember his incarceration costs taxpayers $50,000 a year. No one died in this incident..
Rick Eymer June 22, 2012 at 02:01 am
That's a great point. Perhaps in a perfect world that $50,000 could go to education. If you put yourself in the place of one of the abducted children, would releasing him bother you? Of course, the strength of children is their ability to forgive. Something we can all absorb a little better. Thank you for your comment.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Winters June 18, 2013 at 08:51 am
Best of luck finding good homes, we already have two cats. You may want to consider this advertisingRead More technique: http://i41.tinypic.com/2s17tk0.jpg
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.