Abigail Folger: A Time In New York Part II

Continued research into the life of Abigail Folger has taken me in several directions. This post will highlight this quest with emphasis on Abigail's life in New York prior to moving to Los Angeles. In my earlier post on this period of Abigail's time in New York, I uncovered a personal letter she wrote to a friend, detailing both her employment and interests in New York City, as well as her excitement over her relationship with Voytek Frykowski. (See the post here on the blog, Abigail Folger: A Time In New York, Dec. 2, 2020).

Prior to leaving San Francisco for New York, Abigail worked at the University of California at Berkeley Art Museum. (This museum was the old university art gallery building, and should not be confused with the concrete modernist structure which succeeded it, opening in the fall of 1970.) In an effort to track down her exact dates of employment at Berkeley, I contacted the university HR office for help. A review of their records was provided to me, looking at the years 1965-1969 for reference. Abigail did not appear in any of those years as a paid employee of the university. It was explained to me, however, that she was likely paid by a third party, or may have been an unpaid volunteer.

University of California Berkeley Old Art Museum where Abigail worked, helping to organize the Fine Arts Council.

Interior of the new Berkeley Art Museum, which opened in November of 1970. SF Chronicle photo.

It is known that Abigail's boss at Berkeley was the iconic Peter Howard Selz. He is famously quoted in the press after the murders as saying that Abigail did not "act, look, or dress like a hippie." In an effort to locate Selz' papers and the museum archive, I made contact with his daughter, who said she did not have information on Abigail, but did direct me to the Archives of American Art at the Smithsonian Institution. 

Peter Selz, Abigail's boss at Berkeley.

Looking through every relevant file folder and photo in the archives during the time Abigail would have worked there, I discovered nothing. The only possible indication in the records appeared at the bottom of typed correspondence, where the typist leaves his/her initials. On many of these the initials "AF" appeared--a tantalizing possibility, but unfortunately nothing significant to showcase her employment prior to relocating to New York.

Teaming up with her friend, Andreas (Andy) Brown--a fellow San Francisco resident--the pair travelled to New York in August of 1967. Brown was finalizing the purchase of the famed Gotham Book Mart from Frances Steloff, and offered Abigail employment, as she probed the other side of life and existed on the edge of the thriving literary and artistic scene there.

I discovered the archives of the Gotham Book Mart at the University of Texas at Austin Harry Ransom Center. This archive is extensive, and houses the records of the business, photographs, and much more. After extensive research, I did not locate any photos of Abigail, but I did find absolute proof that she did, in fact, work at the bookstore. I found the weekly pay and tax records of the staff, and have identified that both Brown and Abigail began work at the bookstore on the same date.

Abigail's pay sheet for the entire time she worked at the Gotham Book Mart. Note the short duration of employment.  This document, and that of Andreas Brown, following, courtesy of  Gotham Book Mart Records, Harry Ransom Center, the University of Texas at Austin , Container LSF36 Subseries B. Financial Records.

Andreas Brown pay sheet. He began work at the bookstore at the same time as Abigail.

At the top of Abigail's statement, we see that she was a temporary New York resident, and was taxed as such. This no doubt would likely indicate that she planned to return to California at some point. In fact, her lease on her Upper West Side apartment would last only from August of 1967 to August of 1968. Her home address when she began work at the bookstore was listed as the San Francisco address of her mother.

It is interesting here that Abigail's employment was of such a short duration. In fact, a number of weeks of her future planned employment had been crossed out. It almost seems abrupt. Although there is no concrete proof of it here, we may wonder if this would have been the time she met Voytek Frykowski. Traditionally, it has been said that Abigail first met writer Jerzy Kosinski at the Gotham Book Mart, who then introduced Abigail to Voytek at a later time--presumably at a literary party around Christmas time in 1967. But when exactly did she meet Kosinski?

To answer this question I consulted the Ed Sanders archives at Princeton University. After an extensive review of all of the Folger and Frykowski files in the Princeton collection, I discovered little that I did not already know. The only thing of note that I found was from an interview Ed Sanders conducted with Jerzy Kosinski on Nov. 21, 1970. This interview, like all of Sanders' material, was hand written on blank sheets of paper. Here are a couple of quotes from that interview:

"Reasons  Kosinski introduced Gibby to Voytek--

1) He was interested in learning English & they both were fluent in French.

2) $"

"Kosinski met Gibby at party when she was working at G.B. Mart. Then, later, he introduced her to Frykowski."

"According to Jerzy Kosinski, Abigail made $130,000 [per year] after taxes, but only spent about $12,000."

Ed Sanders in 1968.

Novelist Jerzy Kosinski, who introduced Abigail Folger to Voytek Frykowski, was also instrumental in bringing both artist Witold-K and Voytek to America and ultimately into the orbit of Abigail.

The common denominator in this New York period for all of these individuals was the Gotham Book Mart. To be sure, it was here that the initial meeting between Abigail and Kosinski took place, initiating a cascade of events that would ultimately culminate on Cielo Drive in August of 1969.

Interior view of Gotham Book Mart as it looked when Abigail Folger worked there. This and the following photo of Andreas Brown courtesy Gotham Book Mart Records, Harry Ransom Center, the University of Texas at Austin, Container 31.4 Subseries A, Gotham Book Mart Operations.

Andreas Brown (left) at a Gotham Book Mart literary party book signing. It was at exactly such an event where Abigail met Kosinski.

To better illustrate this period in Abigail's life, I turn to the Kosinski novel, Blind Date, to offer some guidance:

"Later you started writing to Woytek, urging him to defect to the West. Your letters turned our life upside down. Suddenly, all Woytek talked about was Levanter --[Kosinski] his closest friend, already settled in America, while he was wasting his time with me. He imagined himself with you in Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles...So I lost him to you, Levanter. And to Gibby, that American heiress you found for him. And look how it all ended!"

Levanter had telephoned Gibby and told her he had to see her alone to talk about Woytek. They met at a cafe near Centeral Park. "How is Woytek's English coming along?" he asked. "It's improving,' she said. "But surely you didn't ask me to meet you to talk about Woytek's English." "I didn't. It's about the two of you." Gibby looked apprehensive, almost panicky. "Did Woytek ask you to talk to me?" "No."

"What is it then?" She stared at him, her eyes magnified by the thick lenses of her glasses. Levanter was having difficulty beginning.

"I know you and Woytek have no secrets from each other," she encouraged. "You're his only close friend in New York. You can be direct with me."

"Ever since I introduced you to Woytek," said Levanter, trying to sound casual, "you and he have lived in that same tiny West Side studio. yet you have unlimited charge accounts at all of the best shops in town, your wardrobe is made by the finest designers, and your jewelry is worth thousands of dollars. Woytek doesn't have a penny. If he wants to buy a pack of cigarettes, he has to borrow it from his friends. He's wearing the clothing he arrived in from Eastern Europe because he can't afford anything new. It looks to me as if you've suddenly turned into a penny-pinching shrew, acting as if you were on your own."

Gibby shifted in her chair. "What's wrong with being on your own?" "Nothing. But you aren't exactly on your own. You come from one of the richest families in the country and have a trust fund that yields a great deal of money. On top of that, there have been large financial gifts and inheritances over the years. Still, with all your wealth, you won't help Woytek, the man you love." "I won't give Woytek money, if that's what you mean. I don't want people to think that the one man I want is the one I have to pay for," she said stubbornly.

"Are you going to live your life with Woytek according to what other people might think?" asked Levanter. Gibby looked away. For a moment, Levanter thought she wasn't listening. He grew impatient. "If you're so concerned with how people think, why do you tell them everything about yourself? Why do you say that before you met Woytek your life oscillated between drinks and sweets, with pot in between? That, intellectually, Woytek is the first man you haven't had to talk down to? That only with Woytek can you be open and honest?"

Gibby interrupted. "Woytek loves me for what I am. What I do with my money is my own business." 

"But not what you do with Woytek," said Levanter. "I feel responsible for him. I arranged a blind date for you and Woytek so he could have someone intelligent to speak French with, since that was the only other language he knew then. I didn't expect him to be destroyed. With you, he's vegetating, but he loves you too much to leave you. It seems to me that you are preventing both of you from enjoying your money and the life it could offer: the world of travel, of new experiences, of ideas, of people."

"I don't want Woytek to be known as a man without a profession, living off my money," said Gibby. "I don't care what kind of work he does, as long as he supports himself like everybody else." 

"But he's your lover, and you're not like everybody else," Levanter said sharply. "you are unusually rich. You and your lover are thereby excluded from the fate of the ordinary. Woytek was once a wealthy and educated man. Then he became a refugee. He's been here only a year--half of which he's lived with you .He doesn't know English well enough to pursue his profession. You quit your own job when you fell in love with him. Why do you want him to work? Don't you understand that getting a job would keep him from studying English? And what do you suppose he could do? Don't try to answer me," said Levanter. "Just listen for a minute."

Gibby glared at him.

"All Woytek is suited for at the moment is menial labor: parking cars, scraping paint off ship decks, cleaning bars, [all things that Kosinski did when he arrived in New York from Poland in 1957, while working on his Ph.D dissertation at Columbia University and before he met Mary Hayward-Weir] something like that. He could earn about as much in one month as you spend in one week on restaurant tips when you take your rich cousins to lunch. And it costs you more to pay your monthly phone bill for long-distance calls to your college chums than Woytek would make in an entire year."

Levanter paused. Gibby did not speak.

"What is your reasoning?" Levanter asked. "Do you believe that as long as he's penniless everyone will think Woytek stays with you for yourself, whereas if you give him money, everyone will think he loves you just for the money?"

Gibby remained silent.

Levanter went on. "Woytek was a superb athlete. He used to play soccer and basketball and was one of the best swimmers in his country. He loved company and enjoyed being surrounded by creative people. Now he's cooped up in your ground-floor apartment where he can't even see daylight, and he can't afford to get out. You've made him your prisoner."

"Maybe I should take him to California," Gibby said, more to herself than to Levanter. She went on without waiting to hear Levanter's opinion. "My family is there, and Woytek knows people in Hollywood. There are also those film directors he knew in Europe," she mused. "Near them, Woytek might regain his own sense of accomplishment and pride--and possibly find work."

She looked at Levanter, expecting some response, but now he said nothing. (Jerzy Kosinski: Blind Date. Grove Press, p 166-169. 1977. Emphasis is mine).

Of course it could simply be Kosinski's rhetorical license at play here, but the passage where he says that Abigail left her job (presumably at the Gotham Book Mart) when she met Voytek may indeed be true. Her early resignation from employment at the book store was obviously after she met Kosinski and may have been prompted by the early introduction to Voytek. Taken together, her total employment at Gotham Book mart was only a few weeks, and subsequent employee reports for 1968 do not have her listed as an employee. Although Abigail did not need to earn a living from employment, she nonetheless accepted payment for her work as a clerk at the book store--perhaps this was a requirement.

BRINGING TOGETHER THE FUTURE PEOPLE OF CIELO DRIVE

At the time Abigail was working at the Gotham Book Mart, another interesting parallel was taking place in New York. Roman Polanski's film, Rosemary's Baby began filming scenes in New York at several locations--one of these was at the Gotham Book Mart with Mia Farrow. My current research did not reveal if Abigail was present during the filming--possibly as a background actor--but this possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. One thing that is certain is that Abigail's Upper West Side apartment was only a short walk from the Dakota Apartment Building where some exterior shots of the film were made.

The famous--or infamous--Dakota Apartment Building where Roman Polanski filmed exterior scenes for Rosemary's Baby when Abigail lived nearby.

Photographer Hatami, Roman Polanski, and Sharon Tate on the set of Rosemary's Baby in New York, 1967.

Mia Farrow outside the Dakota during filming of Rosemary's Baby, 1967.

Abigail and Voytek in Central Park, New York.

Although it is not certain, it is tempting to think that since Roman Polanski was friends with Jerzy Kosinski and Voytek Frykowski-- and the three were in New York during the filming of Rosemary's Baby-- that the three of them could have reunited on the set. Sharon Tate also visited the set in New York and was widely photographed there. Of course Abigail was there, and if both she and Voytek had already been introduced, it may be possible that Sharon, Abigail, and Voytek could have met. This could also have included Mia Farrow, who has been reported in some literature to have been in contact with Abigail, presumably in Los Angeles later on. One notable absence was artist Witold-K, who was in Paris at the time. Kosinski would help him come to America, and ultimately into the orbit of Abigail and Voytek, in 1968. Witold-K eventually would set up his small painting studio in Abigail's apartment and would dedicate to her one of the paintings he produced there.

To try to answer the above question, I finally was able to make contact with Roman Polanski. This spring I learned of an address where Roman could be contacted, so I wrote him a letter asking for any information he would care to share about Abigail and Voytek, and their association with both he and Sharon. In the letter I left my email, and about six weeks later I received a response. Through his personal assistant, Roman suggested that I read his autobiography for all things related to Abigail. This I said I had done several times. I was assured that Mr. Polanski had nothing else to offer to satisfy my query. However, I left the door open to him should anything else previously unpublished materialize.

Another interesting discovery was to be found in an interview of Jerzy Kosinski in 1977 with Studs Terkel about the book Blind Date. In the interview, Kosinski said that Abigail was a "student of his." What he means by this he does not say, but it may imply that Abigail could have been studying creative writing with Kosinski privately, as she was an English literature graduate. Kosinski also told Terkel that he introduced Abigail to Voytek in New York because, "they were nice people and they both spoke French." Contrast this with what Kosinski told Ed Sanders about that introduction in 1970 (see above).

Although this present research took several months to compile, it did not yield a surplus of information for my subject. At first this may seem unfortunate. But one thing it does make clear is that--by a process of elimination--certain archives may be crossed off the list of potential sources of information on Abigail and Voytek. My project in this regard is to chronicle the lives of Abigail Folger and Voytek Frykowski. And long before they became famous victims of the Manson Family, these people had lives that have been largely overlooked.

 

My Grandfather Charles Manson - New Doc

I was originally asked to be a part of this documentary, but for personal reasons I stepped back and walked away before any NDAs were signed. I wish Sophia all the best and hope she gets and finds what she is looking for in life. That said, I will keep opinions to myself concerning certain matters, but I also want to emphasize that the current use of the Maddox last name has nothing to do with any opinion I do or don't have. 

To clarify-and to avoid coming across as sounding bitter-the deciding factor in my choice to step away was simply that I disagreed with Sophia's original vision for the project. Her early ideas were based on unfounded claims. For example, she had planned to contact surviving family members of the victims, such as the surviving family members of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca just to ask ridiculously absurd questions, such as, "Did Rosemary LaBianca sell or supply LSD to Tex Watson through Joel Rostau?" 

That is just a small gist of the original ideas presented. I wanted no part of that, nor did I want to jeopardize the existing communications and relationships I hold. After discussing my reservations with a friend and realizing the direction the project was heading at that time, I knew I had to bow out. 

The documentary also features George Stimson, Nik Schreck, and Derek Haze (also known as Black Wolf). Apparently Derek provides Sophia with recordings of calls between himself and Charlie.  I have to admit, those would be interesting to hear.  

Here we get an updated look at Danny Arguelles 

 A brief summary of the documentary: 

The three-part series beings with Danny, who learned while his mother was dying that the man who raised him was not his biological father. In 2015, he decided to take a DNA test through Ancestry.com to see if he could locate his real father. The results connected him with a newly found half-brother through the Maddox side of the family, and it was then that Danny discovered his relation to Charles Manson after conversing with his half-brother. 

Armed with this life-altering revelation, Sophia plunges into her family's "dark history." Because of her lineage, she supposedly gains access to previously unseen and unheard recordings, as well as "secret" documents relating to Charlie's psychopathy. Through her investigation, Sophia explores the underworld of the so called "Manson family" and their responsibility for the 1969 murders. 

The documentary heavily focuses on generational trauma and identity. From a psychological standpoint, it is odd for Sophia to claim generational trauma if that happens to be the case. She never knew Charles Manson, much less communicated with him, nor did she know the victims or their families. In fact, during my time of knowing her, she didn't know anything about the case.

The series highlights the heavy emotional toll the revelation takes and the immense strain it places on Sophia and her father. I believe she may be confusing stigmatization with generational trauma. However if you really wish to learn what generational trauma is, look into the history of Native Amerians-whose trauma was handed down from generation to generation through land dispossession, destruction of culture, forced assimilation, and systemic poverty. 

Throughout the documentary, Sophia wrestles with the unsettling question of what traits we inherit from our ancestors.  At one point, she even takes a psychological questionnaire akin to the one Manson took to see if they share any behavioral similarities. The show ultimately asks whether we are destined to repeat "dark histories" we inherit, or if we can forge our own path. 

Psychologically speaking, if she were psychopathic, she would have known it long before now. It doesn't develop overnight. During childhood, a person with psychopathic traits is typically diagnosed with Conduct Disorder, as outlined in the DSM-5 (the manual psychiatry uses to diagnose and treat mental disorders). By late adolescence and early adulthood, if those traits persist, the diagnosis becomes Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). I'm curious as well to see how that works out for her. 

As a side note, the word "antisocial" is vastly misused these days. I've known patients that describe or refer to themselves as "antisocial" simply because they aren't highly social, and I've seen Facebook photo's with banners that say "Sometimes Antisocial, Always [insert cause here]." In clinical terms, Antisocial Personalty Disorder is a chronic pattern of violating the rights of others. Someone with ASPD may exploit or deceive others for personal gain and demonstrate little to no remorse or empathy for their actions. When people casually say they are antisocial, they are inadvertently claiming to embody everything ASPD represents as a disorder, they just don't know it or realize it...but that is another topic for another time.

Premieres July 22, 2026 on Hulu 

You can watch the trailer here

Brooks Poston has passed

 It was in November of 2024. This is an official WA state death record, but not a death certificate.

 Special thanks to reader Mike W.

 

Tom goes to Congress

 Tom O Neill and myself have a love hate relationship. We love to hate each other, and that's because he's accused me of trashing his book every chance I get, which isn't true. I just don't buy into the CIA/MKULTRA crap, to which he has stated numerous times that he can't prove. We had a pretty heated debate to which I actually owe him an apology over that concerning Ruth Ann's age. I found her divorce/annulment  papers that show her real birth year. In 1994, she filed for divorce/annulment from her then husband and the records show that her DOB is 5/19/52 which can be seen here. 

Here is Tom's transcript of his  testimony. 

full video here

A few problems arise with these claims as usual. Tom as usual makes unsupported inferences, disputed, claims, and leaps in logic. For example, one of these leaps in logic is why would he testify in front of Congress when its Congress whom approve funding to the CIA?

His strongest examples are: 

1.

" I was never able to put Jolly West in the same room as Manson" 

Then why does he continue to push this narrative? He said he can't prove that West and Manson ever met. YET much of his testimony proceeds as if West's proximity to Manson is highly suggestive of a connection. This isn't a contradiction, but it's more tension between admitting a lack of evidence, and implying significance. 

2.

MK ULTRA's "ultimate objective vs documented objectives. 

Tom repeatedly says MKULTRA's goal was creating "programmed killers."

However, many declassified MKULTRA documents describe broader interests such as interrogation, behavior modification, memory,  hypnosis, and incapacitation. While assassination and covert influence were explored in some contexts, stating that creating programmed killers was the ultimate objective is an interpretation rather than an established fact.

3.

Jimmy Shaver as implied evidence. 

Tom presents Jimmy Shaver's case immediately after discussing West's MKULTRA proposals and experimental work. he never states outright that Shaver was programmed by West, but the sequence strongly implies it. There is no documentary evidence presented in the testimony proving Shaver's crime resulted from MKULTRA experimentation.  No evidence exists of Shaver ever participating in West's experiments or any LSD or hypnosis. 

4. 

Jack Ruby

Tom suggests West's examination of Ruby is significant because of West's examination of Ruby because of West's CIA relationship with Allen Dulles role on the Warren commission. However the testimony does not provide evidence that West caused Ruby's mental deterioration or that Ruby was manipulated throught MKULTRA. 

5. 

The Holy Grail - falls short 

Tom characterizes replacing true memories with false ones as " the holy grail" operation. 

That's literally Tom's characterization, not wording found in the original CIA documents. 

The testimony's biggest contradiction is, 1977 CIA Testimony, MKULTRA provided no useful technology and surving records were turned over to Congress and West's 1956 report. Tom say's West claimed successful manipulation of memory, but that section was replaced with a summary stating the effects "have never been studied. " He claimed the version given to Congress omitted those findings. Even if the omission occurred as described, the report itself represents preliminary research. He provides no evidence of either or. 

These are some papers I asked Paulcast about because he is right on top of it when it comes to the claims made by Tom, Because of  his conversations with Smith.  At approx 1:22:24 to 1:22:45 Tom incorrectly claims the Amphetamine research was going on when Manson was under Smith's supervision while on parole, parole that Tom tends to twist in his favor because Manson wasn't imprisoned for minor offences.  Manson was no longer under Smith.

I pay no attention to the CIA or MKULTRA claims since as far as I'm concerned, they have no relevance to the case.

Paul said " Tom said Dr. Louis J. West's pad was part of the free clinic. it was not. Jolly's pad was on Franklin Street and the clinic was on Clayton. They weren't affiliated past West going to the clinic sometimes. Tom said West and Roger worked together. They did not. West sent people with VD, etc, to the clinic like everyone else did. It's possible West recruited some hippies to go to his pad from the clinic, but it wasn't an organized operation. He (Tom) talks about the amphetamine research project having something to do with Manson. It didn't start being funded until after Manson left his (probation officer Smith) charge. West's research pad was funded by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation until July 1968. OMRF were not funders of the free clinic as far as I've been told by people from the clinic and from information I've found. Maybe Tom will put out the corresponding documents which would be great, but until then, everything else will remain skeptical."

Paul also said from his conversations with Smith that " The Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic was only open for two and a half months before funds ran out and they had to close the doors to scramble to get more money" 

Paul also said that "The funding both times for West's project are stated in newspapers. When they were stated, he had no reason to lie because nobody was thinking the NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) as a shell for the CIA. The clinic could have gotten funds from the CIA after 1968 from the NIMH and not being aware. but they weren't the only one." 

Here are two articles about the funding West received. 

This one is from the San Francisco Chronicle 7/10/1968

This one is from the San Francisco Chronicle. 9/23/1967

Is this what the US Government is reduced to now? No time to do anything important'?

Joanna Pettet dead: Beloved James Bond star dies on anniversary of son's death

Thanks ColScott!

The star was one of the last people to see tragic actress Sharon Tate alive, and was played by Rumer Willis in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.

By Fran Winston, Showbiz Reporter

Beloved London born Hollywood actress Joanna Pettet died on Tuesday July 7 at the age of 83. The sad news was confirmed by her friend, actress Pam DuBois, who revealed the poignantly significant date of her death in a touching Facebook post. Alongside an image of the star at a graveside she wrote: "We all loved Jo - But there was one person who loved her more. And yesterday on the 31st anniversary of his death. Damien Zach took his mother to heaven and there she will stay with him forever. God bless you Jo." No cause of death has been revealed as of yet.

On 8 August 1969, the star had lunch at the home of Sharon Tate, just hours before the members of the Manson Family slaughtered the pregnant star, making her one of the last people to see the tragic actress alive. Quentin Taratino included the lunch in his 2019 fictional/alternate-reality 2019 film Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood, in which she was portrayed by Rumer Willis.

Amongst the stars big screen credits was the role of Mata Bond in the 1967 James Bond satire Casino Royale, loosely based on the first of Ian Fleming's books about the super spy.

She also starred in 1968's Blue opposite Terence Stamp, and 1969's Victorian period comedy The Best House in London.

However she was best known for her extensive work on TV which included roles in Route 66, The Doctors, Dr. Kildare, Mannix, Night Gallery, Thriller, Police Woman, Charlie’s Angels, The Love Boat, Hotel, and Murder, She Wrote.

Her final role was in the 1990 thriller Terror in Paradise, after which she retired from acting although she was only in her 40s.

Joanna Pettet guest starred in numerous popular shows including Fantasy Island (Image: Getty)

The death of her only child Damien Zach, at the age 26 on July 7 1995, led her to retreat even further from Hollywood. Although his biological father was actor Terence Stamp, he was given the surname Cord after she married American actor Alex Cord in 1968 three and a half months before his birth.

In recent years she had shared details about abuse she and Damien suffered at the hands of Airwolf actor Alex, who died on August 9, 2021, at the age of 88 at his home in Valley View, Texas.

That same year Joanna suffered horror accident while searching for rocks for her garden in a remote area in Anza, California. According to reports "the earth gave way" and she found herself pinned under a boulder for three hours.

As a result, she needed surgery to replace her shoulder and rotator cuff and spent years recovering from the incident.

Love and Terror: The Helter Skelter History of the Manson Murders book

A friend messaged me to tell me that a new book that was out, and that he and two other people associated with him contributed to the book. So naturally, when this friend makes a suggestion, especially when he says that it's intelligently written, I'm going to jump on it. 

I have to say that this is the most academic works published on the murders in the last few decades. It's significance is not about uncovering a new suspect, or solving a mystery, but asks a larger question: Why has America remain obsessed with Manson for more than half a century? In fact, when saying America as a whole, South America as well has an obsession with Manson. Here in South America, you can go into any counter-culture store and buy that Manson LIE album T-shirts, and run into people wearing them. There is a South American book out by Sebastian De Caro , whom is an Argentine film maker and actor,  and also a friend of mine, called Cielo Drive, which he served as a hopeful companion to "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood" but not in the fictional sense of the film. His book cover makes for great poster art as seen here. 

I have a direct quote from Sebastian about his book so you get a better understanding: (which applies to Love and Terror) 

Sebastian: "I think this crime has had such a profound impact because of it's symbolism, rather than the obvious things that are visible at first glance. I believe these murders have struck a very sensitive chord worldwide, one that is related to something very bleak about the 1960's. In a way the hippie dream evaporated, and the following decade turned out to be very violent worldwide in general, and in the United States in particular. That country opened the 1960's with the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and closing it with the "Manson Family" murders. In the 1970's with the Watergate scandal, American society felt socially orphaned, not to mention countless student and racial protests. That's why, for me, the crimes happened in a very specific time and place (Hollywood) and there are many elements that converged there which gave it such great significance, beyond the morbid details. The person who approaches this story with real interest is not concerned with the number of knife wounds each victim received, but with the meaning of it all, what rhizome opens up through something so sinister." 

Back to Verhoeven's approach to her book, her answer is the murders became a cultural mirror reflecting anxieties about race, authority, celebrity, violence, apocalypse, and American identity itself, The result is a book that is less about Charles Manson, than about modern America. 

For those seeking crime related material, you're going to be disappointed. Verhoeven intentionally avoids re-telling the murders in detail. It's written from a historian perspective and at times, the analysis can feel more abstract than concrete. The book frequently references philosophy, historiography, and literary theory. It's cultural history. 

The deepest theme I have found so far is America's relationship with violence. Verhoeven suggests that American's became fascinated with Charles Manson partly because he reflected a broader natural violence such as the Vietnam war, racial conflict, political assassinations, and social upheaval. Manson becomes less an anomaly than a distorted reflection of America itself. 

Many writers have called the "Manson Murders" the end of the 1960's. Verhoeven complicates this idea. rather than ending the decade, the murders exposed the contradictions that already embodied the 60's...Such as Freedom vs Control, peace vs, violence, liberation vs domination, and idealism vs apocalypse. 

Two of the major themes of the book are Manson vs the murders myth. Verhoeven argues repeatedly that the murders became more than a crime, they became symbolism, legend, and a national nightmare. and the other is how the media creates reality, A recurring theme is that newspapers, television, books, documentaries, and films actually created Manson as a cultural figure. the media did not merely report events, it produced that image of Manson that American's remember today. 

For anyone researching Manson related material, be it podcasters, journalists, or the average researcher, this book should be among the essential texts such as Helter Skelter, Goodbye Helter Skelter, and The Family. 

In closing, I say to you what Linda Deutsch said to us when working on Making Mason. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, and it was a good story."

You can get the book here

Dean Moorehouse FBI file

The 100 page file was complied during the investigation into the attempted assassination of President Ford by Lynette Fromme on September 5. 1975. The primary focus of the file is determining whether or not the attempt was part of a broader conspiracy between associates and correspondents or sympathizers of Charles Manson and the so called Manson Family. Dean Moorehouse appears in the file as an associate of Charles Manson who's writings, activities, contacts and discussions were examined for possible threats against government officials. The investigation is clearly to have been intelligence gathering in nature rather than establishing direct connections to Moorehouse and any connection to President Ford assassination attempt. One was also done on Linda Kasabian where she, along with Cappy (Catherine Barton) were questioned about Lynette. 

The file has six major sections that have interviews with 

*"Family" members

* Friends

* Former associates 

* Manson "followers" 

* Correspondents 

* Prison inmates 

then moves to psychological and medical history, "Family Members"associates and correspondents, Death Valley and the Minietta mine investigation, investigation relating to additional leads, and basically a miscellaneous section.

A substantial portion of the file consists of interviews with people who Lynette before her involvement with Charles Manson. 

The interviewees described her childhood and early life to family difficulties, suicide attempts. etc. 

Another focus is on identifying people who corresponded with Charles Manson and whom he talked to in prison. For example, an inmate reported receiving and transporting a note from Charles Manson in 1972, and according to the "witness" the note included language interpreted as encouraging violence against President Nixon. The "witness" claimed the message referenced "President R. Nixon gets his blast at point-blank range." Something similar was found in the Ronald Reagan FBI file, but no said letter could be found upon investigation as seen here:

While the file is heavily redacted (which is absurd these days) it's not hard to figure out who is being interviewed, especially the "Manson girls" in prison. 

 Link to the file here.

The Weirdest Job Interview ever conducted

 Continuing a search from my previous post, I came across this from the APA. At one point I was laughing so hard with Charlie's responses, that I nearly fainted. It should be noted that his final evaluation was completed after his death and comprised from previous evaluations, interviews, etc.

Charles Manson takes a personality test.

If you've ever taken an online personality quiz and discovered you're 73% golden retriever and 27% Tax Accountant, Congratulation! You've experienced a tiny fraction of what happened when psychologists decided to give Charles Manson a full psychological workup in 1997. Only instead of finding out if Charles Manson preferred beaches or mountains, they spent 24 pages trying to answer a much bigger question:

Was Charles Manson actually schizophrenic, or was he simply the most exhausting person in America?

Welcome to Pelican Bay:

In 1997, Manson found himself at Pelican Bay State Prison, California's version of "the principal's office" for inmates who had already proven that they couldn't behave in a regular prison.

At 63 years old, Manson had spent most of his life either in prison, reform schools, juvenile facilities, or generally making poor life choices. By this point, prison officials needed to determine whether he belonged in a psychiatric treatment unit or disciplinary housing. 

SO...psychologists do as psychologists do.

They brought out every test short of asking him what kind of tree he'd like to be. 

The IQ surprise:

One of the first surprises was that Charles Manson wasn't unintelligent. His scores suggested average intellectual ability, despite reading roughly at a third-grade level.

Think about that for a moment:

For decades, people imagined some criminal mastermind conducting elaborate manipulations from the shadows. Instead, the evaluation suggested someone who could reason fairly well but read instructions about as enthusiastically as a middle-schooler confronted with homework.

Then came the Rorschach Test:

Ahhh yes, In all things Charles Manson, THIS is when things got weird.

Most people who look at inkblot and say

"A butterfly"

"A bat"

"A flower"

But not Charles Manson. Charlie looked at an inkblot and apparently thought:

"Two Klu Klux Klan members with wings sitting on top of two black men while a boot hangs underneath everything"

Psychologists, maintaining the professionalism of saints, dutifully wrote this down. The responses from Charles Manson continued:

*Dancing beetles holding up the Eiffel Tower. 

*Blue elves waving flags from flowers

*Robots with anatomy (references to said anatomy attached in pdf below)

*Skinheads

*Dragons

*Witches

*Hippies wearing sunglasses 

At one point, Charles Manson essentially announced: "I can see anything I want" to which the psychologist probably replied in a sigh under their breath "Yes, Charles, we noticed" 

The Great Schizophrenia debate

For years, many professionals had assumed that Charles Manson suffered from schizophrenia. After all the man spoke in riddles, jumped from topic to topic, made bizarre associations, and could transform a simple question into a ten-minute lecture about society, the environment, race relations, cosmic consciousness and possibly even lawn maintenance. 

However, when modern experts reanalyzed the data years later, they reached an unexpected conclusion. The problem wasn't that Charles Manson couldn't organize his thoughts, which happens with people who are schizophrenic. The problem was, he didn't often want to. His strange speech appeared less like genuine psychotic confusion and more like an intention smoke screen.

Imagine asking someone:

"Did you eat my sandwich?"

And receiving this response:

"Well, sandwiches are a good social construct. The bread belongs to the earth. The earth belongs to nobody. Therefore, who really ate it?"

That's not confusion. That's evasion with extra steps.

The Diane Sawyer Theory:

Researchers later reviewed television interviews and noticed a fascinating pattern. Whenever interviewers asked questions that Charles Manson didn't want to answer, he became dramatically more bizarre. 

The psychological equivalent of:

"Please stop asking me questions while I aggressively recite Beatles lyrics."

In other words, Charles Manson may have been using confusion as a weapon. 

And frankly, anyone who has ever sat through a particularly long and painful meeting has seen a version of this tactic. I know I'm guilty of it.

The Psychopathy Score:

Then came the Psychopathy checklist. Charles Manson scored a 36 out of 40. For context, that's the psychological assessment equivalent of bowling a 290.  You don't accidentally achieve numbers like that. researchers concluded he displayed extreme levels of manipulation, grandiosity, exploitation, lack of empathy, and antisocial behavior. 

What they are trying to say is that if psychopathy were an Olympic sport, Charles Manson was competing for a medal. 

But was he actually playing a game and actually manipulating the psychologists? Yes, you can actually do that. Despite the training, psychologists are human beings that are susceptible to the same cognitive biases, blind spots, and social engineering tactics that the untrained are susceptible to. Something else to ponder....

The Final Verdict:

The modern review of the evaluation arrived at a conclusion that surprised man observers. The evidence did not support schizophrenia. Instead they painted a picture that they claim was arguably more unsettling. A highly manipulative individual with severe psychopathic traits, narcissism, grandiosity, bizarre thinking patterns, a talent for controlling others, a lifelong habit of turning every conversation into a one-man performance art piece. 

Charles Manson wasn't detached from reality, he often seemed determined to create his own version of it. 

Bizarre behavior and mental illness are not always the same thing, sometimes a person says strange things because they are psychotic. Sometimes someone says strange things because they enjoy confusing everyone in the room. Sometimes someone says strange things because they want attention. 

And occasionally as the 1997 evaluation suggests, someone can spend five days convincing trained psychologists that every inkblot in existence contains Nazis, dragons, elves, beetles, robots, hippies and....well...lets say reproductive anatomy-- all before lunch. 

Behind decades of mythology, sensationalism, and cultural fascination stood a man who may have been less "mad prophet" and more a manipulator or attention seeker who never missed an opportunity to make himself the center of attention. 

In every prison.

Even in handcuffs. 

Even while staring at an inkblot and somehow finding the Eiffel Tower. 

It's safe to say that without a shadow of doubt, Charles Manson knew how to play the game. By saying that I'm not removing him from any of his criminal responsibilities, he simply knew how to play the game and play it well.

For those that can't access the APA here is a PDF of the last evaluation here

Manson Family Girl Resurfaces Accidentally

 

 

 

The Insanity Plea of Tex Watson

 While doing some research trying to locate any and all evaluations on Tex Watson that may have been released through the APA to see if he ever received any diagnosis of a mental illness or disorder. I came across this. 

Bugliosi said at Watson's trial that " the heart of this whole trial is the psychiatric testimony" 

He was right. 

And it referred me to this book: 

I was kind of excited to come across this book because I am familiar with both authors. William J. Winslade is a expert in law when it comes to psychiatric and the psychological use of the " Insanity Plea" and Judith wrote many of the books that are used in hospital ethics.

In the California legal system, pursuing the "Insanity defense" is a high - stakes game. It is an "affirmative defense" which means the defendant must first admit to committing the criminal acts before arguing they should not be held responsible for it. Because of this, if the plea fails, the prior admission almost guarantees a conviction. Furthermore a successful peal of "not guilty by the reason of insanity" often leads to immediate, involuntary commitment to a secure medical hospital with no certainty of release, potentially exceeding the length of a standard prison sentence. 

In order to use "The Insanity Plea" in the California legal system, the defense must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a mental illness or defect rendered the defendant unable to understand the nature of their act and recognize the act as morally wrong. to determine the defendant's state of mind, psychiatric experts are tasked with addressing three legal questions regarding capacity. The court does not require the expert to state whether the defendant did  in fact harbor these states, but rather they possessed the mental capacity to do so.  

These questions are;

1. Malice Aforethought: Did the defendant have the mental capacity to harbor the specific intent to kill?

2. Mature Reflection: Did the defendant have the capacity to maturely and meaningfully reflect upon the gravity of the contemplated intent to kill?

3. Premeditation and Deliberation: Did the defendant have the capacity to carefully weigh and plan the killings. 

The high "Burden of Proof" makes this defense notoriously hard to win. Juries often view this plea as a "loophole" and remain deeply skeptical of psychiatric testimony, which they frequently perceive as confusing or inconsistent. Because the legal standards for insanity are so rigorous and specific, the courtroom becomes a stage where the specialized knowledge of psychiatric experts is essential to interpreting the capacities of the defendants mind. 

BUT let us take a small look at the demeanor of Watson when on drugs.

This letter is from the Ed Sanders files written by Paul Fitzgerald to Sam Bubrick. It is worth noting that Patricia and Leslie expressed fear of Watson when he was on drugs and "with Tex you just didn't know what was inside, it was very scary ( Fitzgerald or the person who typed the letter misspelled "scary")  and Fitzgerald said he "wouldn't like to be alone with Tex."  This alludes that yes, Watson indeed had the capacity to kill. It's important because Watson is portrayed as dangerous because others could not predict what he might do. It also shows how the "family" discussed drug use. 

Now we come to a professional divide. While Psychology and Psychiatrists are integral to the forensic process, their training and fundamental perspectives differ. The distinction is clear, Psychology is the actual science of researching mental illness or disorder, and psychiatry is the clinical practice of treating them. 

I put this little chart together to help explain the difference between the two. 

In a courtroom setting, this distinction is where "science" meets the "the law." The Law demands binary, moral answers -- sane or insane, guilty or innocent. Science, however, deals in the shades of gray, research data, and clinical observation. This mismatch often transforms expert testimony into a "battle of the experts" where the jury must decide which professionals subjective methodology carries the most weight. 

From the general professional definitions, we can now examine the specific individuals whose conflicting assessments the Watson trial into a "psychiatric circus." 

I'm going to be looking at four of the "key experts" in this piece because they highlight the deep divisions within the field regarding Watson's sanity and brain function. 

Dr James Bailey (The moral analyst) 

Dr. Bailey devoted over 300 hours ( that's including reading all the testimony from the main trial of Atkins, Van Houten, Krenwinkel and their psychiatric reports) to the case, though his actual face-to-face examination of Watson totaled approximately eight hours over two weeks. He was the only expert to conduct a full physical exam. 

Oddly enough, Bailey commented about his testimony almost as an a-side, that he had great reservations about his own testimony, a statement of doubt so unexpected from an expert witness that the defense lawyer responded "Surely you're amusing us with that statement." 

Key Findings: 

* Interpreted the Draw-a-person test. Because Watson drew the figure in the upper left, Bailey concluded he felt "cornered" rather than brain damage.

* Used Rorschach Cards and noted the inconsistent responses. he ruled out organic brain damage. 

* Diagnosed Watson with Folie-a-deux (a madness of two) arguing Watson entered a "voluntary contract" to surrender his will to Charles Manson in exchange for a life without sexual or moral inhibitions. 

* Conclusion: Watson was psychotic but not brain damaged. Bailey enigmatically claimed that while Watson didn't know why he committed the murders, Bailey himself did. He viewed Watson's actions as a succcumbence to human weakness: Therefore he was legally responsible. 

Dr. Joel Fort: (The drug authority) 

Dr. Fort was a prominent expert on drug abuse. Dr. Fort founded the nations first city drug program. He testified with rhetorical "crispiness and certainty" that suggested he had no reservations about his findings. 

Key Findings: 

* Conducted a brief evaluation (a single meeting) and performed no psychological tests basing his assessment on conversations and transcripts. 

* Argued that the average user of LSD does not lose touch with reality or suffer permanent brain damage. 

*Demonstrated significant bias. He found Watson responsible for his acts, but had previously testified that Leslie Van Houten was not  responsible, because, as a woman in "the family" she was more subservient and dominated.

*Conclusion: Watson was neither psychotic nor brain damaged; he was simply a "weak" person who remained legally responsible. 

Dr. Keith Ditman: (The Defense Researcher) 

A UCLA researcher, Dr. Dittman's expertise was more drug-oriented than clinical, having seen hundreds-rather than thousands of drug users. 

Key Findings: 

* Cited animal studies showing brain autopsies with organic changes after drug ingestion

* Believed Watson's massive consumption of LSD, Belladonna, and amphetamines made organic damage an absolute certainty regardless of current testing limitations. 

* Agreed on the folie-a-deux but viewed it as a condition that stripped Watson of his capacity. 

*Conclusion: Watson was both psychotic and brain damaged: he did not possess the capacity for criminal responsibility.

Dr. Richard Walter: (The objective Neurologist) 

A professor of Neurology, Dr. Walter treated Watson as a "Human organism" focusing strictly on tangible biological data rather than motives or personality. 

Key Findings: 

* Utilized the EEG (Electroencephalogram) the resulting "machine made" graph provided a tangible relief to the jury. It showed "consistently abnormal" activity, which Walter called "Classical evidence of brain damage."

* Exhibited "Scientific humility": When asked a hypothetical about whether Watson could have climbed a telephone pole carrying 15 pound wire cutters, he repeatedly stated "I don't know" refusing to speculate on tasks he had not tested.

*Conclusion: Clear evidence of brain damage existed (likely through drug use) and therefore Watson lacked criminal responsibility.

These four distinct profiles set the stage for a "battle of the experts" where the very definition of "truth" was up for debate.

I created another graph so we can remember what the four experts testified to.

Now we enter the "So What?" phase or insight.

The true dividing line for responsibility was the assessment of brain damage, not psychosis. Notably, Dr. Bailey later admitted that Dr. Walter's assessment of brain damage was "probably correct," but explained the discrepancy by noting that he simply hadn't observed it during his own specific tests conducted at a different time. In Medical terms, this highlights how the timing of an exam and the selection of specific tests can fundamentally alter a "scientific" conclusion.

The "Psychiatric Circus" of Watson's trial was not merely a result of incompetence but a product of systemic factors.

1. Methodological Differences: The investment of time varied from Bailey's 300 case hours to Fort's single visit, furthermore relied on "tangible" machine data (EEG) while others used "rule of thumb" verbal tests.

2. Subjective Interpretation:  Projective tests like "Draw-A-Person" are entirely interpretive. Where one expert sees a psychological state (feeling "cornered" ), another sees a biological one, (organic damage)

3. Psychological Bias: Experts brought personal worldviews. Dr, Walter's humility and "I don't know" contrasted sharply with Dr. Fort's "crisp" certainty and his biased views on the subservience of "Family" women.

4. Adversarial Shaping: Lawyers manipulate testimony through framing. The prosecution asked Dr. Fort if "Most people (the average) could function on drugs, while the defense asked Dr, Ditman if it was "possible" (the range of users) for drugs to cause brain damage.

both experts might agree on the middle ground, but the lawyers forced them into opposing corner.

We as researchers must understand and remember that from a medical standpoint, that while brain damage CAN trigger psychiatric symptoms like or such as psychosis, hallucinations, and personality changes that mock what is considered "Insanity" but in the medical field, such as psychiatry, brain damage - which of course is trauma to the brain, it is organic, they are diagnosed as mental disorders, psychotic disorders, or mood disorders.

"Insanity is just a legal term and its a very broad term. "Insanity" covers many mental disorders such as Bi-polar disorder, Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective, delusional disorder, etc. None of which Watson received a diagnosis of or any mental illness/disorder at all in any evaluation, Nor was he ever diagnosed with any mental or mood disorder in any point in his life. A diagnosis may have actually benefited him since two of the experts said he was indeed psychotic.

Conclusion: Ultimately in the Watson trial the jury was forced to navigate through a sea of conflicting labels. They were told Watson was psychotic, brain damaged, both, or neither.

However, the jury's verdict bypassed clinical confusion. The jury reached the verdict on perceived danger. They saw a man who possessed an uncritical acceptance of dangerous leadership - a trait that manifested in prison when Watson became a "Born Again Christian," once again seeking a powerful structure to follow. The jury was unwilling to gamble on such a person returning to society.