This investigation hurt my heart. The high school photos of the girl Manson raped reveal a pretty teen who looks shy and nervous in front of the camera. I won't blast her face across our blog but have no fear if the photos interest you. Some JV'er will have them up somewhere else online after reading this post and asking their friends with bank accounts to check Ancestry for them.
*Btw, while we're on photos. Don't let anyone ever tell you we found the wrong person when we're sure otherwise. Especially self-appointed movers and shakers in the Manson business who fail to notice themselves turning into yet another Gollem in a long line of Gollems. They're callously wasting your precious time in an attempt to remain in the spotlight and keep their patrons patroning.
No one sits enthroned above us. The Several Searching Scholars of the Simi Valley do not miss.
**Except when we miss. Which happens more often than my boasts indicate but hey confidence is important. Moreover, a pair and a spare is always our general plan since moments of high caffeination and near overdose levels of frosted petit fours sometimes allow doubt to creepy crawl its way into our brains. We always have options.
***Also what's up with the other teams looking up the same stuff we look up these days? I thought we're all clueless and stupid here? Why ride our train when yours is so big and strong?
Chugga chugga woo woo! We're still waiting for takers on that formal written debate btw. Prove thine motives in a scholarly way oh ye uncoverers of hidden truths!
MANSON BLOG.
FOLLOW THE LEADER.
Let's get back to Mr. Summers. Some readers don't like when I type what I want while working for free. Matt watermarked these docs for the obvious reasons. I (of course) got them from Secret Agent Deb.
Lately, we find ourselves working our way backward through 1969 starting at the murders. In addition to this rape arrest, Manson also has an assault charge on the same day. I'm wondering if someone might share a bit of insight there? Did the assault charge come with the rape or was Charlie running wild that day?
Not many readers care, I do, but Manson was a diagnosed schizophrenic. You can say he fooled the doctors all you want but miss me with that grift unless you can produce your degrees. I believe in science, doctors, and formal education way more than Internet pickpockets.
What about a sex addiction for Charlie on top of the violent schizophrenia? How many ways existed to make himself feel good, hell, even feel anything, all those years he was locked in a cell? Masturbation had to be clear winner.
Let's not forget Charlie's rape of a younger boy at knifepoint while incarcerated as a teen. I know he explained it all away several times in various places, the knife was a prop in case they got caught yada, but what else would someone caught raping someone with a knife in there say?
To me, it seems like you can hate Manson until the moment you die but at the end of the day all you're doing is despising a mentally ill person who did mentally ill person things. There's just no way around it. Manson was more of a symptom of our society than an iconoclast.
Collectively, we failed Charlie. The victims paid with their lives. Thank God we started caring about one another afterward, saved all of the other abandoned children everywhere, and fixed our uncaring world so the revenge of the broken would never again occur.
I'm so happy I feel safe every day now in the land of the free.
One more question before I duck back into oblivion with my homies. Do you think there's a way to figure out which boys lured the high school rape victim back to the ranch? I'd like to share their names and cavity-filled grins with the Internet so their children and grandchildren can view them on Google one day.
+ggw ohio.
The old "I'm just going to get some cigarettes and I'll be right back trick." Smart girl.
ReplyDeleteI think it was Paul Krassner who back in the early '70s described Charlie as a "Frankenstein's monster by-product of the American prison system"... which always seemed like a pretty fair call to me.
ReplyDelete"Victim states this was the strangest place she had seen in her life[,]" when she saw the Family in action. This reminded me at once of a statement made by Linda Kasabian when she encountered the Family during an orgy:
ReplyDelete"Then Charlie ripped off her panties and told Bobby B(Cupid)to make love to her. Then he told everyone else to make love to anybody. The whole scene was perversion like I've never seen before. Oh, while he was touching & kissing that young girl and she resisted he said "Sherry, remember the time when I chased you down the creek with a brick in my hand and said if you didn't make love to me I was going to hit you over the head and rape you." (Linda Kasabian handwritten letter to Bugliosi. Quoted in Ed Sanders, The Family. Da Capo Press, 2002. p. 162).
I appreciate this and your research so much. I don't know how you'd figure out who was in the car but I'd say your best bets are Bruce and Clem. Maybe Tex. I do not, however, understand the need to rationalize Charlie's deviance. There's absolutely no evidence to support the idea of sex addiction, in my opinion. I also think you're giving a little too much credence to Charlie's mental illness. He was certainly highly narcissistic but not severely mentally ill in any way that deserves our sympathy. I certainly didn't fail Charlie. His parents did, and his environment and the prison system did. I am empathetic to his rough childhood. But the American system has failed lots of people and in worse ways than Charlie endured. I do think the "evil monster" trope is overused largely so that separate themselves from killers who are, in reality, just human beings like the rest of us. You tell me after you get raped by some smelly little punk with a small dick and big ego how bad you feel for him.
ReplyDeleteIf prison is supposed to be punitive, Manson served his sentence. If prison is meant for rehabilitation, he served his sentence.
ReplyDeleteI've never said I feel bad for adult Manson. Child Manson, yes. But I always for children who have awful lives. And not just the cream who rises above. All of them.
I don't place qualifications on who had it worse and how much better they did. Good for the people who rose above and I'm glad they/you did, but we're talking about the fails here.
“vehicle being driven by a M/C 18-19, 5’ 2”-3”, long dark hair” etc… based on height, I'd say Paul Watkins. Maybe on his way home from the high school he'd enrolled in :-)
ReplyDeletePaul Watkins was only 5'2-5'3?
ReplyDeletePaul and Clem maybe?
ReplyDeleteWatkins was 5'5, but my money would still be on it being him. It's the sort of heinous shit he would do.
ReplyDeleteCharlie had a criminal mind. No sign of psychosis in fromme"s book( i haven't read it so you tell. me
ReplyDeleteAmazing contemporary account of the scene (beyond the valley of the dolls anyone? "This is my happening and it freaks me out!") with Charlie at the peak of his reign, but truly a sick rapist not the philosopher sex king he thinks he is.
ReplyDeleteIf she came back she was a keeper. That's how he'd weed out the ones with any self respect. Grade A asshole no duh, right?
Someone mentioned his penis size... we always debate his height....
Manson had nothing on Z-Man!
DeleteJohn Lazar's birthday was just a few days ago too!
More connect the dots between Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and the whole TLB/MF cast of characters too
The report is dated a week after the incident date. Mom and dad must have found out she was sleeping with those hippies up at the ranch.
ReplyDeleteOff topic...but very interesting
ReplyDeleteSympathy for the Devil - the true story of the Process Church of the Final Judgment
2015 Documentary
https://youtu.be/JEoy-NrA1nQ
GG~W said:
ReplyDeleteNot many readers care, I do, but Manson was a diagnosed schizophrenic
Despite what you said about Carrie Leonetti and her citations, I can't find any formal diagnosis anywhere. She quotes from tons of psych evaluations, interdisciplinary progress notes, screenings, mental health treatment plans, neurological consultations, physician's orders and the like, but the best or most definitive thing she can come up with is that he was "probably" suffering with schizophrenia. David Smith said a similar thing back in 1968, that Charlie could "probably" be labelled ambulatory schizophrenic.
You can say he fooled the doctors all you want but miss me with that grift unless you can produce your degrees
What is as fascinating about all those citations however, are the number of doctors that either minimized the seriousness of what Leonetti is trying to get at or dismissed it completely. Ever a polarizing figure, there are professionals on either side of the divide and Manson himself was dismissive of mental illness.
It would be interesting to find out from George Stimson and Nick Schreck, what they made of Charlie's mental health.
It's an unfortunate reality of life that doctors can be fooled both ways. It's also an unfortunate reality that in not taking something sufficiently seriously, or coming to a situation with biases one way or the other, doctors can be fooled. Doesn't mean they were, just that they can.
But Carrie does herself absolutely no favours. Her piece is awful. If I had a $ or £ for every error of fact or inaccuracy she put into her paper, I could fly around the world a few times and not have to come home for 18 months. The tragedy is that had she not handled her source material so poorly {she quotes from so many dodgy sources and takes so much out of context to fit her own, which I suppose, on one level is fair} she might actually have much to say that could be really important ~ regardless of whether or not I agreed with her basic thesis of Mansonic innocence.
What about a sex addiction for Charlie on top of the violent schizophrenia?
I can see a case to be made for a certain level of sex addiction. One has to ask though, how commonly does sex addiction translate to rape ?
To me, it seems like you can hate Manson until the moment you die but at the end of the day all you're doing is despising a mentally ill person who did mentally ill person things
I guess we'll never know. For me, the jury is out on whether or not he was mentally ill, if so, when it began to manifest itself and whether or not it was of such magnitude and quality as to more or less direct his actions. Things that he did prior to the mid 70s have been seen in people that were not mentally ill. But they've also been seen in people that were. And although many old acid heads that never suffered adversely from LSD won't like this, Charlie cannot be discussed without bringing into the equation, acid. In my opinion, it is as huge an influence on his 1967~72 being as all of the awful things that happened to him in his first 20 years.
There's just no way around it
Depends on where one is coming from. I believe in the intrinsic sinfulness of humanity {yes, even I and Mother Teresa !}. To me that explains pretty much everything we see in human beings. And the interesting thing is that it doesn't follow hard and fast rules nor can be reduced to a formula. There is a paradoxical randomness to the effects of sin. One can't say "if you bring up your child or treat a person this way, that will be the outcome. Or vice versa.
Manson was more of a symptom of our society than an iconoclast
I've long thought that he really did reflect certain aspects of the societies he had found himself in. We all do. Although he did set himself up as an iconoclast. The Family was iconoclasm in action.
Collectively, we failed Charlie
This one is so nuanced, it can't be dealt with in a sentence. Or 10.
Meez said:
ReplyDeleteI don't know how you'd figure out who was in the car but I'd say your best bets are Bruce and Clem
You'd lose your money if you put it on Bruce. He wasn't even in the USA until April 25th or 26th {he left London on the 25th}.
Dan S said:
Charlie had a criminal mind. No sign of psychosis in fromme"s book(i haven't read it so you tell. me
Then how can you know, Dan ?
Also, mental illness and criminal thinking don't have to be unrelated.
Every turn at every point he took the "easy" way and stole was selfish. Over and over again. Yeah the institutions sucked and his folks were lameo but he put himself in those institutions . iguess I'm asking if there's examples from Reflexions by fromme. To me i see logical reasoning from him if stupid sophistic logic ,not insanity
ReplyDeleteI'm baffled by the oft-repeated and self-absolving cliche "The system failed [nameOfSocialFailure]", or "We failed [nameOfSocialFailure]". The phrase is often used as a sort of secret handshake to be allowed into the Enlightened Compassionates' Club.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly, did we owe these people? And by what authority did we owe it to them?
No vague feel-good claims: if we actually owe all members of functioning society certain assurances, we need a finite list, so that society then can be held to account for each item on the list.
Conversely, what can society reasonably expect of the members of society? Surely, it's a two way street.
Right?
My dad's college buddy (that's right, I'm name dropping to feel important) wrote the book on the subject, inside the criminal mind by Stanton Samenow. The personality is to be entitled, selfish and always blaming others
ReplyDelete"You are talking like you're drunk, who are you?"
ReplyDeleteI kinda thought everyone posting here was drunk. Or . . . something. LOL. Fun to imagine who all of these peeps may actually be and what their histories are.
Where's Tony?
ReplyDeleteI love that Tobias answered Tony on this thread.
ReplyDeleteI know Mr. LaZar from Facebook; he always wishes me a happy birthday on the day of. ALways.
ReplyDeleteHe's a super nice man
Delete"I love that Tobias answered Tony on this thread."
ReplyDeleteI am so confused . . . and not interested in whatever this is to become unconfused.
This is a really fun space, but damn - y'all can get REALLY obscure at times!
shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteI'm baffled by the oft-repeated and self-absolving cliche "The system failed [nameOfSocialFailure]", or "We failed [nameOfSocialFailure]"
Well, it is nuanced and convoluted. But it obviously cannot to apply to every member of a society ~ unless they're all operating in exactly the same way with the same mindset, which rarely, if ever, happens, anywhere. Taking Charles Manson in particular as an example, there were some people who failed him, like his parents and some of the authority figures that he came across in some of the institutions he found himself in. One could possibly widen the net to include a few people in his local community, but then, you'd need to know those people and you'd need to be able to state in particular how they failed Charles, if they did.
It's not hard to see who failed Susan Atkins. They were members of her own household. Leslie Van Houten's Mum was honest enough to publicly examine whether or not she had failed Leslie.
But GG-W does have a point. If a child is nurtured with love, they might still "go wrong." But if a child is raised in a milieu where there is no love, no attempts at understanding, none of the long term thinking and persistence that is crucial when dealing with human beings, and that child frequently has negative experiences, then you can't blame that child for growing up with a poor attitude towards the world around it. Because in general, people just end up reinforcing what that child's experience has already been ~ you're on your own and it's dog eat dog.
What exactly, did we owe these people?
Care. Respect. Attention. Consideration. Kindness. It's a different kind of crack.
They in turn, owe it to us too. They're not likely to see it like that though, if they're not receiving it.
And by what authority did we owe it to them?
Christ boiled it down to one very simple sentence, but a devastating philosophy ~ treat others the way you wish to be treated. The authority is ourselves !
No vague feel-good claims: if we actually owe all members of functioning society certain assurances, we need a finite list, so that society then can be held to account for each item on the list
I agree.
But in truth, we all have an idea of what those assurances are. It is, however, an interesting observation that many of us don't want to take that first step or carry on in the face of opposition or those that aren't meeting their part of the 'bargain' at a particular time.
Conversely, what can society reasonably expect of the members of society? Surely, it's a two way street.
Right?
Yes, it is definitely a two way street. The basic idea is that everyone behaves themselves and treats everyone else fairly and then one has the freedom to expect reciprocation.
Unfortunately, real life isn't like that.