pg130 On the remote chance that he was released from prison, the US Secret Service was to be notified due to threats toward their protectees. Manson was considered a threat to the President of the United States.
pg5 He was particularly imbued with the idea that some people can place their thoughts into the minds of others and control their behavior, and he felt he was a victim of this phenomenon, and ironically denied taking any part in the Tate-LaBianca murders. ... He was viewed as manipulative, crafty, and seductive, with a good grasp of human motivation.
pg16 Reality distortions(exhibited by Manson) include a variety of hallucinations and delusions, including odd and unrealistic beliefs like thought insertions, mind reading, and thought broadcasting.
Is Charlie claiming to be the victim of mind control? It sure sounds like it.
Starviego, to your first comment, I think the assassination attempt that Lynette was convicted of likely triggered a blanket caution for any subsequent president. I don't recall any specific threat to a president that Manson may have made but we don't know what he may have said when speaking to those of authority.
Confessions of an ex-Secret Service Agent: The Marty Venker Story by George Rush c.1988 pg112
"Back in 1970, when I was working in Los Angeles, I used to climb the steps of the Federal Building and pass a woman who'd carved X's into her forehead. She was holding a vigil for Charles Manson, who was standing trial inside for the murder of actress Sharon Tate and eight others. Even before the murders, Manson's hatred of Richard Nixon had earned him a Secret Service interrogation. The woman on the steps was Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme. Squeaky and I developed a relationship. She called me a pig and I'd tell here to stick it up her ass."
Starviego, to your second comment, Manson was known to play up his personality to those who were evaluating him, whether it was someone from the prison or perhaps the press. By the time this evaluation was conducted people like Maury Terry and Mae Brussels had presented their views which included conspiracy theories that had to do with mind control. I have no doubt that Manson was aware of what was being said. He may have even had an opportunity to listen to some of Brussles radio shows. Most likely he was playing to his audience and making himself look a bit crazier than he had demonstrated in the past. There's a raw video of the Diane Sawyer interview where Manson and Sawyer are speaking calmly to each other about everyday things. The second someone in the background says they are live, Manson goes full on batshit nuts. It's like someone flipped a switch. I'm sure it was a calculated move. I think it would be a losing battle for a psychiatrist to get an honest evaluation of Manson because he just liked to mess with people he didn't have respect for.
DebS said …Manson was known to play up his personality to those who were evaluating him, whether it was someone from the prison or perhaps the press.
Yeah. It always surprises me how much this gets overlooked. Most people unquestioningly take his performances at face value.
By the time this evaluation was conducted people like Maury Terry and Mae Brussels had presented their views which included conspiracy theories that had to do with mind control. I have no doubt that Manson was aware of what was being said. He may have even had an opportunity to listen to some of Brussles radio shows. Most likely he was playing to his audience and making himself look a bit crazier than he had demonstrated in the past. There's a raw video of the Diane Sawyer interview where Manson and Sawyer are speaking calmly to each other about everyday things. The second someone in the background says they are live, Manson goes full on batshit nuts. It's like someone flipped a switch. I'm sure it was a calculated move.
Once the cameras were rolling, everything he did and said always struck me as a very choreographed performance… no matter how “crazy”.
I think it would be a losing battle for a psychiatrist to get an honest evaluation of Manson because he just liked to mess with people he didn't have respect for
That’s one of the things that make this paper interesting. It shows the evolution of psych evaluation over the decades and the generational shift in the various biases and attitudes of the shrinks examining him.
In the first instance, there’s the various reports, tests and observations dating from the 50s & 60s. As would be expected, these make all the standard judgements of the time and era regarding a jive-talking petty criminal/beatnik like Manson.
By the 70s evaluations, both Charlie and the expectations of him have evolved a lot. He’s not just another juvenile delinquent anymore. He’s a media archetype …but of what exactly? Hippy cult leader? Deluded psychotic? Psychedelic pimp? Mad dog? No-one’s too sure… least of all Charlie. Meanwhile his jive-talk has developed into full-blown beat-hipster-hippie allegory… AND he’s started to incorporate any random schtick he thinks his audience might be prone to.
The folks examining him are still products of the 50s and 60s (like Charlie)… but they’re his complete diametric opposite- culturally, ethically, legally, economically. They’re the same guys he’s been conning or pissing off his whole life… but he’s not into that anymore. He’s playing into the media archetypes now. So naturally, he’s a full-blown psychotic and it’s off to Vacaville he goes.
By the late ‘90s, Manson’s really honed his crazy Charlie act but the shrinks have changed the guard. Now they’re a bunch of younger people to whom the culture wars of the 60s have little significance. He just doesn’t push their buttons the same way he did with the older analysts… and the new guys seem to be wondering just how delusional he actually is.
The real change however takes place in the 2023 report when the people looking at the records are even further removed from any real attachment to the 60s. Mainstream culture has also moved along. What was stone-freak crazy back then is now fairly mainstream… including allegorical, poetic beatnik gibberish. They’re not really offended, horrified or even shocked by it. No doubt they’ve seen worse on Netflix. Without the attendant cultural baggage, they seem much better able to gauge how much is genuine psychosis and how much is theatre… or at least recognise that both are at play. A lot of people could always see this. It just astonishes me that the shrinks never seemed to.
There are 5 definitive things that Manson was - Pimp, Liar, Thief, Actor and Coward.
These evaluations are pure 2 and 4 and Im constantly dismayed by how many outwardly intelligent people bought into his BS.
A bunch of disenchanted kids and pseudohippie drug addicts I can understand, but a lot of shrinks and the media needed a good slap for enabling his misunderstood guru act.
I agree with the observation that Manson played to the audience in the interviews. I have watched enough interviews to see him look "normal" one minute and then bat shit crazy the next. It did seem like a calculted move on his part.
I think that people sometimes forget or overlook his criminal past and how that contributed to his being able to manipulate people. After all, part of what pimps do in manipulate women. And from what I've read, he did keep one foot in his prior criminal past throughout his life.
Orwhut said: “I wish I could remember which book said Manson developed a personality that the author called "Crazy Charlie".”
Jeff Guinn, in his book “MANSON. The Life and Times of Charles Manson”, multiple times said that Manson said he would act as “Crazy Charlie” if he were arrested.
Brownrice, this is a terrific, er...ah...*meta-analysis* of the span of professional diagnosis of Manson.
;^)
Seriously, it's well-reasoned and perceptive and also aware of the gradual shift of the popular sensibilities between Manson's first interactions with authority in the 50s, all the way thru the final analysis at age 63.
This paper Deb has shared with us should kick-off some really worthy discussion. You've made a great start of it, and I plan to add some thoughts in a bit.
Believe me, I'm not an admirer of Manson, but I can't bring to mind instances of what I'd called notable cowardice. I think he was manipulative in attempting to avoid responsibility for actions that were likely to have legal consequences (Tate/LaBianca), but not elsewhere.
Can you elaborate? If were are to discuss the topic of Manson's personality and motivations, and the roles these played in the events of '69, we need to be as accurate and dispassionate as possible.
I found this paper to be really useful and intriguing. Thanks for sharing, Deb.
After joining this group a few years back, and then having watched numerous interviews with Manson, including the Sawyer interview, I came to the conclusion that Manson was a wily, imaginative and fairly intelligent--although untutored--manipulator and opportunist. I'm using these terms not in a pejorative way, but as specific descriptions of aspects of his personality.
He was also charismatic and magnetic.
Too, I was an adult at the time of the killings and subsequent trials, and I can contrast the way the media portrayed him at that time, and how his public perception has migrated since then.
In the interviews, much of what we see is Mason's ability to quickly perceive the intentions/motivations of any given interlocutor, and fashion his interactions based on this perception. He was very good at it, and I'll note that I often get a similar impression any time the media interviews a chronic wrong-doer--anyone from a chronically homeless person to a multiple incarcerated felon. There's a lot of reading of the interviewer then feeding them whatever the wrong-doer thinks the interviewer will buy that will in some fashion advance their cause. So often from white repeat criminals you'll get a sort of country-and-western version of "I'm a danged sinner, I've lived hard and fast, but I can see the error of my ways and I don't advise following in my footsteps" sort of dodge. This has a certain appeal to many, but looks to me like a simple evasion and an attempt to gain a level of sympathy or understanding. Repeat black criminals have their own, often race-specific, dodges.
Often their idea of what advances their cause is flawed--they may end up emphasizing personal traits that *they* value highly--such as machismo or a hardened worldliness. I got this impression from the Manson interviews, but he was much better and playing to the most effective reception and seldom slipped up unintentionally.
Here's a thought: Manson, when freed in the early 60s, quickly recognized his personal power over people. And the ultimate effect of this power (charisma + self-confidence + self-made mythology) over various individuals played out radically differently, depending on the personal weaknesses/needs of those who Manson charmed.
E.g., his earliest female followers needed meaningful attention from a strong male figure, and he seemed to recognize this very quickly and supplied it it just the right dose to make them dependent. For his male adherents, they often needed a goal or structure in their lives (they tended to be aimless) and so Manson provided this.
He also mixed in more concrete inducements for those who were initially attracted only by his charismatic package--such as Melcher, Wilson, Jakobson, and to a lesser degree DeCarlo--he supplied both drugs and women. This latter group was less closely attached to Manson, and after a while their misgivings seemed to build up to the point where they avoided him.
Some of Manson's approach was a sort of palette of manipulative actions, ranging from satisfying deep emotional needs to supplying sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll. He mixed what was needed for each new "charmed" acquaintance in a sort of personal "prescription".
As an aside if we subtracted the sex and drugs, and went with purely *personal* attachment, which of his followers would have stayed with him? Who did not need sex and drugs, etc, as well as his personal attention?
I think that Manson was carefully in control when in public most of the time. I think "amoral" is probably the closest general description of his personal values, allowing him to manipulate and seize opportunities without regard to "normal" self-constraints. I don't see him as delusional beyond temporary delusions resulting from drug disorientation. An exception *may* have been Helter Skelter, but, you know, it's possible that much of its substance was created merely as an additional way to bind Manson's followers to him, in addition to charisma, sex/drugs, and fulfilling personal needs.
Shoegazer said: "There's a lot of reading of the interviewer then feeding them whatever the wrong-doer thinks the interviewer will buy that will in some fashion advance their cause. "
Shoegazer said: "Believe me, I'm not an admirer of Manson, but I can't bring to mind instances of what I'd called notable cowardice."
Shoe, I can barely think of instances where he wasn't a coward. Think about every notable confrontation he had. Armed vs Hinman, armed vs Lotsapoppa, armed and numerical advantage vs Shorty, La Biancas tied up. Everyone was essentially defenseless. Whenever he commited violence himself, it was never one on one. If it was, he pulled the cowering 'I'm just little harmless Charlie" act. Like hiding in the cupboard during a raid.
We probably have a semantical difference going on here. To me, taking risks where it would be safer to avoid them, and that it was obviously possible to do so, would mean that such an individual was not cowardly in those instances.
As I understand the story, Manson confronted Lotsapoppa *on behalf* of Watson, who had gotten himself into trouble with the drug dealer and was looking to Manson for a solution. Manson could have basically washed his hands of Watson, taking no risk, but he chose to side with Watson against a drug dealer whom he supposed was also a Black Panther. This would have been seen as a considerable risk at the time. The Panthers made everyone pretty nervous. I was in college and all the photos of them in black berets and armed were pretty threatening.
Too, if I'm recalling correctly, Krenwinkle at some point claims to have run off with a biker and Manson went out and took her back. If this is accurate, there's another unnecessary risk he took.
I think in both cases he stuck his neck out simply to preserve his position as the head of the family. He did these things to demonstrate that he was the boss, the leader, and that he was willing to take direct action.
In the examples of Hinman, LaBianca, Shea, etc., I'd view gaining advantage as prudent rather than cowardly. He intended to kill all of these people, or have them killed, and so the best course is to make it as easy as possible, if your goal is simply killing. E.g., it would make little sense to untie the LaBiancas because he wanted to seem "fair".
Again, don't mistake this as a defense of Manson. But it seems like we're all here trying to really understand the reality of what happened back then, and in trying to understand how Manson could hold the family together, enough to have them do his bidding at considerable risk to themselves, it's better to realize *how* he established his dominance. One of the aspects was that he would take considerable risks if he thought it would benefit his standing in the group. In the cases of Watson, Manson stood up for him at a personal risk; with Krenwinkle, he showed her that she was important to him by taking her back from a member of a motorcycle gang. Risky. This kind of stuff showed the family that he'd stand up for *them*, if it was needed.
But in reality he'd only do it if he saw personal benefit, I think. Watson and Krenwinkle were useful tools, blindly faithful. Good soldiers for Manson.
Anyway, that's how I see it. It could be otherwise, for sure.
I like your observations but I believe Manson had already developed these tactics. Abusing that personal power is what put him into jail as a pimp. According to Guinn's research, Manson was manipulating people as a young boy. I'm curious about how he lost his touch around the beginning of 1969. He was operating just fine until then. Once a psychopath, always a psychopath but why weren't his techniques working anymore?
25 comments:
An interesting read. Thanks, Deb. Vaguely worrying that one of the authors (Shrinks? Analysts?) has used O'Neill as a historical source.
pg130
On the remote chance that he was released from prison, the US Secret Service was to be notified due to threats toward their protectees. Manson was considered a threat to the President of the United States.
Which president did Charlie threaten? And when?
pg5
He was particularly imbued with the idea that some people can place their thoughts into the minds of others and control their behavior, and he felt he was a victim of this phenomenon, and ironically denied taking any part in the Tate-LaBianca murders. ... He was viewed as manipulative, crafty, and seductive, with a good grasp of human motivation.
pg16
Reality distortions(exhibited by Manson) include a variety of hallucinations and delusions, including odd and unrealistic beliefs like thought insertions, mind reading, and thought broadcasting.
Is Charlie claiming to be the victim of mind control? It sure sounds like it.
Starviego, to your first comment, I think the assassination attempt that Lynette was convicted of likely triggered a blanket caution for any subsequent president. I don't recall any specific threat to a president that Manson may have made but we don't know what he may have said when speaking to those of authority.
The threats may have been against Nixon:
Confessions of an ex-Secret Service Agent: The Marty Venker Story by George Rush c.1988 pg112
"Back in 1970, when I was working in Los Angeles, I used to climb the steps of the Federal Building and pass a woman who'd carved X's into her forehead. She was holding a vigil for Charles Manson, who was standing trial inside for the murder of actress Sharon Tate and eight others. Even before the murders, Manson's hatred of Richard Nixon had earned him a Secret Service interrogation. The woman on the steps was Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme. Squeaky and I developed a relationship. She called me a pig and I'd tell here to stick it up her ass."
Starviego, to your second comment, Manson was known to play up his personality to those who were evaluating him, whether it was someone from the prison or perhaps the press. By the time this evaluation was conducted people like Maury Terry and Mae Brussels had presented their views which included conspiracy theories that had to do with mind control. I have no doubt that Manson was aware of what was being said. He may have even had an opportunity to listen to some of Brussles radio shows.
Most likely he was playing to his audience and making himself look a bit crazier than he had demonstrated in the past.
There's a raw video of the Diane Sawyer interview where Manson and Sawyer are speaking calmly to each other about everyday things. The second someone in the background says they are live, Manson goes full on batshit nuts. It's like someone flipped a switch. I'm sure it was a calculated move.
I think it would be a losing battle for a psychiatrist to get an honest evaluation of Manson because he just liked to mess with people he didn't have respect for.
I wish I could remember which book said Manson developed a personality that the author called "Crazy Charlie".
DebS said
…Manson was known to play up his personality to those who were evaluating him, whether it was someone from the prison or perhaps the press.
Yeah. It always surprises me how much this gets overlooked. Most people unquestioningly take his performances at face value.
By the time this evaluation was conducted people like Maury Terry and Mae Brussels had presented their views which included conspiracy theories that had to do with mind control. I have no doubt that Manson was aware of what was being said. He may have even had an opportunity to listen to some of Brussles radio shows. Most likely he was playing to his audience and making himself look a bit crazier than he had demonstrated in the past.
There's a raw video of the Diane Sawyer interview where Manson and Sawyer are speaking calmly to each other about everyday things. The second someone in the background says they are live, Manson goes full on batshit nuts. It's like someone flipped a switch. I'm sure it was a calculated move.
Once the cameras were rolling, everything he did and said always struck me as a very choreographed performance… no matter how “crazy”.
I think it would be a losing battle for a psychiatrist to get an honest evaluation of Manson because he just liked to mess with people he didn't have respect for
That’s one of the things that make this paper interesting. It shows the evolution of psych evaluation over the decades and the generational shift in the various biases and attitudes of the shrinks examining him.
In the first instance, there’s the various reports, tests and observations dating from the 50s & 60s. As would be expected, these make all the standard judgements of the time and era regarding a jive-talking petty criminal/beatnik like Manson.
By the 70s evaluations, both Charlie and the expectations of him have evolved a lot. He’s not just another juvenile delinquent anymore. He’s a media archetype …but of what exactly? Hippy cult leader? Deluded psychotic? Psychedelic pimp? Mad dog? No-one’s too sure… least of all Charlie. Meanwhile his jive-talk has developed into full-blown beat-hipster-hippie allegory… AND he’s started to incorporate any random schtick he thinks his audience might be prone to.
The folks examining him are still products of the 50s and 60s (like Charlie)… but they’re his complete diametric opposite- culturally, ethically, legally, economically. They’re the same guys he’s been conning or pissing off his whole life… but he’s not into that anymore. He’s playing into the media archetypes now. So naturally, he’s a full-blown psychotic and it’s off to Vacaville he goes.
By the late ‘90s, Manson’s really honed his crazy Charlie act but the shrinks have changed the guard. Now they’re a bunch of younger people to whom the culture wars of the 60s have little significance. He just doesn’t push their buttons the same way he did with the older analysts… and the new guys seem to be wondering just how delusional he actually is.
The real change however takes place in the 2023 report when the people looking at the records are even further removed from any real attachment to the 60s. Mainstream culture has also moved along. What was stone-freak crazy back then is now fairly mainstream… including allegorical, poetic beatnik gibberish. They’re not really offended, horrified or even shocked by it. No doubt they’ve seen worse on Netflix. Without the attendant cultural baggage, they seem much better able to gauge how much is genuine psychosis and how much is theatre… or at least recognise that both are at play. A lot of people could always see this. It just astonishes me that the shrinks never seemed to.
There are 5 definitive things that Manson was - Pimp, Liar, Thief, Actor and Coward.
These evaluations are pure 2 and 4 and Im constantly dismayed by how many outwardly intelligent people bought into his BS.
A bunch of disenchanted kids and pseudohippie drug addicts I can understand, but a lot of shrinks and the media needed a good slap for enabling his misunderstood guru act.
I agree with the observation that Manson played to the audience in the interviews. I have watched enough interviews to see him look "normal" one minute and then bat shit crazy the next. It did seem like a calculted move on his part.
I think that people sometimes forget or overlook his criminal past and how that contributed to his being able to manipulate people. After all, part of what pimps do in manipulate women. And from what I've read, he did keep one foot in his prior criminal past throughout his life.
Orwhut said:
“I wish I could remember which book said Manson developed a personality that the author called "Crazy Charlie".”
Jeff Guinn, in his book “MANSON. The Life and Times of Charles Manson”, multiple times said that Manson said he would act as “Crazy Charlie” if he were arrested.
Brownrice, this is a terrific, er...ah...*meta-analysis* of the span of professional diagnosis of Manson.
;^)
Seriously, it's well-reasoned and perceptive and also aware of the gradual shift of the popular sensibilities between Manson's first interactions with authority in the 50s, all the way thru the final analysis at age 63.
This paper Deb has shared with us should kick-off some really worthy discussion. You've made a great start of it, and I plan to add some thoughts in a bit.
Believe me, I'm not an admirer of Manson, but I can't bring to mind instances of what I'd called notable cowardice. I think he was manipulative in attempting to avoid responsibility for actions that were likely to have legal consequences (Tate/LaBianca), but not elsewhere.
Can you elaborate? If were are to discuss the topic of Manson's personality and motivations, and the roles these played in the events of '69, we need to be as accurate and dispassionate as possible.
Part 1 of 2:
I found this paper to be really useful and intriguing. Thanks for sharing, Deb.
After joining this group a few years back, and then having watched numerous interviews with Manson, including the Sawyer interview, I came to the conclusion that Manson was a wily, imaginative and fairly intelligent--although untutored--manipulator and opportunist. I'm using these terms not in a pejorative way, but as specific descriptions of aspects of his personality.
He was also charismatic and magnetic.
Too, I was an adult at the time of the killings and subsequent trials, and I can contrast the way the media portrayed him at that time, and how his public perception has migrated since then.
In the interviews, much of what we see is Mason's ability to quickly perceive the intentions/motivations of any given interlocutor, and fashion his interactions based on this perception. He was very good at it, and I'll note that I often get a similar impression any time the media interviews a chronic wrong-doer--anyone from a chronically homeless person to a multiple incarcerated felon. There's a lot of reading of the interviewer then feeding them whatever the wrong-doer thinks the interviewer will buy that will in some fashion advance their cause. So often from white repeat criminals you'll get a sort of country-and-western version of "I'm a danged sinner, I've lived hard and fast, but I can see the error of my ways and I don't advise following in my footsteps" sort of dodge. This has a certain appeal to many, but looks to me like a simple evasion and an attempt to gain a level of sympathy or understanding. Repeat black criminals have their own, often race-specific, dodges.
Often their idea of what advances their cause is flawed--they may end up emphasizing personal traits that *they* value highly--such as machismo or a hardened worldliness. I got this impression from the Manson interviews, but he was much better and playing to the most effective reception and seldom slipped up unintentionally.
[END PART 1]
Part 2 of 2:
Here's a thought: Manson, when freed in the early 60s, quickly recognized his personal power over people. And the ultimate effect of this power (charisma + self-confidence + self-made mythology) over various individuals played out radically differently, depending on the personal weaknesses/needs of those who Manson charmed.
E.g., his earliest female followers needed meaningful attention from a strong male figure, and he seemed to recognize this very quickly and supplied it it just the right dose to make them dependent. For his male adherents, they often needed a goal or structure in their lives (they tended to be aimless) and so Manson provided this.
He also mixed in more concrete inducements for those who were initially attracted only by his charismatic package--such as Melcher, Wilson, Jakobson, and to a lesser degree DeCarlo--he supplied both drugs and women. This latter group was less closely attached to Manson, and after a while their misgivings seemed to build up to the point where they avoided him.
Some of Manson's approach was a sort of palette of manipulative actions, ranging from satisfying deep emotional needs to supplying sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll. He mixed what was needed for each new "charmed" acquaintance in a sort of personal "prescription".
As an aside if we subtracted the sex and drugs, and went with purely *personal* attachment, which of his followers would have stayed with him? Who did not need sex and drugs, etc, as well as his personal attention?
I think that Manson was carefully in control when in public most of the time. I think "amoral" is probably the closest general description of his personal values, allowing him to manipulate and seize opportunities without regard to "normal" self-constraints. I don't see him as delusional beyond temporary delusions resulting from drug disorientation. An exception *may* have been Helter Skelter, but, you know, it's possible that much of its substance was created merely as an additional way to bind Manson's followers to him, in addition to charisma, sex/drugs, and fulfilling personal needs.
[END OF PART 2 - COMPLETE]
Thanks for the kind words, shoegazer... and thanks again to Deb for sharing this fascinating nugget.
TabOrFresca,
Thank you. It finally came to me about two minutes before I read your reply.
Shoegazer said:
"There's a lot of reading of the interviewer then feeding them whatever the wrong-doer thinks the interviewer will buy that will in some fashion advance their cause. "
Like politicians?
I was thinking more the reverse... :^)
Shoegazer said: "Believe me, I'm not an admirer of Manson, but I can't bring to mind instances of what I'd called notable cowardice."
Shoe, I can barely think of instances where he wasn't a coward. Think about every notable confrontation he had. Armed vs Hinman, armed vs Lotsapoppa, armed and numerical advantage vs Shorty, La Biancas tied up. Everyone was essentially defenseless. Whenever he commited violence himself, it was never one on one. If it was, he pulled the cowering 'I'm just little harmless Charlie" act. Like hiding in the cupboard during a raid.
Hi, THT.
We probably have a semantical difference going on here. To me, taking risks where it would be safer to avoid them, and that it was obviously possible to do so, would mean that such an individual was not cowardly in those instances.
As I understand the story, Manson confronted Lotsapoppa *on behalf* of Watson, who had gotten himself into trouble with the drug dealer and was looking to Manson for a solution. Manson could have basically washed his hands of Watson, taking no risk, but he chose to side with Watson against a drug dealer whom he supposed was also a Black Panther. This would have been seen as a considerable risk at the time. The Panthers made everyone pretty nervous. I was in college and all the photos of them in black berets and armed were pretty threatening.
Too, if I'm recalling correctly, Krenwinkle at some point claims to have run off with a biker and Manson went out and took her back. If this is accurate, there's another unnecessary risk he took.
I think in both cases he stuck his neck out simply to preserve his position as the head of the family. He did these things to demonstrate that he was the boss, the leader, and that he was willing to take direct action.
In the examples of Hinman, LaBianca, Shea, etc., I'd view gaining advantage as prudent rather than cowardly. He intended to kill all of these people, or have them killed, and so the best course is to make it as easy as possible, if your goal is simply killing. E.g., it would make little sense to untie the LaBiancas because he wanted to seem "fair".
Again, don't mistake this as a defense of Manson. But it seems like we're all here trying to really understand the reality of what happened back then, and in trying to understand how Manson could hold the family together, enough to have them do his bidding at considerable risk to themselves, it's better to realize *how* he established his dominance. One of the aspects was that he would take considerable risks if he thought it would benefit his standing in the group. In the cases of Watson, Manson stood up for him at a personal risk; with Krenwinkle, he showed her that she was important to him by taking her back from a member of a motorcycle gang. Risky. This kind of stuff showed the family that he'd stand up for *them*, if it was needed.
But in reality he'd only do it if he saw personal benefit, I think. Watson and Krenwinkle were useful tools, blindly faithful. Good soldiers for Manson.
Anyway, that's how I see it. It could be otherwise, for sure.
I like your observations but I believe Manson had already developed these tactics. Abusing that personal power is what put him into jail as a pimp. According to Guinn's research, Manson was manipulating people as a young boy. I'm curious about how he lost his touch around the beginning of 1969. He was operating just fine until then. Once a psychopath, always a psychopath but why weren't his techniques working anymore?
Post a Comment