Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Hello Folks... I received the following email, 13 minutes ago...

Jenny writes: 

I am "Jenny" as referred to by Onjya in "The Devils Drop Out".


I tried to post this on your blog in response to the thread speculating who the "Jenny" was who Onya had written about in her book. It would not post but just keep asking for me to do the capcha over and over so sending it to you via email instead.

I can clear up who "Jenny" is because I am here. Also, the Duarte house was not rented by TJ or anyone else. It was being purchased by friends of mine, a married couple (since divorced)whose names I will leave out because I am sure they don't want this stuff dug up after all these years.

"Onjya's" memories (from what I just read here, never knew she had written a book (sort of hard to imagine; I knew her very well and she was not...well, let's say "the literary type")

I don't recall when I brought them to the Duarte house - may have been late at night since we kept pretty loose hours and there was usually more important things to do during the day. So, if it was late night, it wasn't because of anything other than it being a convenient time.

Yes, it was true that the entire family was there a good part of the time. However, it wasn't the dark place "Onjya" describes (other than when TJ, Clem and Bruce were around, which was rarely) And, of course, when TJ ate from the dirty diaper. That did happen. But, for the most part, we sat around embroidering on the vests, went dumpster diving, cooked, sang, played - a lot like children - dyed our clothes in desert colours..smoked a little pot (not all that much) Ironed court clothes and there was always running around re the trial. Oh and sharpened our buck knives and ground the hinge down with grinding compound so they would flick open easily.

I was not with the family very long before inviting "Onjya", Chuck and baby along. I had pretty much missed out on knowing anything about the murders - I had been on the road, doing the PNW apple-picking scene with my boyfriend. We lived in picker camps and I didn't read newspapers then. Boyfriend and I broke up and I went to see my friends in Duarte for comfort and a place to stay for a while. When I got there, they were the only ones home but told me that "some friends" of their's "ranch had burned down and they needed a place to stay so they were staying there, too" - and that I would really like them. It was probably a week of - yes, really liking them - before it was divulged to me who they were. Initially it was all presented as "false accusations" but then, over time...although nothing was ever admitted to me (I was a late comer and never fully accepted), I pretty much caught on. But, by that time I loved most of these people and, hard for me to admit now, there was a time when I would have done *anything* for and with them - but, thanks to all gods and goddesses, I was never asked.

No, neither Joey (that's the name I knew her as) or Erutan (we thought it a stupid name then,too) were much liked. They were airheads. They were only in Duarte house - at most a week - before they were sent off to the cave (and a quite comfy cave, too - fireplace, door, window - near a stream in a lovely location). A week or so later, my married friends and I joined them - along with Dennis' kids - and we hung out there for another week or so. Then my married friends, Dennis' kids and I went off to another mountain location (one which I have never seen written about) and stayed there a couple of weeks with the kids. By the time I got back to Duarte, "Onjya" and her husband and baby were gone from the cave, too, and had not returned to the Duarte house. I can't say for sure as it has been too many years, but Onjya was probably not at the Duarte house or with the family for more than a week. Sounds like she capitalized on that week though.

Last time I talked with her was - a year or so later (?) She had gone off the deep end, had created a story about her little girl having been born deformed or with some deadly illness and somehow saved by a miracle. All bs. Her daughter was fine when I knew her. I lost interest in having further contact with her and we never crossed paths again - until here, tonight, reading about her in this forum.

There was never any paper signed giving her daughter to the family. She and Erutan took her when they left and that was the last contact they had with the family that I know of.

Sometime just before the big earthquake in Saugus, I was out at Barker Ranch with the kids - Dennis', a toddler daughter of one of the family (I seem to recall the dad was Tex but that could be wrong) and a few months old infant boy named "G" (not sharing his name)along with Bo. It was just me, Bo and the kids for a couple of weeks. We mostly played with the kids and hiked around with them. Yes, they were fed very well. No, they were not cleaned very well. But they seemed happy. I loved Dennis' kids and, until tonight when I read that they turned out well, always wondered and worried about them over the years.

I really bonded with that baby boy. I was his primary caretaker; he slept in my arms at night.

Being away from the main core of the family and Bo being pretty quiet, I started to realize that there was something very wrong with staying with the family and began to really believe that they had committed crimes and that there was no justification for them. I started to feel a little fear.

One night, when it was late and quiet, I listened to the distant hum of traffic from a highway that was not visible from the ranch. A couple of days later, I strapped on a bota-bag of water, but the baby in the papoose carrier, grabbed a bottle of milk for him, and told Bo that I was taking G out for a walk.

I remember regretting that I couldn't take Charlie's Martin with me as I had it with me and played on it a bit - but that might have made Bo suspicious.

I hiked out all day until I reached the highway and hitched a ride to my sister's house near Saugus.

My plan was to take baby G, go somewhere and pretend he was mine and raise him. All I had been told was that "his parents gave him to us" by the family so I thought he would not be missed. I told my sister I was just watching him for a friend of mine (she had had no idea I had been with the family during this time)

And then the earthquake happened and I was pretty much stuck at my sister's for a while. And then G got sick and we had to take him to a doctor...and finally I told my sister the truth.

I called a social worker friend that I trusted and arranged to hand over G to him - and he was able to tell me that G's parents had gone back to the family to get him while we were at Barker but, supposedly, they told the parents that they had no idea who they were talking about and they had no child of theirs.

From what I was told, the parents then reported that the family may have killed their child - I heard (through the grapevine) that this is what brought the raid down on Barker where Dennis' kids were - and that toddler girl - that they were looking for G's body. And I was also told that the family wanted to talk to me - and it did not sound like it would be a friendly chat so I pretty much went into hiding.

Now I read they were looking for a runaway girl who was there. She wasn't there when I was but...who knows what came down after I left? It was NOT Joey's daughter - I am pretty sure of that - unless, in the time (relatively short) after I left Barker and the ranch was raided, somehow Joey had taken her daughter to the family. Does not seem likely but I do not know for sure, of course.

So, that's it. Seems like a lifetime ago for me and it nearly has been. It took me a couple of years to feel like I was finally separated from all that I had become and the perceptions I had adopted while with the family (I still spouted their rhetoric during that time and believed it, even if I did not believe in them as I once had) This is a phase of my life - and a relatively short one - that I have some fond memories of and that I have some shame for - not because I (thankfully) ever did anything criminal, but because no one really understood how I could love some of these people - there was no way to talk to anyone about that time without them starting out with and staying with their well-deserved negative judgments about the family.

I never thought I would see my name and my (minimal) involvement with the family anywhere in print. I'll have to find a copy of Joey's (surely ghost-written) book and will probably have a few laughs over it. It sounds more like a fantasy than real-life account.

Oh and I am pretty sure that Clem molested Dennis' daughter. It made me sick even at the time to see him crawl into her sleeping bag at night and I have worried about her ever since and was relieved when she was returned to her mother and out of that situation. Maybe he just cuddled her - but.....

All the Best...
Thanks Jenny!!
===================================================================
Jenny Responded to the on-blog questions (via email) as follows:

Dear All,

Sorry but I work more than full-time and cannot engage in this discussion and my recollections that are now 41 years old and only from such a relatively small part of my life (6 mos max) surely are not all that valuable nor are they necessarily all that accurate after this time.

Maybe it was not Barker ranch where I was at the end, until I left. When I looked at some old photos yesterday, the pics of Barker looked familiar. Lancaster house? Maybe. Name sounds familiar but I think that I had been there one time earlier and, if so, the last place I lived with the family was Barker. ... Look, when I was taken to both the mountain hide-away (and yes, I think it was somewhere in the loose vicinity of Arrowhead) and when taken to the Barker (?) ranch, I was told to put my head down so that I could not see out the windows to gauge where I was going - and thus I did not. (Obviously, I was not a trusted member of the inner circle.) And this is why, when I decided to leave, I had to listen for the traffic at night to figure out which way to walk out when I did go.

Yes, the kids where there with Bo and I when I left. As I said, I think this was at Barker.

CSD gave me a polaroid of baby "G" when I left him with them. I still have it. For a while, I thought he was going to be "my" son - and so I still think and care about him and hope he's had a lovely life.

When I dropped "G" off, my social worker friend who facilitated this told me that all the kids had been picked up and that, at that time, they were in foster care or at a CSD shelter or such (I do not recall which) and no, I could not have contact with them (I asked if I could). Maybe this is how I initially thought that the family thought that the raid there was somehow my fault.

I had not given anyone info on the location (like I said, I really did not know it) - all I did was tell my friend about "G", how I got him, and that I could not care for him. I was not interrogated by anyone about location or anything else. I was just told that his parents had wanted him back, went to the family and they told them that they had no idea what baby they were talking about.

I always assumed that these parents' quest for "G" was what provoked the raid and that me coming forward to relinquish him was afterwards by a very short time.

"G" was not Onjya's daughter. He was definitely a boy and Onjya definitely had a daughter.

Why do the reports I read last night about the raid say that the raid took place because of the search for a runaway minor female? Who was she? Must have come (or been sent there) after I left.

The cave (singular) was just outside of Lone Pine. West of it, as I recall.

Onjya (I knew her as "Joey" first) and I both grew up in the same S Calif city. I don't recall now if we met for the first time in Hollywood or if we ended up going to Hollywood a lot together because we already knew each other. We hung out in Hollywood a lot (Sunset Strip). Then I got tired of the city scene and moved to a commune in Joshua Tree. I moved away from Joshua Tree for a while and then back again later. When I moved back, Onjya had moved there, too. So we had shared histories in our home town, Hollywood and Joshua Tree. I do not remember if I ran into her in Joshua Tree or in the city when I told her she should "meet these people" and made arrangements for her to come to Duarte house. This was all such a long time ago...

No, I never met Charlie because I had no ID at the time and would need it to get in. But that did not stop me from feeling a deep attachment to him and idolizing him, and buying into the story about the revolution about to come down. I lived among those who worshiped him and spouted "Charlie says..." constantly. I loved (some of) these people. I believed in their belief. All very text-book cult stuff really.

Re Bruce and Clem. All I can tell you is that I felt terribly uncomfortable - fearful - around them when I was not when around anyone else in the family. Nothing that they "did" - I just got the hit that they had absolutely no moral compasses - that they were capable of unremorsefully doing just about anything and that, to me, they were unpredictable.

I was a shy young woman who had just had my personal life turned up-side-down by the break-up from my first real love. I had returned to Joshua Tree to find the house I had been renting taken over by a huge group of people I did not know. I went to stay with friends in Duarte and found myself living with a group of people who said a lot of things that made deep sense to me intermingled with things that were totally alien to my own thinking. But they BELIEVED and I liked (most) of them tremendously and how they truly had rebuked the system and beliefs that often hold us down and diminish us. Lines got blurred. Love and fear. Trust and mistrust.

It was a potent personal experience but not for the reasons most people might assume. It helped me become who I am while, at the same time, had the potential to destroy me and others. And, as I said before, it left me floundering for a long time afterwards because I HAD believed so deeply and it was more than difficult to reconcile the love and trust with the fear and mistrust. I could not return to who I had been "before", I could not remain who I had been while with them, and it took a long while to reconcile that and become on my way to who I am today.

But, to those of you who are spectators from afar, looking into dusty windows, you will never understand really and it seems the information you seek is not really anything I can provide. I did not - and do not - analyze any of that experience beyond the personal. And, besides to me and those close to me, who gives a rip about that? :D

Maybe you have it posted somewhere here, but, if so, I have not seen it - but I wonder why you all are so interested in sussing all this out? It was a long time ago. It was a time and situation that ended up with a lot of people hurt badly - irreparably for some - both those who were murdered and those who took part in the murders. I only hope that time heals all those who survived, one way or the other.

It seems many of those who were deeply involved (and whose stories certainly have more significance than mine) have "found Jesus" or moved on with their lives, or a few still cling to Charlie and are waiting for the revolution. These are the people you should talk to or observe.

And if anyone has contact with Mary Brunner, give her my best and tell her that I am glad Pooh Bear turned out a happy young man that looks so very much like her.
===================================================================
I asked Jenny, the following question, via email last night:
"Are you by chance, the same Jenny, who phoned-in to the Paul Watkins interview years ago?".

Her response:

Nopes. The only call I made was in....approximately 1992....to the prosecuting attorney (cannot recall his name now but was put in contact with him when I tried calling Bugliosi's office) to tell him about the time that Clem woke me up close to dawn when we were at the "other" mountain hideaway that I have read no one mentioning, and had me follow him and help bury a machete under a tree. I did not ask questions (one did not ask Clem questions) and I worried for years that this had been used in a murder. So I called to reveal this.

I do not know even know about the call-in to a Watkins interview - or the interview itself. All this was such a long time ago and I have a rich and full life. Just had some time tonight and decided to see if there was still anything online about the family....

By the way, I gave the information and was asked to call back in a few days. When I did, I was told that there were no murders suspected by family members where a machete had been used and he suggested that it was a 'test' to see how I would respond. Who knows? Maybe. It still bothers me.

122 comments:

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thanks Jenny!

The blogs have a word count maximum (for the comments section)... so, long posts just won't stick, no matter what you try.
That (I'm assuming) was the problem.
I generally have to post my longer comments, in 2 to 3 pieces.

Also, the "comment moderation" is currently engaged for non-members... so, comments aren't posting immediately for new visitors.

Best Regards... Lynyrd

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary, Carol and Jean Harlow... please contact me, if you'd like to be added to the membership list.
My email is listed in the sidebar.

Members are not subject to comment moderation, and their comments post immediately, as usual.

Kimchi said...

(((Jenny)))

Welcome! Thank you for all the insight!

I've read Onyja's book at least 3-4 times, it's one of my favorites...I have so many questions for you, I don't know where to start!

In the book, she stated she reunited with you in Joshua Tree - is that where you were from?

The mountain hideaway - was that in the Lake Arrowhead area? I remember reading an article long ago where the police found a gun by the side of the road up there and it was traced to the family.

Did you know the folks at the Lancaster house where the Rice kids were found?

Kimchi said...

Lynyrd... this is exciting!!!!

I am beside myself.....

katie8753 said...

Hi Kimchi! Welcome Jenny!

I'm gonna just sit back and relax for a while and listen to you gals talk. I'm going to learn a few things tonight. LOL.

Venus said...

Hey Lynyrd, I thought I was already a member of the blog, but last night I noticed my posts needed to be approved. I think one disappeared into cyberspace, LOL Just let me know if I need to contact you again. :-)

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Venus,

I sent you a new invitation.
Just click the link, and you're all set.

Kimchi said...

Hi Katie!

Jenny, if you're reading this, "Joeys" book was more of a religion based book, there were about 7 chapters dedicated to the "Family" part of her life, the rest (which I haven't read)was how she got Jesus into her life.

The cave you spoke about, was this the "Hippie Caves" just outside of Independence? I believe these were homes to the refugees from Manzanar during WWII, if they are the same.

Did you ever meet Charlie?

katie8753 said...

Kimchi, you just blow me away. Your knowledge of this case astounds me!!!! :)

Jenny, I'm looking forward to your replies!!! You can give us some new information that we've been thirsting for!!!

Jenny, thanks so much for coming to the blog. We look forward to sharing with you!!!

Okay, I'll shut up now and let folks talk. HA HA.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Jenny mentioned that she was currently abroad... (in another time zone)... and very tired.
She may not answer any questions tonight.

I hope to see her tomorrow...

Kimchi said...

You're right Katie - she is bringing new knowledge about the case..instead of us dredging up old stuff looking for new mysteries...LOL

She has a point about the diggings at Barker and Spahn...LE might have reopened that part of the case looking for that couple's baby that was actually with CPS...I wonder what happened to Baby G.

katie8753 said...

You guys ROCK!!

You are the "bee's knees". HA HA.

I'm going to bed now. Can't wait to see what y'all say tomorrow.

Night night!!! Heavenly pillows fill your dreams!!! Love ya!

Matt said...

it wasn't the dark place "Onjya" describes (other than when TJ, Clem and Bruce were around)

Jenny, this part fascinates me. Can you elaborate? What sort of 'darkness' did those three bring?

leary7 said...

the notion that there was a "light team" and a "dark team" surrounding Manson has always intrigued me, Matt. Clearly Ella Jo and several others enjoyed the free love family life but wanted nothing to do with guns and knives, as it seems was the case with this Jenny too. Those who resisted the peer pressure to buy into Manson's death trip are the ones who fascinate me. Of course, we could argue till the cows come home which one Linda belonged to and others as well.

katie8753 said...

Jenny, thanks so much for sharing all this. I'm finally speechless and that takes some doing. :)

I have lots of questions but will only ask a couple now.

I know you didn't know Charlie but did you ever hear anyone mention that he ordered the murders? And why?

You asked why we are so interested in this case. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I was a teenager when this happened and it changed my whole way of looking at the world.

On August 8, 1969, life was good. California was the place to move to. It was all surf's up, blond hair, Sandra Dee, Beach Boys, fun in the sun, happy sunny days.

Then the next day all that changed..forever.

I guess I just want to know why it changed.

Jenny, thanks so much for taking the time to share your memories with us!!!!

Jenny said...

Thank you for the explanation, Katie. I was so wrapped up in how this impacted me personally that I had not realized that others, even those not associated directly or closely to it, might also have been affected.

How about the rest of you? I bared my soul here last night and tonight; will you please tell me why you are so interested in this long-ago phenomena?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Jenny.

Thanks for sharing your story and memories with us.
Your time, effort, and interest are all very much appreciated.

Thanks for visiting our blog!

Very Sincerely... Lynyrd

leary7 said...

jenny, all I can say is that anyone truly interested in human nature and group dynamics would likely have an interest in the Manson story. Yeah, maybe some are into it for the crime and blood and nasty stuff, but others like me see it as a story that truly represents the times.
Let me put it this way...I was reading a bio of William F Buckley this weekend in which he was in despair in the early 60's over the liberalization of America. Now we all know how Vietnam and the assassinations and such propelled the country to the right ending with the Nixon landslide and eventually the Reagan revolution. Point is, it is NOT a farfetched or ridiculous contemplation to ponder how much of a role the two-bit con man Manson played in ending the 'free love' Woodstock era. Charlie illuminated the dark side of nihilistic living for sure. I seriously doubt commune living was ever the same.
The simple fact is that the Manson story IS BOTH FASCINATING AND IMPORTANT from both an anthropological and sociological perspective. I mean the Bundy and Dahmer and Gacy stories are not, those are just tales of singular depraved monsters. But the Manson story has so many levels and compelling characters.
Some people are obsessed with the Lizzie Borden tale, others with the JFK assassination, and so on. The Manson story is an intellectually compelling tale. I have never felt the need to apologize for my interest in it. Though I have had to explain my interest on many occasions. Just part of the game.
By the way, like the others I want to thank you much for contributing. It is always exciting to hear from someone who was there.

TomG said...

In 1969, you had 3 television channels to choose from. ABC, NBC, CBS.

At 6pm, you watched local news. At 6.30pm, you watched national news. Our family watched Walter Cronkite. Back then, if it were on tv, you believed it was checked out and true.

Everyone I knew talked about this case. To me, it changed everything. Hippies and middle class white girls had become killers.

Some said, see, they're evil and no good. Others said, no, it is the goddamned times that made them be this way. Its a taste of your own medicine.

But with My Lai and the Moon landing and the Manson Killings and Miracle Mets, 1969 was a year like none other.

leary7 said...

true dat, Tom, and you left out the monumental happening of my losing my cherry to Boobsie Cooperstien that year.

But more seriously, I was part of a fledgling commune up in New Hampshire in the mid-seventies and the townsfolk ran us out of the area screaming "we don't want no fuckin Mansons here". TLB most definately colored the far left in darker tones.

Kimchi said...

Thanks for answering all my questions Jenny -

I became interested because a family member (of mine) is involved in a cult... while doing research on cults, a relative sent me a Manson book...

The more I read, the more I realized this happened in my back yard (so to speak) but I was so sheltered in 1969 I did not know it.

There are a lot of questions raised about this case... seems like there are holes that can't be filled in... there is no doubt of who committed these heinous crimes, but there seems to be endless questions of why...

I keep wanting to walk away from it but something always draws my interest back..

katie8753 said...

I remember back in December of 1969, we finally found out who committed the murders.

At first I just didn't believe it. Such ordinary looking every-day girls couldn't do something like that.

Then as the reports came out about their conduct and the way they followed after Manson and did everything he did like he was the Pied-Piper, the sinister nature of this "family" became crystal clear.

It was just plain scary, even if they were locked up.

TomG said...

For me, this was the crime of the 20th century. It may have been just a drug hazed, botched home invasion as Susan Atkins and Marlin Marynick suggest.

We understand there are criminals who do terrible things and we all want them put away for life.

But when people from your own walk of life become criminals, you need to understand why.

katie8753 said...

Kimchi mentioned in the thread she previously did on this subject that Erutan was "Nature" spelled backward. HA HA.

>>Jenny said: No, I never met Charlie because I had no ID at the time and would need it to get in. But that did not stop me from feeling a deep attachment to him and idolizing him, and buying into the story about the revolution about to come down. I lived among those who worshiped him and spouted "Charlie says..." constantly. I loved (some of) these people. I believed in their belief. All very text-book cult stuff really.>>>

That's amazing stuff. So you WERE discussing a "revolution coming down". Helter Skelter????

Bruce & Clem were scary....that's not surprising at all.

And Clem told you to bury a machete? I think that these guys were involved in a WHOLE lot more than we know about or they were charged with.

bobby said...

Jenny said: "but I wonder why you all are so interested in sussing all this out? It was a long time ago. It was a time and situation that ended up with a lot of people hurt badly - irreparably for some - both those who were murdered and those who took part in the murders. I only hope that time heals all those who survived, one way or the other".

I want to thank : Katie, Leary and Kimchi for their very personal answers to these questions. Very honest and sincere answers.

Thank you to Jenny for reaching out to the blog with her story and correspondence.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Bobby!!! Smoooch! :)

Jenny I thought it was very interesting about you not being able to look out the window on the way to the ranch so you wouldn't know where it was, and how you listened to the traffic at night to determine where the highway was.

That you left for fear of your life and hiked to the highway to hitch a ride.

That you really loved Charlie, someone you never met, and loved these people that you hadn't known very long. That you feared them. That you say you would have done anything for them and luckily, they didn't ask you to.

And most of all, that you just want to forget about that part of your life. That really helps me to try to understand that way of thinking and I appreciate your candor.

I don't totally understand it, but it's like a 25 watt bulb in a dark closet. Does that make any sense??

Anyway, I hope we hear more from you!!!

katie8753 said...

>>>Tom said: For me, this was the crime of the 20th century. It may have been just a drug hazed, botched home invasion as Susan Atkins and Marlin Marynick suggest.>>

Tom, I don't think it was a botched home invasion. I think the outcome was very specific and it was achieved. Charlie was ticked off and people lost their lives. Whether it was about needing money or just plain revenge. People paid with their lives.

katie8753 said...

>>>Kimchi said: There are a lot of questions raised about this case... seems like there are holes that can't be filled in... there is no doubt of who committed these heinous crimes, but there seems to be endless questions of why...>>>

You're right Kimchi. Every time someone comes up with an explanation of what they think the reason is, it's always explained away by other factors in this case.

None of this case makes any sense. One of the reasons it's so interesting. Not to say that we'll ever know why.

sbuch113 said...

Jenny,
My interest in the Manson saga began
in earnest after the book Helter Skelter hit the shelves in '74.
I grew up in Southern California and was a kid in the 60's. The Manson case was so huge there was no growing up there without at least being aware of it.


So I had heard quite a bit about the Manson Family before first picking up that book.
Reading it really grabbed my imagination.
But.......even then I felt key elements of the story were missing from the presentation.
It just didn't make sense.

From then on I've wanted to learn the untold how,why,when of the case.
For years I read everything I could find.
Then the internet came along and a wealth of information was at my fingertips.
Like your story......thanks for sharing it.

leary7 said...

just look at all the elements of the TLB story....sex, drugs, class warfare, racism, mind control, cultural anarchy, biblical based exhortations and so on. And then when you get into the speculation you have the mafia and drug burns and movie stars and music stars and motorcycle gangs and so on.
I have 'intellectual' friends who look down their noses at my interest in the Manson story, dismissing the tale as just dirty hippies gone mad. But I don't see how anyone with a curious mind can not be fascinated by what happened in August '69 and its aftermath.
It's just compelling theatre, damn it.

katie8753 said...

Leary, not to mention blood-sucking hairy-faced Sadie, goofy-eyed belladonnaed Tex, hairy chimp-eared Big Patty, Neighing Horsetoothed Leslie, Chinzilla-laden Linda, buck-toothed Clem, flat-faced thin-lipped Bruce and squaty-bodied squint-eyed Charlie, it's probably worth a theater encore. Double Bow. Roses for everyone.

HA HA.

katie8753 said...

I mean, how many killers are named "Bruce".

Charlie should have at least given him a pig latin name: uce-Bray.

Or better yet spelled scumbag backward: gabmucs.

HA HA HA.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi SBuch!
Great to see you...

sbuch113 said...

Thanks Lynyrd.....You always make me feel welcome.

MrPoirot said...

Jenny said:

"Nopes. The only call I made was in....approximately 1992....to the prosecuting attorney (cannot recall his name now but was put in contact with him when I tried calling Bugliosi's office) to tell him about the time that Clem woke me up close to dawn when we were at the "other" mountain hideaway that I have read no one mentioning, and had me follow him and help bury a machete under a tree. I did not ask questions (one did not ask Clem questions) and I worried for years that this had been used in a murder. So I called to reveal this"

Poirot replies:

Since you were not in the inner circle it appears that Clem was trying to scare you so bad you would never utter a word. However, Clem did similar things to Paul Watkins and Gypsy.


BTW, the Jenny Paul knew was the Jenny who travelled from LA to Independence to help Clem who had a court appearence there. This was after Charlie had been captured.

katie8753 said...

>>>Poirot replies:

Since you were not in the inner circle it appears that Clem was trying to scare you so bad you would never utter a word. However, Clem did similar things to Paul Watkins and Gypsy.>>>

What things Mr. P?

>>>BTW, the Jenny Paul knew was the Jenny who travelled from LA to Independence to help Clem who had a court appearence there. This was after Charlie had been captured.>>>

Thanks Mr. P.!!! That's what I was thinking too.

MrPoirot said...

Jenny said...
Thank you for the explanation, Katie. I was so wrapped up in how this impacted me personally that I had not realized that others, even those not associated directly or closely to it, might also have been affected.

How about the rest of you? I bared my soul here last night and tonight; will you please tell me why you are so interested in this long-ago phenomena?

January 19, 2012 8:32 AM

Poirot replies:

Because it is an epic story that is quite unbelievable yet it happened. I have seen people in these Manson blogs from Europe, Australia and South Africa. the story is world famous and always will be.

MrPoirot said...

Jenny were you witness to any of the times the Family did LSD? Did you ever meet George Spahn? What came into your mind when you heard that Squeaky tried to assassinate President Ford in 1975?

Jenny said...

Dear All,

Thank you for taking the time to give thoughtful responses to my question about why you are so engaged with the family. I do not have time now to respond as thoughtfully to both your explanations and comments and the new questions you've posed. I would like to some time but, with my schedule, it may be a while.

I have pasted your comments/questions to a doc so I can respond to the questions as I have time. I will then return here when I can and post my responses.

Jenny said...

Since contacting this forum, I have been forced to re-examine my memories and hone in on what is accurate in them as best I can after all these years of mostly avoiding thinking about them too much.

Today I was thinking about the morning Clem woke me and told me to "help him with something" - what I felt, how I responded then and possible whys.

I was already scared of him despite not sharing that fear with anyone. Like I said, he seemed to have no boundaries and that he was capable of doing anything without concern about morals. I felt he was capable of evil. So why did I go alone, out into the woods with him? Why did I help him bury a machete with the same casualness one might deal with the compost?

)Will finish this in another post as I am concerned about the word limit)

Jenny said...

I think it is probably typical in any cult(ish) situation where eventually one suspends their own beliefs to adopt those of the cult - and one acts then from those adopted beliefs, even if entirely foreign to the forsaken ones.

I was scared. I was scared that after burying the machete he was going to kill me and bury me, too. But I acted as if all was fine because (and this was a critical tenet of the family's - I am sure you have read it or heard members spout it in videos)we were told that our perceptions were not about what we saw but that they were only a reflection of ourselves. So, if I acted on my fear and refused, then I would be admitting that *I* was the one who had murderous thoughts and that I was the one capable of evil.

I know, I know - it makes little sense now. But I was still pretty shaky in my beliefs in the family at the time but still desperately wanted to be as they were (as I perceived most of them as being). I pushed my doubts and fears away, not only because "they only reflected myself" but because they got in the way of me being fully embraced and able to embrace these people (with few exceptions) that I admired and cared about. I wanted to be a part of - not just a witness to - the magic (and yes, there WAS "magic" of sorts - things that even today I cannot explain to myself from a vantage of age and distance from the events.

Not sure if any of that made sense but decided to share as I mulled this quite a bit today.

Jenny said...

When I first met the family, I met a few one day, a few more in a day or two... and they (always understand that Clem, Bruce and at times TJ are exempt from my favorable comments)had "open faces" - dilated pupils (no, not from drugs, there was very little drug use while I was with them)- the same type of wide-eyed look that makes babies so appealing. They had a sense of freedom in how they moved their bodies. They played, like children. They spoke, in some ways, as children might - convincingly because they were convinced - even if what they were convinced of might seem a bit outlandish at first.

And everything was very communal - we did not eat from separate plates: bowls of salad (from dumpster diving), rice, whatever we had, were shared when we sat in a circle, passing the bowl to the person next to us after taking a bite or two ourselves.

We did not have our own wardrobes. All the clothes were heaped in one room and you could wear whatever you found there. I was strung out on wearing Charlies embroidered vest for a few days. No one suggested I shouldn't.

There was no privacy - but I never resented that - inclusion was more rewarding than privacy. I felt part of a single unit rather than being a single unit by myself.

I liked all of that tremendously. I still do appreciate much of how we lived and have never found any others who live so "unattached" and unconcerned with the material.

So, in some basic ways, just the lifestyle meshed with who I was/am still.

From there, day by day, miracles and the high that accompanied witnessing and experiencing them, and the other things, the not so magical things, crept in slowly, began to meld together. I could not have one without the other. And I knew that I had changed and no longer could return (as easily, evidently:) to the world I had known and interact with it as if it were "real"

Jenny said...

Maybe I did not totally fit in to the family (there were things that concerned me greatly - one being "Clem and Rice's daughter") but I had to suspend acting on and eventually much even feeling those things in order to stay in the world that I then felt I fit into better than the world I had left behind.

Good night all

katie8753 said...

Jenny thanks so much for sharing what you can remember feeling during that time.

I've studied cult behavior to a degree and what you are describing fits exactly.

>>>we were told that our perceptions were not about what we saw but that they were only a reflection of ourselves.>>>

I've read this reflection stuff was said many times. In fact Charlie still said it in later interviews. I'm still scratching my head over what that even means.

Anyway, it's understandable to a degree how difficult it would be to get away from a cult and try to live in the world again because your way of thinking had been altered.

Did you overhear anyone discussing the murders and maybe share any info as to why these people were picked for sure? If you don't feel comfortable answering any of my questions, that's cool too.

Thanks again for sharing all this with us!!!

Jenny said...

No, Katie, I never heard anyone talk about motive or the murders directly. I can say that, during the time I was there, EVERYTHING centered around "helterskelter" - the revolution coming down. My assumption was/is still that the murders were somehow justified as part of this.

Jenny said...

Interestingly, although (of course)I never directly asked if anyone in the family was guilty or not, there was never any attempt to deny guilt made to me. Initially, when I thought these were just "nice people whose ranch had burned down" and there was a trial with some of them charged with murder, during that time I assumed that they must be innocent.

Then, after time passed and I began to believe in the revolution and that we truly were (gaggingly idiotic now) special and were to be the only "whities" allowed to survive, then I assumed that they had murdered these people but, in my warped way of looking at things then, that these murders were somehow justified and that these "whities" (as well as all others with the exception of us) were bound to die anyway.

Jenny said...

Now, knowing much more of the details than I did then, I speculate that the Tate murders were because Melcher had renigged on the recording agreement and Charlie wanted revenge - and a way to test to see just how far people would go for him, their love perhaps - or perhaps just how much power he had. Getting a bunch of hippy girls and guys, as someone mentioned earlier, who were mostly bright to cross a line that they probably would have never imagined themselves crossing - that is real power, isn't it?

Jenny said...

By the way, I told Lynyrd via email that I remembered whose toddler girl was with Rice's kids when I took G and left the ranch - she was Kitty's daughter (father Bobby). So this little girl could *not* have been Onjya's. I wonder how much other BS is in Onjya's account.

Jenny said...

Someone asked about Spahn Ranch:

I went to Spahn Ranch one time only as I recall - on my way to Barker when I was dropped off to stay with Bo and the children.

katie8753 said...

>>>Jenny said: I speculate that the Tate murders were because Melcher had renigged on the recording agreement and Charlie wanted revenge - and a way to test to see just how far people would go for him, their love perhaps - or perhaps just how much power he had.>>>

THANKS JENNY!!! This is exactly what I've been arguing about for years. The murders didn't have anything to do with drug burns or the victims knowing the killers. It was simply that Charlie was pissed and he wanted his "followers" to prove their love for him by exacting his revenge for him...and hopefully he was off the hook.

>>>I can say that, during the time I was there, EVERYTHING centered around "helterskelter" - the revolution coming down>>>

THANKS AGAIN!! Something else people argue about. This is PROOF that Bugliosi didn't make up "Helter Skelter", he only used it to convict Charlie.

katie8753 said...

>>>Jenny said: Then, after time passed and I began to believe in the revolution and that we truly were (gaggingly idiotic now) special and were to be the only "whities" allowed to survive, then I assumed that they had murdered these people but, in my warped way of looking at things then, that these murders were somehow justified and that these "whities" (as well as all others with the exception of us) were bound to die anyway.>>>

That explains a lot to me how the girls had gotten to the point that they would just kill complete strangers when Charlie said "sic 'em".

Jenny, how did you end up overseas, if you don't mind my asking?

Jenny said...

MrPoirot said...
Jenny were you witness to any of the times the Family did LSD?:

--We had some acid at the Duarte house but I think it was mostly for income purposes. One evening I was there alone and took some - and when everyone else came in, I think many others did, too. I think, because I was with the family during the trial, most of the relaxed 'fun and games' of how things were before the murders had been put away - the entire focus was the trial and Charlie.

Did you ever meet George Spahn?
--I met him briefly the one time I went to Spahn. I did not interact with him - I was only there long enough to take a bubble bath.

What came into your mind when you heard that Squeaky tried to assassinate President Ford in 1975?

--I didn't "get it", it made no sense to me. I had thought of Squeaky as being somewhat together and I also assumed that anything that one of the family members would do that was so extreme must have some relevance to either helping Charlie out in some way or contributing toward revolution. I was amazed that she seemed so amateurish in her attempt, too. None of it made sense to me.

katie8753 said...

Jenny one more question.

We can assume the Cielo Drive murder location had something to do with revenge against Melcher, even though he didn't live there anymore (like that makes sense...no sense makes sense...right?)

BUT...do you have any idea or knowledge of why the LaBiancas were chosen to die?

Jenny said...

Of the women, I bonded most closely with Mary. She was pretty open with me - asking me to help her to kidnap Pooh Bear, to get him back. She loved him tremendously. The plan never took much shape because, about the same time we were discussing this, I think the infamous trip to Hawaii and its psychedelic hamburger plan was hatched and then carried out. I did not know the plan - only that there was something important that needed to be done in Hawaii.

Jenny said...

I keep reading that Squeaky was Manson's rep while he was in jail - but I never got that impression myself. I saw Gypsy as definitely being the leader - even though she was a woman.

You see, part of the revolution was that "blackie" had been down so long and now (it was put somehow as if it was 'only natural') it was 'whities' time to be on the bottom. And that men were supposed to be on top, but that women had deviously taken that position and it was now time for men to be on top again.

It is a lame story when I think of it now but one family "lore" that guided us regarding women's place was,was a parable of sorts.

The story is pretty simplistic and not based on any sort of reality. I am trying to dredge it up...

In the beginning, woman served man and, as the story goes, every day man would tell woman, "Bring me a banana" and woman would. But then, one day, when man told woman to bring his banana, woman said she was so tired and man told her that she could sit in his chair and he would go get the banana. And that, since that time, woman never got out of the chair and man had been bringing home the bananas ever since. And this was to clarify why now (then), woman was to return to her place.

I know. I told you that it makes no sense to me now. Somehow, then, it did.

Jenny said...

katie8753 said...

That explains a lot to me how the girls had gotten to the point that they would just kill complete strangers when Charlie said "sic 'em".

--Yes, I actually have a lot of compassion for some of those women convicted as I know that, there but for the grace of god... Remember, at one time I realized that I would, if asked, do ANYTHING for Charlie - and when I had that realization, I understood that this meant murder. I am so lucky to have escaped being asked to participate in anything so outside of my ethics. I cannot contemplate now how I ever could have felt that way.

Jenny, how did you end up overseas, if you don't mind my asking?

-- I flew using a commercial airliner:) Seriously, I really do NOT want my past experiences to enter my life now in any way. Who I am now is radically different than who I was then and having my old experiences brought to light now would only hurt me and a lot of other innocent people. I no longer use the name Jenny (no I did not change it because of my past, but I appreciated that it distanced me from it, all the same) So please do not try to find out who I am now. I know that IP addresses are traceable and I assume someone has already checked. That is as much information about my current life that you will get from me.

Look - besides the notoriety and judgments against me that I do not deserve, there are still those loyal to Charlie (even those who never knew him and were never with the family - fans - who might feel that they would get Charlie's approval/attention by doing something to someone who (supposedly) snitched on the family. This is a slight but real risk. Please respect this.

katie8753 said...

Jenny thanks. I can certainly understand that there are things you won't talk about.

Thanks so much for what you have shared. It helps to listen to someone who was actually there and try to have a better understanding of what went down back then. :)

Jenny said...

katie8753 said...

We can assume the Cielo Drive murder location had something to do with revenge against Melcher, even though he didn't live there anymore (like that makes sense...no sense makes sense...right?)

--that is my thought - and that this anger Charlie had for Melcher opened the door for Charlie testing to see just how loyal his family was and how far they would go for him. But that is just my speculation. I do not know for sure. I wonder why none of those who were in the center of things and supposedly have now renounced their involvement with Charlie have not exposed these things? If they truly have come to their senses, wouldn't they naturally want to clarify what happened and why?

I think it is because people were involved in a lot more than is known about and that they don't want to open any windows that might somehow expose these things. Again, only speculation.

BUT...do you have any idea or knowledge of why the LaBiancas were chosen to die?

-- I do not know if there had been any prior involvement of anyone in the family with any of them or not. Maybe they were just chosen somewhat randomly because they were, in the rhetoric of those times, "pigs" because of their fortune and it was time for them to no longer be "on top". Maybe. I do not know anything more than you do about this.

katie8753 said...

>>>Jenny said: I wonder why none of those who were in the center of things and supposedly have now renounced their involvement with Charlie have not exposed these things? If they truly have come to their senses, wouldn't they naturally want to clarify what happened and why?>>>

Jenny I really wonder how much any of them really know? I think they were just told what they needed to know and not much else. That's just my opinion.

>>>I think it is because people were involved in a lot more than is known about and that they don't want to open any windows that might somehow expose these things. Again, only speculation.>>>

That's a real possibility too. We've discussed this previously on other threads.

>>>Maybe they were just chosen somewhat randomly because they were, in the rhetoric of those times, "pigs" because of their fortune and it was time for them to no longer be "on top".>>>

I can't help but think that Charlie chose the LaBiancas for a reason. I don't think it was random. I certainly don't know what that reason is. Again, it's only my opinion.

Jenny said...

katie8753 said...

>>>we were told that our perceptions were not about what we saw but that they were only a reflection of ourselves.>>>

I've read this reflection stuff was said many times. In fact Charlie still said it in later interviews. I'm still scratching my head over what that even means.

--like all cult tenets, there is a shred of truth in it. If one has read "The Five Agreements", one of those is to "not take anything personally" - meaning to neither take criticism nor flattery from others as 'truth' as their opinions are created from their own personalities / realities.

Example: Some people love me because I am outspoken and honest. And, equally, others hate me for it. Their opinions are based on whether or not, to some degree, they are intimidated by others being so sure of themselves (or maybe it *is* just that I can be overbearing:) -- or they are comfortable in expressing their own opinions - even if they differ from mine and we argue.

So who is right? Am I an overbearing woman or am I a woman of confidence? Better said and more familiar: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

So Charlie used a basic truth, presented it as a groundbreaking revelation, and tweaked it to also mean, subtly, if you criticize me or recognize what is wrong in what I say or do, YOU are the one who is wrong. A handy way to deflect responsibility and accountability, no?

Jenny said...

katie8753 said...
>>>Jenny said: I wonder why none of those who were in the center of things and supposedly have now renounced their involvement with Charlie have not exposed these things? If they truly have come to their senses, wouldn't they naturally want to clarify what happened and why?>>>

Jenny I really wonder how much any of them really know? I think they were just told what they needed to know and not much else. That's just my opinion.

--I disagree. Sure, there were those who were not in tight as others with Charlie, but I truly think that there were those - and my guess would be that these would include at least Gypsy, Mary and maybe Squeaky - who maybe did not have the rationale spelled out for them in detail but who know a lot more than they talk about. Charlie was in jail during the trial - do you think they were able to discuss the Hawaii plans with him - that he somehow directed these? No chance.

At some point, well before I met them, they had, I believe, stepped over the line from being Charlie's zombie slaves into being perfectly capable and most likely using his tenets to plan and execute crimes and murders without Charlie's involvement. I believe that those who were more privileged with information are those who could and most likely did commit these things both before and after Charlie was arrested - and very likely WITH Charlie while he was still out.

Mary told me, early on, that they allowed some of the people to turn state's evidence because they were more useful "outside" than they would be "in". She told me this in such a way as I took it as meaning she (and others) knew perfectly well what they had done but strategically, this made no difference, their usefulness was on the outside. That was all that was important

My understanding was - and I still believe - that there are people who participated in murders that never were charged or that charges were dropped.

Jenny said...

katie8753 said...

I can't help but think that Charlie chose the LaBiancas for a reason. I don't think it was random. I certainly don't know what that reason is. Again, it's only my opinion.

--possibly they were targeted because of a beef someone else - not Charlie - had with someone in the family for reasons unknown and Charlie, drunk on the high of what he had just accomplished by 'inspiring' the Tate murders... he had to try it again? Like you said, we will probably never know unless someone in the inner circle tells in the future.

I do know how powerful the "helterskelter" revolution stuff was in determining actions in the family so it could be, as we both have speculated, only a random choice of "pigs"*

*and I do hope it is understood that by calling the victims of this crime "pigs" I am only using the language of the time used by the family; I certainly do not hold that opinion myself.

Jenny said...

I have read speculation that the murders were done to bring on the revolution, to make it look as if they might have been committed by blacks so that the authorities would come down on them and the blacks would revolt and, ungracefully said,"the shit would hit the fan"

This is a possibility for sure. Reasoning was skewed in the family. Just as little children were deemed to be in no need of parenting because they already knew how to take care of themselves - and that we had to reject our parents because they only kept us down and from knowing our true power - lots of rhetoric that makes little if any sense to "normal" people but that, at the time, justified us doing things very outside the norm of what is acceptable. So speculation, even from me who was "there" is difficult. You have to have your reasoning skewed to attempt to come close to figuring it out. You all seem to have fairly rational minds. I have regained mine. We probably can't do it.

leary7 said...

Lynyrd, this is a fantastic coup, getting Jenny to share her memories and thoughts on here. For me it is the most exciting thing on the Manson blogs since I first started visiting a couple of years ago.
For those of us without a Manson library, is there any way we could get more context? Is Jenny referenced in other books besides the Onyja one? Was she still with the Family when Hawthorne happened or when Cumo and the AB guys started taking over? Funny that she includes TJ with Clem and Bruce as evil ones. I always saw TJ as more of a wasted idiot teddy bear type, not really capable of violence. Now I have to rethink that.
Thank you, Jenny, thank you, for adding some real excitment and insight into a subject that still fascinates many of us.

leary7 said...

of course I am going to have some serious egg on my face if Jenny turns out to be Saint or someone else playing a hoax. No offense Saint, just figure you to resurface in some dramatic fashion.
But I am sure Lynyrd is confident of authenticity and I trust his instincts so I will put my cynicism back in my lunchbox.

katie8753 said...

Leary I agree. Having Jenny relate conversations and their way of thinking back then has been SOOO interesting.

And yes I think she's the real deal. She knows way too many little details that I've run across before in lots of different places.

Kimchi said...

Leary, don't even go there..

She answered questions very few would know..logistically speaking.

Thank you Jenny for being so candid..

katie8753 said...

>>>Jenny said: Mary told me, early on, that they allowed some of the people to turn state's evidence because they were more useful "outside" than they would be "in". She told me this in such a way as I took it as meaning she (and others) knew perfectly well what they had done but strategically, this made no difference, their usefulness was on the outside. That was all that was important>>>

WOW. This blows me away. Mary spent so much time changing her story it was hard to know WHOSE side she was on.

>>>My understanding was - and I still believe - that there are people who participated in murders that never were charged or that charges were dropped.>>>

That's so VERY possible. I've always thought that there was more involvement with other members of the family. We know that Ruth tried to kill Barbara. Who knows what really happened to Ronald Hughes?

katie8753 said...

>>>Jenny said: --possibly they (LaBiancas) were targeted because of a beef someone else - not Charlie - had with someone in the family for reasons unknown and Charlie, drunk on the high of what he had just accomplished by 'inspiring' the Tate murders... he had to try it again? Like you said, we will probably never know unless someone in the inner circle tells in the future.>>>

I've always thought that was the theory that made the most sense. Someone wanted one or both of the LaBiancas dead. And Charlie knew how to carry that out.

Kimchi said...

I always heard the La Bianca stuff had something to do with Frankie Carbo or something...

katie8753 said...

You know Kimchi I've always wondered if the real target was Leno and Rosemary was just in the way...extra baggage to tie up loose ends so to speak.

Charlie spoke of a black book, but it's never been found that I know of. I'm not sure it even exists.

I don't think LaBianca had anything to do with drugs. It must have been something else.

Kimchi said...

Don't know...

I always wondered what Harold True really felt ---- I mean, if he felt he was a target of something...but the Carbo name keeps popping up from different sources...

leary7 said...

sorry Kimchi, didn't intend to offend. i've just been told that there have been "hoaxes" before and a bit wary that Lynyrd didn't give more of an intro/info than "just recieved this email 13 minutes ago". I'm still trying to understand the context of it all.
And yes, Jenny does seem real and is highly informative.

MrPoirot said...

Jenny you mention living outside the material world. That idea and style of living has forever fascinated me.

I am firmly glued to the material world with mortgages and and a career.

Jenny is there a way people like me can experience life outside the material world?? I see no way out of the rat race. How do you avoid a material lifestyle in today's world? Is it ridiculous for me to even dream that I can escape the material world?

Kimchi said...

Sorry to sound defensive Leary...

I do know what you mean, there have been 'posters around...

katie8753 said...

>>>Kimchi said: Don't know...

I always wondered what Harold True really felt ---- I mean, if he felt he was a target of something...but the Carbo name keeps popping up from different sources...>>>

Kimchi I don't think Harold was ever a target. I think it was strictly the LaBiancas.

And I don't think it was due to a "run-in" that Leno had with Charlie.

I don't know a lot about Carbo but I've read other theories that he was involved.

Connect Carbo to Leno...then you might have something.

katie8753 said...

Jenny I agree with you that Bruce and Clem were very creepy.

Just to look at them makes my skin crawl.

I've known for years that Clem was a child molester. He should never have been released. He should be a registered sex offender.

And Bruce should never get out.

Just looking at him in his parole hearings, he thinks he's above the law. So smug and trite. He's not fooling anyone with this "born again" crap.

I don't think he was the Zodiac killer, he's not that smart.

But I definitely think that Bruce was involved in Zero's killing and also Pugh's killing.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary said:
>>>>"i've just been told that there have been "hoaxes" before and a bit wary that Lynyrd didn't give more of an intro/info than "just recieved this email 13 minutes ago".<<<<

Hi Leary.

I've been very busy with several things as of late... not the least of which, is updating the blogs membership list... and working on an important thread with Starship... etc.
My brevity in the introduction of this thread (although very unusual for me I know, LOL)... is no cause for concern.
Jenny is legitimate... you have my word.

Truth be told... I'm very disappointed, that I haven't had more of a chance to interact with Jenny myself...

My participation has been much more superficial, than I would have liked...
Timing is everything, I guess...

I get the distinct impression, that Jenny was at the ranch post-arrests, i.e., after Manson and company had been arrested.
This is the time period (post arrests), when Hendrickson was running around with his camera, filming the now famous "Manson" movies.
I'd be curious to know... if per chance... Jenny ran into Hendrickson at all, during her brief encounter with the "family"?

katie8753 said...

((((((((((((((((LYNYRD)))))))))))))!!!

HA HA HA.

katie8753 said...

I'm just kidding. I know you're going everywhere but Sun-dee. LOL.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Speaking of updating the membership:

Venus and Dilligaf...
I emailed you both, a "google invitation"...

If you're interested in joining (becoming a member), follow the link, and cilck the appropriate button.

If you didn't receive the invitation... let me know.

Joining of course, is not mandatory...

Carol...
I'd love to add you to the list as well, but I currently have no email contact for you...

Sorry for the commercial interruption... LOL

katie8753 said...

Okay it’s after 10:00pm here, and my teddy bear is calling (ha ha), but I’d just like to thank Jenny again for opening up to us, a bunch of strangers, about her brief encounter with this group of people that we’ve been following and trying to figure out.

Her revelations have opened my eyes to a lot of things I didn’t understand. I guess I was one of the “mainstream” that knew there were rules and I had to follow them. I wouldn’t have done otherwise.

But there were others who rebelled in the 60’s and now that Jenny has opened up, it’s helped me to understand just a little of that.

Anyway, thanks so much Jenny for sharing with us. I sincerely hope that you remain with us in this blog and enlighten us in future threads with any knowledge you can share.

As Red Skelton always used to say “Good night and God bless”.

leary7 said...

all good Lynyrd, like I said, I trust your instincts on these matters and I hope to the heavens Jenny wasn't offended by my off the cuff remark. When I was involved in all that Oswald stuff decades ago I got burnt a few times so I still have inner wariness when insightful characters appear suddenly. Can you give us any sense as to why Jenny is commenting now? What prompted her to come forward? I am tickled purple she has, just curious why.

Kimchi said...

Leary said:

"Can you give us any sense as to why Jenny is commenting now? What prompted her to come forward? I am tickled purple she has, just curious why."

I believe it was because her name was mentioned in the Onjya Sipes thread...

katie8753 said...

Kimchi, you're right.

She said she was reading that thread and wanted to set the record straight.

This was a "one time" chance to ask questions to someone who was there. I hope everyone who wanted to know some answers was able to ask. :)

Jenny said...

Hello All,

leary7 said...
... Is Jenny referenced in other books besides the Onyja one?

-- I certainly hope not

Was she still with the Family when Hawthorne happened or when Cumo and the AB guys started taking over?

--I am not certain exactly when I moved in to the Duarte house - perhaps mid-late Sept 1970. I had taken baby "G" and was staying at my sister's home on Feb 9, 1971 when the San Fernando earthquake hit - so perhaps had left the family a week before.

Funny that she includes TJ with Clem and Bruce as evil ones. I always saw TJ as more of a wasted idiot teddy bear type, not really capable of violence.

--Sometimes TJ was fun and, at other times, he was as dark as Clem or Bruce. Wasted? Definitely not. He was very bright.

of course I am going to have some serious egg on my face if Jenny turns out to be Saint or someone else playing a hoax.

--I am not "Saint" (whoever they are) nor am I a hoax but I can understand how anyone might question my validity. I am sure these kinds of forums attract family wannabes and those who enjoy cyber-theater. However, I cannot (or rather, am unwilling to) offer any proof because that would entail providing strangers with the few material items I have from that time (and, as I am currently out of the US, would be impossible even if I was inclined). I did not come to this blog to "come out" - I was poking around Google a few nights ago with some time on my hands and decided to see what was online re the family. I saw reference to Onjya/Erutan and my name. I felt it would not be risky to clear up questions regarding what has been said that Onjya wrote in her book and to let you all know that "Jenny" did exist and who, in general, I was then. If my intention was to hoax you, I would provide much more lurid information . However, oddly, I feel that you all know more than I do and that what little I have to offer beyond clearing up who "Jenny" is (and Onjya's gross exaggerations and outright lies)is pretty much worthless.

Jenny said...

MrPoirot said...
Jenny you mention living outside the material world. That idea and style of living has forever fascinated me...Jenny is there a way people like me can experience life outside the material world??.. How do you avoid a material lifestyle in today's world? Is it ridiculous for me to even dream that I can escape the material world?

--Well, I would say that mortgages and a career would make that a bit challenging:) So, give up the mortgages, perhaps the career if you are not expressing your passion through it and believe that, if you truly want to, you will find your own way to be free of consumerism and its exhausting and all-consuming quest for having "stuff" and the false sense of security it provides.

There is a quote I love..."It costs so much to be a full human being that there are very few who have the enlightenment, or the courage, to pay the price.... One has to abandon altogether the search for security, and reach out to the risk of living with both arms. One has to embrace the world like a lover, and yet demand no easy return of love. One has to accept pain as a condition of existence. One has to court doubt and darkness as the cost of knowing. One needs a will stubbon in conflict, but apt always to the total acceptance of every consequence of living and dying."
~ Morris L. West, The Shoes of the Fisherman

So, if this is what you truly want, be willing to give it up, take the risk of living a genuine life, one that reflects your yearnings rather than expectations of others and of society.

I raised a family and had all the trappings that go with the territory. But I cannot tell you how absolutely liberating it was, once they had grown and were self-sufficient, to get rid of it all and narrow my life down into pretty much a couple of suitcases. I thought I would grieve the loss of my library and art, the antiques I had loved. But instead, I felt a remarkable relief. I was no longer "keeper of the stuff" and it was no longer keeping me. It is astounding how many of our decisions in life are made with getting or keeping the stuff in mind. Once one is free of that yoke, there is an entirely new level of freedom available to you.

But that works for me - and not everyone is as unattached to place/things as I am. Maybe your joy is derived from "home" and a stable community. Then, unless you really want to experience radical personal change, there is no reason to give it up and do what you one must to have it.

But I wish we would all stop feeding the monster of consumerism that is destroying our earth, warping our priorities, and has put us in the current situation we're in where so many are slaves to corporations who, for the most part, are without conscience and are willing to bleed anyone and anything dry to make the wealthiest more wealthy. So, for a start, perhaps just consider if you really 'need' something before you buy it. If you have more than you need, give it away or sell it to finance fulfilling a dream (yours or another's)

But who made me guru? I am neither (the mysterious)"Saint" nor a guru. I am pretty satisfied with my life, though. I can appreciate beautiful or useful things without having to own them myself.

Jenny said...

katie8753 said...
Jenny I agree with you that Bruce and Clem were very creepy.

I've known for years that Clem was a child molester. He should never have been released. He should be a registered sex offender.

--How have you known this, Katie? I only witnessed his "inappropriate" contact with Rice's daughter. And as I recall, at the time, even though I was uncomfortable with it, I believe Rice knew and I had thought that there is no way any papa would allow anyone to hurt their daughter in that way. (yes, I was naive) And, I do not know for sure what happened inside that sleeping bag. So tell me more about what you know about this please.

And Bruce should never get out.

I agree fully. There was not, in my opinion, one shred of human decency in him. I believe in personal redemption (and certainly not always from the perspective of religion) but one must be accountable to the harm they have caused first - and truly remorseful. I have not seen, now would I believe that possible, from Bruce.

It amazes me that Clem was freed.

And I also have a difficult time accepting Gypsy's conversion, too.

There are personalities who, at core, are devoid of genuine compassion and conscience, and that I believe are incapable of changing their innate nature without, perhaps, years of intense therapy. Those listed above, of the members I met, are in that category -- with the exception, possibly, of TJ. But when I saw the talk-show video of him and some others, I see he is still a staunch supporter of Charlie. How can one support him and be his friend and have any remorse for all those whose lives have been lost or turned upsidedown by him? I cannot fathom...

Jenny said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I get the distinct impression, that Jenny was at the ranch post-arrests, i.e., after Manson and company had been arrested.

--Yes.

This is the time period (post arrests), when Hendrickson was running around with his camera, filming the now famous "Manson" movies.
I'd be curious to know... if per chance... Jenny ran into Hendrickson at all, during her brief encounter with the "family"?

--I *think* I may have met him one time. The family was engaged in a video at the time, I know. They would talk about going here or there for it. One night, someone brought in a reel-to-reel recording device (or did it belong to my friend, the man who was actually purchasing the Duarte house? He was a musician and into all the paraphernalia associated with that so possibly) and the family was recording Charlie's songs for the video. I sang along on a couple of the songs that were recorded. "I'll never say never to always..." and "Far,far down in Arkansas..."

katie8753 said...

Hi Jenny.

Clem was arrested in June of 1969 for exposing himself to a group of school children.

I believe his later excuse was that he forgot to "zip up". LOL. I don't believe anything he says. Clem just creeps me out.

MrPoirot said...

Jenny if you remember early in the 1969 film "Easy Rider" there is a scene where Peter Fonda removes his watch and throws it on the ground before he and Dennis Hopper set out on their cross country motorcycle trip. That scene was filmed near Golar Wash not far from where you turn off the paved road to go to Barker Ranch in Death Valley.

Thanks for your explanation of materialism. I see now the significance of Peter Fonda tossing the watch. Time is part of the materiel world. It is fascinating that there is another reality we can exist in besides the rat race. It is another of the strange coincidences that occurred near the Family. While Manson is at Barker Ranch the movie "Easy Rider" is being filmed nearby. If you remember the gas tank on Peter Fonda's Harley is painted like the American flag. Inside the gas tank is the huge money stash they scored from the drug deal that financed their escape from the rat race. The gas tank symbolized American materialism. Easy Rider" is about escaping the rat race and materialism.

Interestingly, the movie teaches that life isn't about escaping from working our entire life. The movie teaches that work IS our life. Remember Manson's famous statement: if you stop trying to escape you will find you aren't a prisoner any more.

I still think it is great to day dream about being young and carefree again. We all want to be free but we have things we must do in life.

MrPoirot said...

Jenny I get the impression that a day came when you had to return to the material world you had just left. Can you remember that day? I also get the impression that another day came when you once again escaped from materialism for your second adventure in the land without time.

Jenny said...

MrPoirot and Katie,

By your responses to my reply to MrPoirot's question about "giving up the material life", it seems you did not read my response well.

Let me reiterate:

***So, if this is what you truly want, be willing to give it up, take the risk of living a genuine life, one that reflects your yearnings rather than expectations of others and of society.

This was written specifically to MrPoroit who seems to yearn for something else but feels held back by mortgage and career. I was responding to that tone of wistfulness. And note, I began with: "If this is what YOU truly want".

I never said I did not (or do not) work. I have nearly always worked and am working now.

I also wrote:
***"I raised a family and had all the trappings that go with the territory. But I cannot tell you how absolutely liberating it was, once they had grown and were self-sufficient, to get rid of it all and narrow my life down into pretty much a couple of suitcases. I thought I would grieve the loss of my library and art, the antiques I had loved. But instead, I felt a remarkable relief. I was no longer "keeper of the stuff" and it was no longer keeping me. It is astounding how many of our decisions in life are made with getting or keeping the stuff in mind. Once one is free of that yoke, there is an entirely new level of freedom available to you.

-- Of course raising children as a responsible parent means providing for them and that often means doing things we would not prefer. And kids seem to need lots of "stuff". I recall laughing a few months after the birth of my first child about how I had been able to live life out of a backpack but now this tiny little being required a house to hold all their needs.

cont...

Jenny said...

...
I am not talking about hedonism or selfishness when I speak of breaking the chains of materialism. I am speaking about spending a large percentage of our precious time on earth, doing things we would never choose to with that precious time, and only so that we can have lots of "stuff" or to feed a false sense of security that sometimes "stuff" can bring to us. I regret now that I slipped so much into that myself when my kids were at home. It was ok when they were toddlers for them to wear funny little hippy clothes I made for them or things from the thrift store and they didn't have to contend with peer pressure and fitting in. But when they were older I wanted them to feel included - to fit in. And I went too far with it, I think now. I became as infatuated with the "stuff" as anyone else. And I did not give it up again until my kids were gone and I was faced with a compelling option that I could not take advantage of unless I got rid of the stuff.

It was either stick with the stuff and the comfort I had then or give it up and be allowed to follow my passion.

I work now - probably longer hours than most of you. But I only accept a very small salary. I have enough to meet my basic needs and that is all I need. I do not need more "stuff". So I have a life where my passion is fulfilled, shelter, enough to eat and that is plenty enough for me. I am very happy.

And see what I also wrote:

***But that works for me - and not everyone is as unattached to place/things as I am. Maybe your joy is derived from "home" and a stable community. Then, unless you really want to experience radical personal change, there is no reason to give it up and do what you one must to have it.

I am no one's leader except my own. I do not have anyone else's answers. I can only say that, if one really wants it, they can (at least eventually) find a way to escape the binds of materialism. I know because I have done it - despite it, at the time, causing me to feel vulnerable and scared. I usually can step beyond those fears now when I encounter them because I have learned that usually they are not really warranted; that life can be fine, better even, when one takes leaps into the unknown when passion (not romantic) beckons.

I am not judging anyone else here. I was asked so I answered. That's all.

I am leaving this forum but will stay another day so that if anyone has any questions specific to my time with the family, I can try to answer.

Jenny said...

Katie

It seems your post that I responded to in my last post has disappeared.

katie8753 said...

Jenny I'm tired.

I said things that I don't want the world to hear...same as you. It doesn't have anything to do with anything other than health problems.

Let's just let it be. Love you much. I wish you well!!!

Thanks for coming to us with this knowledge.

I for one am blown away.!!

I hope you stay with us!

It's getting cold here. I'm going to bed.

Night!!!

Jenny said...

Katie

So sorry you have health issues.

I only noted that I had been responding to you, too, because without your posts up, others would wonder what the hell I was talking about.

I do not have the time or inclination to remain fixated on a part of my life that was such a long time ago. It was, from the viewpoint of "now", a moment of my life - one that certainly had its influence to change and shape me into who I am today - but also a time that disturbs me to contemplate for long. Participating in this thread, dredging up old memories in order to try to answer your (everyone's) questions, caused me a few nights of insomnia with memories flooding my head and mullings about how I got there and why I left. It was good, I think, to open this up and purge some of it. But my life is so much more than that brief time and is so full in such a satisfying way. Reruns of my past interfere with my joy now. That is why I am leaving - that and I probably have exhausted what little information I had to provide. Thank you for the invitation though:)

Take care and be well <3

MrPoirot said...

Bravo Jenny. Thanks so much for spending a few days with us. You have a knack for intriguing us with your writing.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Jenny!!!

You are the light that brings us back!

I hope you come back to us!!

I understand if you can't:)

beauders said...

jenny just to let you know t.j. died in a firey car crash, i believe in the mid 1990's---still loyal to manson he and his wife took their kids to visit manson in prison quite a bit. manson to this day considers tj to have been a true friend, among many imposters. also you're not jenny gentry are you, you are a different jenny?

katie8753 said...

Hi Beauders.

I believe this Jenny to be the real deal.

She said that TJ was a true blue friend to Manson.

She didn't know he was dead.

Manson betrayed TJ at Crowe's house. He wasn't TJ's friend.

katie8753 said...

Manson wasn't a REAL friend to anyone.

fiona1933 said...

I think Jenny might like to know that one of the reasons for studying this case is to get a handle on how things like this happen, and why some people will just, very stupidly, say: "They must have been evil! I am a good person, I could never have gone to kill on someone's orders!'
That's the official, Bugliosi line, and I think it is crucial that the far more complex truth is understood: that this could have happened to just about anyone, that girls who'd been there two years and a girl who'd only been there a month all unquestioningly went along. Bugliosi arguments are absolutely dangerous. It's this belief, very prevalent in America, that people are the captains of their ships and masters of their souls that's helped lead to the current economic mess and also lets people cruelly step over the homeless.
People are not masters of anything. Even the most powerful people can be brought down. And believing that your well brought up middle class daughter could never ever fall into a commune like this and go and help kill a helpless pregnant girl is plain idiotic.
Jenny thinks her story is incidental and unimportant, and she could not be more wrong. She didn't even meet Charlie, she was never part of the Spahn Ranch scene. She was a peripheral outsider member, but she rapidly developed a 'love' and a 'belief' so powerful she thinks it could have led to her doing something bad, and only luck prevented that. Look how quickly she lost her own mind, own direction and independence! And she didn't even meet the big guru!
This is a very important contribution. It tells us that Charlie's influence was either: not that important and it was the group closeness that counted, or he was so influential he didnt need to even be there, or its a combination.

And we should think about this 'love' thing. They all of them talk about the deep attachments in the Family. The 'real love' they had found. Stephanie Schram loved them all after a few days. Ran away from her own family back to this.

What is wrong with Western families that they can't engender this closeness? Because it is very hard to imagine Chinese kids not getting enough love in their own families. I mean, as a general thing. Here it seems generation after generation of families that don't really love each other, so the kids of the 60s were off looking to make real families.

I once saw a programme called 'Yanomami Homecoming" about a tribal girl from the rain forest who'd been rescued by a New York guy, he married her and gave her everything, and yet she yearned to go back to her primitive home. She said everyone is lonely in white culture, we are all broken and pitiful. She said, I always remember this: "I think it is because they do not love their mothers". I saw a Chinese woman last night, it is Chinese New Year, toasting her mother and saying "Thank you mother, for taking care of me this past year" This is a woman of 26. Hw many of us do this?
I think the 'love' aspect of the Manson story is neglected and I think it is the real key.

fiona1933 said...

and leary, I don't believe anyone can be called Boobsie Cooperstein. Maybe this is the answer. Having a name like that would make me into a serial killer I am sure.

fiona1933 said...

And I so agree with Jenny about how great it is not to have stuff!

I never owned anything at all til recently when I moved into a flat that had no furniture and I had to get some. But I got it all from second hand website and people often just gave me extra stuff as well, and lots of things in my house I found by the side of the road and cleaned them up and repurposed them. 600 US$ has furnished my whole apartment including a 200 year old Chinese Cabinet and a Qing Dynasty dressing table. No need to have granite countertops and pure silk curtains and stuff! I found two big wooden pictures today and with some old books I dont want, I will make a bookcase. It's more fun and creative than getting some overpriced designer to do stuff for you.

Mr Poirot, it's great to do things this way! Then your attachment to anything is the nice feeling you get from rescuing something. Not because you are buying stuff for some 'status' you have to keep up. It's impossible for me to imagine letting mortgages and stuff hijack my one and only life.
It's amazing how little you need and how little it has to cost. You hardly need any money, really. When you want to move on, you can give your stuff away. People are always throwing away more.

Please, everyone, check out a thing called 5 regrets of the dying. It was gathered by a guy who works in hospices. Same 5 things kept coming up. Too late on your deathbed!

leary7 said...

sorry Fiona if you were offended, but honestly Boobsie is a nickname she embraced. I wonder if Clem embraced Scramblehead or others embraced their nicknames. I have no idea for example if people called Lynn 'Squeeky' to her face or if she hated it.
I had a chipped front tooth for years from a hockey stick in the mouth and guys would call me Chipper. I hated it and often fought because of it. NIcknames can be fun or they can suck. Boobsie for some reason liked hers.

katie8753 said...

Fiona thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I know that I would not have been one of those girls who followed Charlie, but it's simply because of the way I was brought up and it was my way of life. I would never have done anything to bring shame on my mother.

But those are the values that were ingrained in me because I was lucky enough to have a wonderful mother who taught me those values.

There were a lot of people back in the 60's who decided to "drop out" and I never understood that reasoning, even back then.

sbuch113 said...

My stuff.........
An old car, 2 fishing poles, 2 pair of shoes and all my cloths will fit into a medium size suitcase.

That's everything.

Me and my 2 dogs live with my daughter and son in law.
This is their computer.

I'm a longtime Dead Head road warrior.

katie8753 said...

Wow Sbuch. You're traveling light. HA HA.

I'm still paying for most of what I have. LOL.

Mrstormsurge said...

Jenny, thank you for coming here, sharing your recollections - painful as it was - and answering questions. As difficult as it was for you please know that you helped offer valuable testimony as to this incident and in this baby's opinion that is important if for nothing else to provide a record for the future and against those who would set the record erroneously for whatever reasons. God bless you in your future endeavors and peace be with you.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Stormy. Ditto what you said!!

Jenny we appreciate you coming by on your own volition to fill us in on some vacant areas. We will remember you fondly.

And remember....you're ALWAYS welcome here. :)

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Yes.
Thanks Again, Jenny!

Your visit was thoroughly enjoyed... and much appreciated by all.

Our Best Regards...

Very Sincerely... Lynyrd

beauders said...

i wasn't questioning if jenny was real, i just wonder which jenny she is.

fiona1933 said...

My goodness Leary, I am not offended! I was just trying to be funny. Unsuccessfully, clearly.
It's just an unbelievable name!

katie8753 said...

Sorry Beauders. I misunderstood what you were saying. :)

leary7 said...

I'm a dolt, Fiona. sorry.
but seriously, does anyone know if Lynn emjoys being called Squeeky?

Mrstormsurge said...

I can tell you fwiw that I've never seen her sign "Squeaky" or allude to herself in that name in her writings. IIRC she always signed "Lynn" or "Lynette."

Jenny said...

Hello All

Nice to pop back in after so long and to read your lovely comments. Thank you. I appreciate how kind you all have been and non-judgmental (at least to my 'face':)

A couple of things:

leary7 asked:

"seriously, does anyone know if Lynn emjoys being called Squeeky?"

I don't know if she enjoyed it but she was introduced to me as Squeeky and that is what I recall we called her.

I was thinking the other day - about how I know both the nicknames and actual names of all the family - and I cannot think of how I know both. I remember knowing both sets all along - but have no recollection of anyone saying to me "Hey, my name is _______ aka ______" Strange. But this is neither here nor there (or rather then or now:)

Kimchi - I am wondering if you would consider scanning and sending me at least some of the pages of Onja's 7 chapters (still cracks me up to find out she pulled 7 whole chapters out of a couple of week's time) I know, this is a request for a hefty amount of work from you...perhaps in weekly installments? A page or few at a time?

I ask because I live outside of the USA now and, from what I have seen the prices being for this 'rare' book, even if I was back in the USA, I could not afford to purchase it. I am - as you can imagine - Very Curious about what she has written.

If you're game, Lynyrd could give you my email address - IN PRIVATE, PLEASE! Thank you for considering it.

Cheers all

Sandy Raymonds said...

Hello again - Jenny here with another alias account. It's been a few years and I am living in the USA again and after doing a bit of poking around the net for current news on the family, ran into an interview Onjya gave a couple of years ago on another blog.

When I read it -- more fabrications -- I got as angry then as I am now. She is exploiting the Manson victims and the (then) young people whose involvement with Charlie altered the course of their lives forever. She is exploiting suffering to, it seems, make a buck (please tell me how that tripe she wrote can justify the ridiculous prices it sells for)and to gain fame within her Christian community. Does she ever realize the disconnect between her fabricated account and the Commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness".

Anyway, as I am now in a calmer place than I was when I was overseas and bogged down by months of grueling work, I have had time to mull through that time and my experiences better and have remembered more.

Because I am so appalled at Onjya's (continuing) exploitation, I am going to do whatever I can to correct her account.

One thing I remembered (and wonder how I could have forgotten) is that in addition to Dennis' kids found In the hidy-hole, the little girl also found there (age approx. 1 year) was the daughter of Kitty and Bobby.

TJ had taken me when we picked her up from Kitty (as I recall, at or near the Hall of Justice) and then we went to the ranch. That little girl was NOT Onjyas. Onjya and Erutan were long gone by then.

Last night, via Facebook search of Onjya's name, I found her current publicity agent (Reno Rez) and by looking through his friends list, easily found Onjya. The years have not been kind to either of us but she was still recognizable and is using her legal first name I had known her by when we hung out together as teens.

I requested friendship from both and wrote messages to both explaining who I am. To Reno, I told him that Onjya's account is highly fictionalized (something that, as an agent, I am sure is not welcomed news) and to Onjya, I told her who I am, reminded her of some experiences we shared as teens that only I would know so that she knows for sure it is me, and I told her of my disgust and that I am going to out her. As of now, neither Onjya nor Reno has responded or accepted my friend requests.

I have posted lots of response on The Manson Family Blog but even though I have been given notice that the moderators have seen it, they have not published it yet. They told me to send an email to one of the mods (which I did with no reply yet. Perhaps they don't believe me. Perhaps someone there has a dog in the race re Onjya's book and they don't want an expose' -- or maybe they are all just busy and checking some things out.

I will be going through my recollections more carefully over the next month or so and I may revisit some of the questions you posed to me when I was overseas. I want to make sure that the information I provided to you then is as accurate as possible.

If I can only get a hold of a copy of her book (PDF?) that I do not have to pay for (even if it was decently written fiction, there is no way I would ever contribute one $1 toward her profiting from this tale) I want to do a page-by-page response to her account.

As it is, seeing the price of her make-believe account (despite its dubious literary value)and that it is quoted in venues such as this when researchers are trying to piece together what really happened back then, it is not fair to honest seekers and to those who, in the future, will look back on this event once all witnesses to it have passed.

Sandy Raymonds said...

PS I no longer even remember the original alias I used for posting here nor the email addy I had. If you want to contact me you can find me (as Sandy Ramonds) on Facebook (you will know my profile when you see it, trust me) or you can write to me via my new (alias) email sandyrathome(AT)gmail(DOT)com

Sandy Raymonds said...

What happened to the post I wrote, previous to PS?

It relays to you that I am Jenny - now back in the USA - using this new alias and that I have read more excerpts from Onjya's fictional account and am eager now that I am back and no longer working at a very grueling job that took all of my time, to counter Onjya's falsehoods.

I also informed you in that post that I now recall clearly that the little girl (age approx. 1 year) was the daughter of Kitty and Bobby. I know because I remember going with TJ to pick up the baby from Kitty (and I think that was the first and only time I met Kitty) -- she was NOT Onjya's daughter.

Anyway, I am not going to try to repeat what I wrote in that first post in case it went through and I am just not seeing it posted here for some reason.

You can find me on Facebook under the (alias) account for "Sandy Ramonds" (you will know it is me when you see it) or you can write to me at sandyrathome on gmail.

Emily P Strange said...

Jenny again -- another alias -- still me.

UPDATE -- a few months ago I found Onjya (Joey / Jo Ann) on facebook and I messaged her to let her know who I was and that she knows that I know her account (re Devil's Dropout) is mostly fabricated. Her response? Immediately blocking me. Not a howdy, how's it been after being bff long before the Family bit. Ah well. I can blow her cover and it seems she's built quite a bit of low-level fame from her make-believe story.

At the same time I contacted her publicist and told him who I was (and what to tell Joey/Jo Ann so she would have no doubt it was me) and that her story - the book he is promoting -- is a lie. Result: Same thing. Not a word - he just blocked me.

Obviously those two don't want anything to interfere with their cash cow. I don't really care personally except there is so much unknown about those times and people who are doing serious research are taking her account as fact when, from the parts I have seen of it, it looks like mostly fairy tale.

Her contact with the family was very very brief. They shuttled her and Erutan and Shemyia off pretty fast when they realized how out of it and flaky they were. She has taken a bean and tried to build a mountain out of it. Beware