Wednesday, June 24, 2015

The Milky Way, The Corral Night Club in Topanga Canyon, and Ernie Knapp

Not much has been said about the little band Charles Manson started in late 1967. I only recall Charlie, Bobby Beausoleil, and possibly Paul Watkins, mentioning the little band they formed called "The Milky Way".  

I suppose the reason they never discussed it much, is because the group only played one night together. That one gig was played at the Topanga Corral (now long gone, it burned down)... but it had been a happening place in the 1960's.

It's said that Canned Heat, Neil Young, and Taj Mahal played there. It's also rumored that  Road House Blues by the immortal Jim Morrison was written about Topanga Corral.  Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda were regulars there. It's too bad it burned down in the 1970's. I missed out!

Ernie Knapp: "I played in a band with Charles Manson".
Charles Manson and Ernie Knapp (1969)
The following interview was submitted by a friend of the blog, named Viktor.
Thank You so much Viktor! This is so cool!

A guy by the name of Ernie Knapp (a session musician that played bass with the Beach Boys in concert during 1981-82) was interviewed (last year) by Sonny Vincent (a musician in his own right). 

During the interview, Ernie talks about being the bass player in a band with Charles Manson called "The Milky Way", which played one show at the Topanga Corral.

Side note: 

"The Snake Pit" was a seedy area in lower Topanga, built in a debris/flood basin during the 1920's.  In Ed Sanders book "The Family", he talks about the "Spiral Staircase"... a house that had slid off its foundation during a flood. According to Sanders, the DeGrimstons of the "The Process Church" owned or rented this place. Lots of bikers, homeless, druggies, hippies, and the Manson Family called this place home for a while in the late 60's.

Here is part of the interview by Sonny Vincent and Ernie Knapp:

ERNIE: Well, that was in the fall of 1967. I had been going to college down in San Diego for two years before that and I had just got kicked out for smoking pot. So I was back in LA at my parents’ house trying to figure out what to do next. My friend there, Bay Johnson, owned a couple of little houses and little shacks down in a place in Topanga Canyon called ‘The Snake Pit’. It was a real hippie area of little cabins and shacks and a few old houses across the coast highway from the beach, kind of in the river bed. That place is all gone now. It all got wiped out in a flood.

SV: What was it called? The Snake what?
ERNIE: The Snake Pit.
SV: The Snake Pit. OK, sorry I have a problem with this microphone. OK, got it…
ERNIE: Yeah, Bay had bought these little houses ‘cause he had a bunch of hash that his brother had smuggled into the country and anyway that’s another story. And he was renting them to these two musicians, Desi Nod and Johnny Riggins, who were guys that were like 5 years older than me, who were like my idols, you know? They were in the big bands around west LA at that time and even going back into the early 60s. And so I had played with them. I was just kind of starting to play the guitar. I had got to play with them a couple of times and was excited about that and, anyway, when I got into LA in 1967 they took me down there to visit them. And this guy Charlie had just came down from San Francisco in this big yellow school bus and he had like 5 or 6 girls with him in his bus and Bay was all… getting with the girls…real cute girls…and Charlie moved into this biggest house down there in The Snake Pit. And then it turned out that Charlie met these guys, these musicians, and they decided to start a band. So they introduced me to him and told me they were looking for a guitar player and would I like to audition. So I went down there the next day.
SV: So he was actually auditioning people?
ERNIE: Yeah.
SV: (laughs) OK.
ERNIE: So I went down there the next day and walked into Charlie’s living room. It was Charlie and his whole clan. He also had a couple of real gnarly kind of biker dudes with him who were not very nice at all. In fact, when and while I was setting up, one guy pulled a knife on somebody else and Charlie had to stop a big fight. So it was a little tense. And I was nervous. I was set up in that living room with people in a big circle all around me, getting ready to check me out. I had learned the night before… you know that song, that was brand new back then… that Cream song that goes tatataratata ta?
SV: Oh, yeah, ‘Sunshine Of Your Love?
ERNIE: Probably the most cliché lick in all history of music now, you know? Now people play it as a joke. So, anyway, I played that and they liked it. They said, “OK, yeah, you can be in the band.” We had one rehearsal and the rehearsal was really intimidating too ‘cause they brought in some other keyboard player from Malibu who I didn’t know and who was not very nice. The two older guys I knew, Johnny and Desi. They were pretty nice to me. And Charlie was OK. But I was really intimidated, you know, so I wasn’t playing very assertively. The biker dudes started hassling me at the rehearsal. I remember Charlie stood up for me. I was twenty years old and the guys in the room were probably thirty back then. Charlie said, “Hey, the kid is nervous but give him a chance and he’ll be fine.” So I relaxed and then it was good. We learned, uh, like 8 songs and about half of them were Charlie’s and his songs, you know, were weird. They were kind of old fashioned jazz chords and real meandering progressions that didn’t go really anywhere. Knowing more about him now, I could kind of imagine how he would have all day to sit around in his cell playing the guitar, you know? [*Sonny’s note: I have listened to many recordings of Manson’s music and I like it.]
SV: Sure, man.
ERNIE: You know, everybody were good sports and figured out parts of the songs and we could play them. Then we learned a few standards rock and blues songs that everybody knew. We wind up a couple of days later and auditioned at The Corral which is a club high up in Topanga Canyon. At that time, it was a full-on redneck bar.
SV: So you guys …cool….this is getting way more detailed than I hoped. I thought you merely kind of jammed a couple of times but you auditioned and then you were accepted as a member of Charlie Manson’s band? Now you guys are together and going for an audition at a club. Jesus, Ernie!!
ERNIE: (laughs) Yeah.
SV: Wow, OK.
ERNIE: We went up there in the afternoon and Charlie was gonna call the band ‘The Solar System’. But anyway…
SV: Hey, Ernie, were you guys like all mega stoned and everything at this jam sessions and rehearsals and all?
ERNIE: There were people smoking pot and stuff but it was pretty business-like as far as getting some songs together and going up and playing.
SV: So you seriously were putting a band together. That’s an amazing part of your history, Ernie!
ERNIE: So we went up and set up in the bar in the afternoon and played for the owner and, you know, some other kind of barfly guys hanging around. It didn’t go over at all with them. This was a country western bar.
SV: Hey, Ernie, can I stop for a minute just to crosscheck the tape. I wanna make sure we are rolling good…so we are rolling. So this redneck country bar…
ERNIE: Yeah. And our band was not received well and they kind of told us to get the hell out of there. So we all left. And literally a couple of days later I moved up to Mammoth. My cousin had just gone up there and gotten a job.
SV: Where is that? Mammoth?
ERNIE: Yeah, Mammoth Mountain. A ski resort up in the Sierras.
SV: Ah, OK.
ERNIE: And my cousin had gotten a job as a bus boy in this big fancy restaurant right at the ski lift and said there was an opening. So I went up there and I had a great time. I became a ski bum for like two months.
SV: So you guys did the audition at the country bar and then you split town?
ERNIE: Yeah.
ERNIE: And then I moved straight from Mammoth to Santa Barbara to get back into college ‘cause I had gotten my 1A draft notice. So I had to hustle. I got back into UCSB for the spring quarter which got the draft off my back. Then I was just living in Santa Barbara and, actually in my recollection, that’s where later, it was around 1969 I think, when everything blew up with Charlie. Where I was…I think I was walking into the Student Union at UCSB and saw, you know, the LA Times in a news rack with his face, you know, covering the whole sheet, the whole page. I just went, “Holy shit!! Uhh…Charlie!!” My feelings about it, even at that time, it was…it was creepy in the way the people were with Charlie and the way he was with them. It was very manipulative and it was real uncomfortable for me.
SV: Ah, so I got the part right about the newspaper but the location was different. OK. So, you noticed something, even in the early times when you first met Charlie, it was not like what you will encounter with people who are more in harmony with each other. You clearly saw something that was somehow out of balance, eh?
ERNIE: Definitely, and plus he had these evil guys with him too, you know? They really were menacing. I mean, they were thugs. The whole deal in that era…there were a lot of little communes and little hippie groups trying to set up their little places, you know, all over the place…up in the mountains and everywhere you went. And a lot of them…well, Charlie really plugged into people. Everybody was really trying to be more hip than each other, and it was like “I can be freer than you, I can be more free of all this square bullshit than you”, you know?
SV: Uh huh.
ERNIE: He kind of got people, I think. It’s just my own little theory , you know, that was part of how he keep pushing everybody with him to be wilder and I guess ultimately do what he wanted.
SV: Ernie, that’s all amazing.
ERNIE: I didn’t go back to LA much and I never did see him again, but I did hear stuff later through my playing with The Beach Boys. He had a lot of interaction with The Beach Boys and, in particular, Dennis Wilson. Yeah, one day a couple of Charlie’s girls were hitchhiking and Dennis picked them up. That’s how Charlie first met Dennis. They all moved into Dennis’s house and later The Beach Boys actually, you know, recorded a song that Charlie wrote!
SV: Yes, I know that. That’s pretty crazy. And it’s also weird that you wind up playing with The Beach Boys. This is like some kind of weird crossing the universe, you know what I mean? [*Sonny’s note: That’s weird, way fuckin’ weird.]
ERNIE: Yeah! But, you know, but….the theory that I kind of believe in is that Bruce Johnston’s good friend Terry Melcher, Doris Day’s son, was a big music producer in those days. And somehow The Beach Boys got Charlie hooked up with Terry Melcher to produce Charlie and then the whole deal fell through. Charlie was real disappointed and Terry Melcher used to live in the house that Charlie attacked.
SV: Yeah, the Polanski house. Yes, I know the story really well. That’s why it’s so intriguing to me.
ERNIE: Yeah and it’s just…God, how horrible, you know?
SV: Yeah, how weird. Hey, Ernie, let’s get away from Charlie for a moment before we start entering people’s houses and what not, you know?
ERNIE: (laughs)
Ernie with Carl Wilson
To read and LISTEN to the entire interview, go here:


Excerpted from Ed Sanders' book, page 29

Bobby Beausoleil - Oui Magazibe Interview - November 1981

ALB: Were you living at Gary Hinman's at the time?

BB: No, I wasn't living with Gary. I had stayed with him previous to that. I joined a band, The Milky Way, that Charlie was in. That's how I met him. He was a very talented songwriter good musician, lyrically, just excellent. 
He was somebody with an incredibly intense, vivid, expanded imagination because of all the time he's done.


LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thank You Kimchi and Viktor.
This is a great thread.

I really enjoyed this...

katie8753 said...

Thanks Kimchi & Viktor! Interesting reading. It amazes me to read descriptions of all the hippies that were hanging out in CA in the 60's. What money was Charlie using to pay rent on that house I wonder.

He also had a couple of real gnarly kind of biker dudes with him who were not very nice at all. In fact, when and while I was setting up, one guy pulled a knife on somebody else and Charlie had to stop a big fight. So it was a little tense.

Why would anyone want to live like that????

katie8753 said...

That guy didn't like Sunshine Of Your Love? That's a Cream classic, with Eric Clapton and Ginger Baker. A classic song from the 60's!

katie8753 said...

Who was Charlie's drummer anyway? All I hear about it guitarists.

katie8753 said...

Hey Ernie what key was Charlie playing in when he sang Look at Your Game Girl? What progressive key did he reach? Just curious.

Venus said...

Peter Fonder????? Ok, that made me laugh!

Cool story tho! Clearly, Charlie knew a lot of people.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"That guy didn't like Sunshine Of Your Love? That's a Cream classic"

I was thinking that ! That's one of the great {and for that matter earliest} heavy rock riffs. It's such a superb song with a riff to die for {no pun intended}. Pretty much any guitar solo sounds good good with that riff.
For such a great and definitive guitar riff, it was actually written on the double bass !
I love a good band name and I have to say, the Milky Way is a great name for a band, especially then. But the Solar system is even better. It's one of those names that contains a whole universe and philosophy within two words.

katie8753 said...

Venus, LOL!

katie8753 said...

Oh Grim, I absolutely agree with you. I'm a piano player, and I know virtually nothing about guitar or drums. But that song had me mesmerized when I first heard it. And it has the same effect on me every time I hear it. Ginger Baker was a GREAT drummer for Cream. That guy is amazing!

katie8753 said...

I was watching a great HBO interview with Ginger Baker, and he mentioned that he told his wife "if you want me to choose between you and the drums, it's an easy choice. I choose the drums." LOL.

maudes harold said...

This is an awesome post Kimchi! Thanks!

I love these kind of vignettes from people who came across Manson and his minions, yet weren't sucked in. They seem like more honest portrayals, without the need to spin anything for any purpose.

What jumped out at me was the menacing bikers hanging around so early after Manson's release. Lends credibility to his prison connections helping him after his release. It also makes one question the initial 'peace and love' phase so often touted by the minions.

Great sleuthing and thanks for sharing!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Maudes Harold!!!!

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

'I was watching a great HBO interview with Ginger Baker, and he mentioned that he told his wife "if you want me to choose between you and the drums, it's an easy choice. I choose the drums." '

If you get the opportunity, read his autobiography, "Hellraiser." It's fascinating but he really comes across as a horrible character. In fact, in every interview I've seen him in or read, he comes across as being a really awkward customer who absolutely refuses to see anything from anyone else's point of view and who holds grudges against anyone that doesn't kowtow to him and who blames everyone else for anything that has gone wrong for him.
I love his book though !
For balance, one has to read the words of those he worked with.

katie8753 said...

"But that song had me mesmerized when I first heard it. And it has the same effect on me every time I hear it. Ginger Baker was a GREAT drummer for Cream"

He was absolutely the right drummer for Cream. He was probably the only person at the time in England that could have been in the centre of the Clapton/Bruce axis. Cream were hugely influential, being right in there at the dawn of jazz rock {with their wild, lengthy improvisations}, psychedelic rock {they were the one druggy British band of the time that had superior instrumental ability; the rest had superior creative songwriters or minds} progressive rock {they picked up on the Beatles' mantle and started taking rock in different progressive directions} and they were one of the first significant signposts in the evolution of hard rock/heavy metal. It's no small thing to be the drummer that helps frame the music that puts you in four different genres, 5 if you include the blues end of things.

June 25, 2015 at 8:54 PM
maudes harold said...

"It also makes one question the initial 'peace and love' phase so often touted by the minions"

Whether Charlie really believed in peace and love will always be debatable because he always distanced himself from the Hippy movement though obviously, there were overlaps. I think he just couldn't believe the way America seemed to have changed while he'd been inside and what was going on with these youngsters he kept running into.
I even question whether many of 'the family' were really into love and peace, given that so many were runaways and quite a number were pretty hostile {sometimes with good reason} towards their families and the backgrounds they'd come from.
Having had his Mum not wanting him and two wives {as he saw it} treating him bad, I find it significant that he never hooked up with women his own age.

MrPoirot said...

If you read the bios on rock stars whether its Eddie Fisher or Ginger Baker they're are very similar personalities. It's great being a rock star but not so great if you are a family member or friend of the rock star. Many tend to be obsessive/compulsive types who obsess on things. When these people obsess on music we get the fruit from that in the form of great art on our radios. Unfortunately Obsessives also tend to be highly controlling. A worst case scenario is when they obsess over drugs or alcohol.

Paul Watkins mentioned in his Maureen Reagan interview that he had obsessive tendencies. When "Ginny" called in on the show he asked her if she had gotten counseling since her days in the Family. Watkins discussed the out of control obsessive disorders that were the norm for Family members at Spahn Ranch. Gypsy said most of the girls at Spahn's were obsessive and had related problems such as anorexia and bulimia. Charlie was an obsessive. Alcoholism and drug addiction are symptoms of the obsessive personality. Many of Charlie's relatives were alcoholics. His Mom and uncle for instance. Narcissism is common among obsessives as well.
The desire to control others can be the main focus of an obsessive type. These types spend all of their time on trying to control others thus the often heard remark by others that Charlie seemed to know what they were thinking. Once he figured you out he could control you. When Charlie experienced loss of control all hell would break loose. Yea he had a shitty upbringing but he had other probs he was born with.(ADD, Dyslexia, Sociopathy)

When obsessives get involved in ideologies, drugs or crime you end up with disaster.
Yet when they obsess over music you get good music. When they obsess over medicine you get a great surgeon.
Generally if you find yourself married to or related to an obsessive type then you are probably an enabler because they can't exist without you making it so they can.
Any of you know anybody who you end up walking on egg shells when you're around them? Then you know an obsessive compulsive and you're probably an enabler.

You can easily spot an obsessive personality. Do you know anybody who keeps a big dog in a tiny cage they bought at Lowes? That's control. They are an obsessive/compulsive. At your job do you have to deal with Frenemies? There ya go. Know anybody who lies to you all the time? They're obsessives too. They're keeping you off balance with their lies in order to control you.

maudes harold said...

LYNYRD!!! My all time fav LS song is “Simple Man”!!!


Welcome to TLBlandia. I’ve seen you around and am enjoying your comments.

I was referring more to the Minion mantra in the aftermath about how it was all ‘peace and love’ in the beginning and didn’t get ugly til towards the end.

“Whether Charlie really believed in peace and love will always be debatable because he always distanced himself from the Hippy movement though obviously, there were overlaps. I think he just couldn't believe the way America seemed to have changed while he'd been inside and what was going on with these youngsters he kept running into.”

I couldn’t agree more. I even sometimes wonder if he wasn’t sucked in, even for just a second by the Love, before his training, experiences, reality and survival con-man instincts kicked backed in. It must have been a powerful and heady experience to have these Young Loves at his feet, offering it all up to him after so many years in prison. Maybe that added even more to his rage. I think Charlie had love in him as a little kid, before it got neglected and beat out of him. I’m sure many will say that Charlie didn’t have an ounce of love in him, but I think that’s too easy of an answer, at least for me. But, by the time he got out in ’67, it was all a game, a con-man’s game, and ultimately a very brutal one.

grimtraveller said...

maudes harold said...

"I even sometimes wonder if he wasn’t sucked in, even for just a second by the Love, before his training, experiences, reality and survival con-man instincts kicked backed in"

I think he was sucked in by the love. Apart from the prostitutes he pimped in the 50s they were probably the first set of people to show him a kind of unconditional love. At the same time, he was who his experiences had made him and couldn't really help but take advantage. The guy had been locked up for 17 years. He'd mixed from a boy, not even a young man, a boy, with the worst America had to offer and that includes the authorities, and some of those working within the system, who so often feel the right to mete out their own brand of justice on a con. Some of those people are every bit as sick and twisted as the convicts they're supposed to supervise. And unrepentantly so.
I'm not excusing a lot of his actions because we all have choices we can make. But choice doesn't exist in a vacuum and being kicked around all one's life rather unfairly stacks the deck, I'd say.

maudes harold said...
"It must have been a powerful and heady experience to have these Young Loves at his feet, offering it all up to him after so many years in prison. Maybe that added even more to his rage"

I think he identified with them in a way most older people just could not have. He knew, absolutely just what it was to be not wanted by a Dad he'd never known and a Mum he did know. Kind of hard to say which would be harder to deal with.
Having gone through it myself and having dealt with hundreds of kids in similar situations, I can say that being told to leave your own home as a kid or teen or even young adult by one's parent[s] doesn't enamour many people to the society around them or the notion of family or authority.
Charlie had rage for good reason. Many of the young loves had rage for good reasons. An explosion would have been difficult to head off at the pass.

grimtraveller said...

maudes harold said...
"I think Charlie had love in him as a little kid, before it got neglected and beat out of him. I’m sure many will say that Charlie didn’t have an ounce of love in him, but I think that’s too easy of an answer"

Actually, one thing I've long picked up from Charlie was the love he had for many in 'the family.' Even Bugliosi recognized that there was, as he put it "a great deal of love" in the family. He felt that to miss this would be losing the major key to understanding why the events that went down did go down. And I agree with that. The love was warped, it was mis~shapen and there was no yardstick by which to measure or gauge it in conventional terms, but that's what made it so powerful. It was real. Virtually every significant member, whether they stayed true to him {Sandy & Squeaky} or whether they broke away {many of the rest !} spoke of his love and pretty much contrasted it with the stale conformity 'love' they perceived from their backgrounds that they found stifling and not energizing.
His response to what he would've said to the two Columbine massacre shooters speaks volumes. He said he wouldn't have told them anything, he just would have listened to them.
I think he was selfish and often self seeking but that's only one side of the equation. Actually, I laugh every time he comes out with his "I was no leader" bit because just in the way he has always spoken about them, even when he's angry, hurt and pissed off, he just drips with, well, love. Warped, out of control, no constraints and sometimes mixed with the stunted self centredness of someone who never learned either through observation or experience how to be a father or even a faithful lover to one person and who may well have been hurting due to the fact that both his kids born in his two marriages were taken away from him before he ever really had the chance to be, but love nonetheless. He loved Susan Atkins more than her Dad did. You can almost see 'Sadie' reveling in his attention, even though a lot of it was negative and 'put down~y.' It was better than being abandoned which her own Dad had done.

CarolMR said...

Tonight on FOX News there will be a special called "Greta Investigates: The Manson Murders." I believe it is a rerun. It's on at 5:00 p.m. mountain time.

maudes harold said...


I agree with most of your conclusions, possibly excepting the prostitutes showing unconditional love. It might have started as unconditional love for the girls, at least in their minds, and knowing how pimps recruit, but probably not for long. I think at that point Charlie knew the Game real well and used it. But I get your point.

I was a special ed teacher for many years, starting with the seriously emotionally disturbed. I worked with many Charlie-in-trainings. Most created, not born, tho I came across a few I felt were born that way, but very few and far between.

Grimtraller said:

“Actually, one thing I've long picked up from Charlie was the love he had for many in 'the family.' Even Bugliosi recognized that there was, as he put it "a great deal of love" in the family. He felt that to miss this would be losing the major key to understanding why the events that went down did go down”

Again I agree with what you’ve said. Long ago I was struck by Diane Lake’s Nellie-recorded phone conversation where she relates how Charlie chased her parents around California to get her back to them. I remember thinking—you don’t do that if you don’t give a shit about someone. If he really wanted to just get rid of her, he could have dumped her with anyone or trafficked her away. Unless there was a particular reason to get HER back to her parents, why all the fuss? Hadn’t they given their permission for her to be with Charlie? Was she THAT much of a problem? Was it the under-age issue and cops hassling him? She spoke fondly of that, while not being under his spell anymore.

On your comments regarding Susan Atkins, I think Lynnette would more aptly fit your description for me. What Lynnette’s dad did to her almost seemed designed--not talking to your daughter for 2 years while living in the same house?? And at that age? And the suspicions of sexual abuse? You couldn’t create a more perfect subject for Charlie if you tried. Her behaviors (cutting, mood swings, etc) suggest someone being actively abused. My work with kids have born that out time and time again. I think Charlie did love Lynnette. I am not a Charlie-Apologist in any way—I wouldn’t want him around anyone I loved, but he had something that drew people to him. It's too easy to call him the boogey-man and leave it at that. Then you'll never understand what drew people to him, at least initially. That part fascinates me and always has.

maudes harold said...


Thanks for the heads up. It was new to me. I don't remember ever seeing an adult Jim Asin interviewed before!

MrPoirot said...

Charlie got into Scientology specifically to have more control over his prostitutes. He planned on going back into pimping after his release. He has said this himself.
What Charlie was able to do with his new found Scientology mind control skills wildly surpassed what he expected. Even today he doesn't like admitting to how much control he has over some people.

Today we have bigger Boogie Men than Charlie Manson was in the 60s. Look at the amount of mind control our media has over us today. Yes we have many Scientologists in media. How long did it take the media to talk the American people into believing in same sex marriage that had been outlawed for thousands of years? It didn't take long. I have to wonder what the media is going to train us to do next.
How many of you think Beastiality is perverted? Get ready because you may one day be fervently supporting those who engage in Beastiality. You will be running around calling people Beastiephobes if they dare not join in supporting your new belief.

MrPoirot said...

Another words: how soon will it be before the media tells us all to go to Jamaica and get them a Coconut?

MrPoirot said...

A lot of Americans are half way to Jamaica already and they don't even know it.

grimtraveller said...

maudes harold said...

"It might have started as unconditional love for the girls, at least in their minds"

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Often how things start is the important part. That's where the tests occur, lines are crossed and any disarming happens.

maudes harold said...

"I was a special ed teacher for many years, starting with the seriously emotionally disturbed. I worked with many Charlie-in-trainings. Most created, not born, tho I came across a few I felt were born that way, but very few and far between"

Yeah, I can dig that. Having worked with kids both with special needs and pretty disturbed, in a free play situation, you do get used to spotting certain things in kids. One of my greatest joys is in being wrong when you think a kid will go a particular way and they turn out to be a less damaged adult or late teen than once suspected.
I don't think anyone is necessarily born that way but because it's virtually impossible to gauge how a baby or toddler responds to every instance, picking things up can be hard. If a child reacts in a particularly negative way, do you deal heavy with it straight away or let it slide ? How does one work out what is normal growth and testing out and easily dealt with from that which, if not dealt with straight away, will turn into something that the rest of us may one day be hearing about on the news ?
Sometimes it's not hard. Sometimes it is, really.

maudes harold said...
"I think Charlie did love Lynnette. I am not a Charlie-Apologist in any way—I wouldn’t want him around anyone I loved, but he had something that drew people to him. It's too easy to call him the boogey-man and leave it at that. Then you'll never understand what drew people to him, at least initially. That part fascinates me and always has"

Agree completely. William Zamora, one of the jurors in the trial notes that Charlie had a way of "making people feel 6 feet tall even though he wasn't even 6 feet."
To point out what was good about Manson doesn't make one an apologist. That he drew so many young people in the era that defined the "trust no one over 30" approach {even though that is more simplistic than the reality of the matter because so many of the movers & shakers of the 60s and their forebears that the flower children all read about or whose works they absorbed were well over 30} to the beauty and supremacy of youth, is quite remarkable.
Fact is, he was cool, likeable and understanding to so many. That it turned so sour demonstrates a move in society that was unsustainable in it's then current form.
You know, in the jazz world, from about 1964~ish onwards, Miles Davies was kind of like that. He was in his 40s but his bands were packed with much younger cats in their teens and early to mid 20s for the next 20+ years. And so many of them speak so highly of him and his influence as a man, not just a musician.

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"Look at the amount of mind control our media has over us today. How long did it take the media to talk the American people into believing in same sex marriage that had been outlawed for thousands of years? It didn't take long. I have to wonder what the media is going to train us to do next.
How many of you think Beastiality is perverted? Get ready because you may one day be fervently supporting those who engage in Beastiality. You will be running around calling people Beastiephobes if they dare not join in supporting your new belief"

Back in the 90s my cousin was of the opinion that one day sex with children would be the norm. But it has been in many cultures for a long while. I think the family were getting pretty loose about that, according to Brooks Poston in a police interview before the family was busted in the desert {"That, the love was in the children. And that, you had to set the children free. And free to him, is making them do obscene sex acts, when they’re old enough to crawl – uh, and uh, old enough to use their mouth"}. As far as bestiality/zoophilia go, I saw a documentary a few years back about it and I was shocked to discover that in the States, at the time there were four states in which it was legal so of course most Zoophiles flocked to those states. From tiny acorns do mighty oaks grow.

MrPoirot said...

"Even today he doesn't like admitting to how much control he has over some people"

Or at least had. He refuses to acknowledge that he had any control or that he was a leader or that he told anyone what to do even though so many people both in and out of the family have since 1969 {and even before there was any murder in the wind in '67 & '68 people noted this} said the exact opposite.
But in "Goodbye Helter Skelter", he can't help himself, possibly not realizing he's doing it. He more or less states that if he was with Leslie or Clem or Pat or others he'd get them to acknowledge his truth. It comes over a number of times in the book and I find it paradoxically chilling and fantastic at the same time.
While I believe he is guilty of what he was convicted for, I think that one of the truly unsatisfactory elements of the case was that he had his lawyer status {pro~per} taken from him. I can see why the judge felt that way but I think it was an error on his part. The trial probably would have gone on much longer and Tex and Bobby probably would've been called as witnesses but I think, with legal assistance, he would have been a memorable lawyer. I also think the end result would have been the same, though the trial itself would've been very different.

maudes harold said...


I think there are so many threads that weave together to create this TLB tapestry, and like any piece of art, it appears uniquely different, if only slightly, to each viewer, for many reasons- from biological to psychological (As evidence of this, check out the thread at Cats site “Wtf?” under Krenwinkle). And while I would have loved to have seen Charlie defend himself, as a sociological ‘lesson’, all in all, the victims and their families, deserved swift justice. I think the trial, like many public things in life, was choreographed to a certain extent, but very glad with the result, tho Linda should have done time, on a moral level. She could have feigned diarrhea on that 2nd night and used that different cloth she was cut from to wipe her ass!! lol

” That it turned so sour demonstrates a move in society that was unsustainable in it's then current form.”

I wouldn’t say it was a move in society as much as it was the reality of who Charlie was at the point--a Taker. It went sour cuz Charlie was sour and surrounded himself with sourness. While many societal factors helped create a sour Charlie, he eventually chose it for himself, while many others didn’t.

I think Charlie defending himself would have given some fascinating insights into him and his life experiences and maybe a better understanding of his real truth. I think Charlie had one real truth to tell and that was the truth of an abused and institutionalized child. No disputing that, but unlike the majority of abused children, he went on to abuse and terrorize most he came across, over time, and some would say, up to the present. While that might be a form of survival, it doesn’t always have to be.

And I can’t tell you how much my heart swelled to be proven wrong in my fears about some of my former students. I am in contact with some from 20 years ago. Proof you can be given a REALLY crappy start and still find the ability to love and create good things and relationships.

For some it is much harder. Flipside, some of my former students are dead, in wheelchairs or jailed.

I think Charlie LOVES the control he had and perceives to still have over others. LOVES, LOVES, LOVES IT!!


Minor-Attracted Individuals. When the pedophiles (think NAMBLA before its’ formation) infiltrated the Gay Rights movement in the 60’s (some trace it to Belgium), we had an even bigger flowering of pedophile associations and infiltrations and their ilk smeared into the Gay Rights movement. Hollywood and others continue to blur the lines between the two. And profits from it. UGH!

I’ve learned that the earlier a child is traumatized, the easier to maintain the control mechanisms put in place over time. That is what Brooks is describing. I’ll leave it at that. (Interestingly, one of the best books I’ve read on childhood trauma was written by Arlis Perry’s husband, Bruce Perry-thanks beauders for making that connection for me!)


Mr. P,

Don’t get me started on Sychotology, but I will say that they have sold tons of educational programs that are currently being used in schools across America, and no doubt elsewhere. YIKES!

MrPoirot said...

Charlie's Mom was really a bad mother She was ghastly. Yet Charlie loved her. She was continually dumping Charlie.

When Charlie was released in the 60s he took the girls with him up to as far as Washington state looking for his mother. He never found her. I suspect she hid from him since she knew he was out. That had to have a powerful effect on Charlie since he knew she was aware he was out.

The ill fated trip to Washington had to play a part in Charlie's fall into madness in the short time he was out. Charlie was not insane when he was released in 67 but by Summer 69 he had a mental collapse. Was Charlie's schizophrenic relapse initiated by his mother hiding from him?
There is probably more to that trip to Washington to find his mother than anyone realizes.

In all the books it is treated as no big deal that Charlie didn't find his mother when in fact it was probably the final straw that broke the Camel's back.

MrPoirot said...

Keep in mind his mother had another child that she cared for and lived with but she hid from Charlie. That could mess up any ones mind. Think what it could do to a person with schizophrenia?

katie8753 said...

Charles Manson was a loser who went to jail a lot. His mother didn't love him. Boo fucking hoo. That didn't give him Carte Blanche to train people to kill.

As a matter of fact, Charlie's mother did try to help him, when he got married the first time, but got sent up again because he's a fucking idiot. He doesn't care what "right from wrong" is, all he cares about is himself. He has no one to blame but himself.

I love the way people try to analyze him, but he's basically a piece of shit who grew up thinking the fucking world owed him a favor, which they don't and never did..

That's why he killed folks, because he was mad.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

With all due respect Katie, your synopsis is a gross oversimplification of a very complex psycho-social situation.

maudes harold said...

I think some people approach this case with more of a “How could they?” and some approach this case with more of a “Why did they?”

The “How could theys” are important cuz they keep the alarm going on the truth of how damaging this shit is to all levels of society and the need to be vigilant.

The “Why did theys” are important cuz they seek the truths about how we got ‘here.’

They go hand in hand in my book and are necessary for the hope of effecting change. Everybody sing….Kumbaya….lol



“That didn't give him Carte Blanche to train people to kill.”

AMEN, I hear that sistah!

But I guess cuz my desire to understand, training and experiences have been so child-centered, and as I said, I’ve worked with little Charlie’s, that I am interested in what “trained him to kill people.” I’m looking for the larger picture, how it was created, and how possibly to prevent, or change the reality for the up-incoming little Charlie’s, cuz like Charlie correctly said ,”they’ll be coming back at ya!” Look at the brutality of youth crime today.

I am just as interested in how the victims got to where they were on the nights of their deaths. Victimology is just as fascinating too!

“who grew up thinking the fucking world owed him a favor, which they don't and never did..”

He deserved a decent beginning, everyone does, I believe.

Those chronically neglected and victimized at a young age often feel this way. Hell, some people that DIDN’T grow up this way feel this way! LOL I’m sure each of us can point to more than a few people we come across in our daily lives that believe the world owes them something!! Lol

I totally get your anger for Manson, my hate-on is reserved especially for Sir Stabsalot! With Charlie I say “Why the hell WOULDN’T he become a criminal?” With Sir Stabsalot I say “Why the hell did HE become a criminal and a brutal murderer?” Not to mention he’s still lying and shilling his shit, masked as Righteous Redemption, for a nominal donation of course.

I believe your anger is a testament to your compassion for the victims.



I want to clarify what I said about kids being ‘born that way.’ I don’t know for sure (which means I wouldn’t bet cash on it-lol) whether some are born evil or not. I know that ‘breaking’ an infant or child can lead to stone cold sociopaths. I’ve read about the process by which this occurs, by default and/or design. H o r r I f I c.

The students I mentioned very well could have had that happen, cuz when they ‘went off’, usually very quietly and with potentially deadly effects, the light switched off- in their eyes. You’ve heard the descriptions of that. Those are the kids I am referring to. Not the ones that scream, hit, bite, destroy property, you can, obviously, see them coming a mile away. I had a student, later in my career, who I knew was one of these kids the moment I met him. Once, while being reprimanded by grandma for bugging little brother in the backseat while she was driving, he quietly slipped his hands around her throat and squeezed as hard as he could. As he was only 7 when this happened, he didn’t do much damage.

And I’m sensitive about labels with kids too, but they’re necessary to some degree, as long as you use them as a tool and not a life sentence. When I tell my young nieces/people about these students, I introduce the term ‘emotionally disturbed' so they know it, but describe that they were very badly treated and guided by the people in charge of them, because 99.99999999999% of the time they were.

katie8753 said...

Maudes I agree with you. As much as I can't stand Manson or feel the need to give him a defense for his behavior, Tex on the other hand had every opportunity to avoid this mess. He had parental love, a good home, a solid upbringing in church, and an opportunity to get an education and have a career. He has absolutely no excuse for his behavior.

And the fact that he's been hiding behind this "religious conversion" for years makes me sick. He's so egotistical and pompous in every parole hearing, like he's "holding court". His apology to Doris and his apologies in general smack of self-righteous bullshit. He keeps talking about the "pain" that he feels, does he have any idea what kind of pain there is to be felt when you're stabbed over and over with a knife, shot or bludgeoned? Does he have any idea what kind of pain a family feels knowing that their loved ones died such horrific deaths?

I think he's finally realized after all these years that he's never getting out, and it makes him mad. Well he can get mad at the parole board all he wants, because that just strengthens their resolve to never let him go.

katie8753 said...

But I have to say, Manson's excuse for bad behavior is nonsensical. There have been people all during history who had no parents to speak of, but didn't behave in this fashion.

One who comes to mind is Travis Alexander. He was raised in the most horrible hell-hole, but managed to come out as a productive adult who tried his best to become the best he could be. He did get side-lined by a 3-hole skank who tried her best to way-lay him, using sex as a tool to control him to marry her, but all-in-all, he was a very nice guy. I didn't know him personally or course, but I've read many people's comments who did that couldn't say enough nice words about him.

So my point is, not having parental love is NOT an excuse to become a dirty, pedophilic hippy cult leader who not only wasted innocent lives by horrific murder, but also wasted young people's lives by his stupid, twisted lies and cultish brainwashing.

maudes harold said...

Oh Katie I could write a tome on Sir Stabsalot that would seethe with my ire of him. I detest people using their Religion to prey and profit on people’s Faith. The fricking lowest of the Low, aside from pedophiles, tho sadly they’re included in that category too.

And while I do not generally revel in others’ misery, I dance a figurative jig of glee as Sir Stabsalot rots. Yet, if he stopped the jive-talking, showed real remorse for his victims/crimes and stopped his grifting of souls, I would retire my dancing shoes, tho not the keys to his cell.

But as the Rev. Jesse Jackson once said, “Keep Hope Alive!” LOL

I save my compassion for his kids.

I think Manson’s reasons make sense, they just don’t come close (“Not.Even.Close.—BUD!!”) to justifying his nefarious and destructive deeds. His upbringing doesn’t condone or preclude his own responsibility for ANY of his CHOICES as an adult. Not one bit.

But it’s understandable and I wanted to know why Manson (or anyone) couldn’t overcome it like many others could.

Sir Stabsalot, not so much.

I will give you a connection I’ve made in my teaching that gave me experiential insight into Charlie’s Power over these kids.

I have found in my teaching, that if you truly See a kid’s Shine, Soul, Love, whatever you want to call it, and you Validate their Specialness and reflect if back so they know you really SEE them, they will do anything for you, including walking to Jamaica for a coconut.

It is a powerful, intimate and Connecting exchange.

And this totally includes all kids, not just the chronically abused. Now, some of those abused kids might hit you in the head with that same coconut later, but if you deal with it well, they’ll get you another one the next day.

I think many agree Charlie did just that with some of his peeps, and something even more powerful, he validated their pain.

Charlie chose to use that ability to exploit rather than nourish, a soul crime in my book and a big reason why we are here in TLBLandia talking about this crime.

An understanding, not an excuse. There is a difference.

More on Travis’ Victimology later, I’m off to beat some kids in a few games of Old Lady!

maudes harold said...

*oops that should be Old Maid , not Old Lady. The kids are playing Old Maid WITH an old lady...

katie8753 said...

Yes Maudes, I agree, anyone in prison for murder who finds "salvation" should just keep it to themselves, or may share in small groups in the prison "community". (I love that word...COMMUNITY! We didn't have that word back in the 60's. Not that I can remember anyway.) But the condemned prisoner should NEVER use that "renewal" as a reason to be released from prison. It should be a "well kept secret" during parole hearings. It should have no bearing whatsoever.

I have found in my teaching, that if you truly See a kid’s Shine, Soul, Love, whatever you want to call it, and you Validate their Specialness and reflect if back so they know you really SEE them, they will do anything for you, including walking to Jamaica for a coconut.

Wow, that sounds like "The Shining"! LOL. But seriously folks, I heard that crazy Sandy say the same thing over and over again, "reflect it back". I'm not sure what that even means, other than some gobble-de-gook spouted by a seltzer-spritzing holy man trying to convince the world that he is the absolute savior of all time, just like all the rest (i.e. Jones, Koresh, Applewhite) or any others nutjobs that lead people astray.

What are you teaching anyway? Are you a trained psychologist? A medium? A large? HA HA. I'm just kidding....

I'd love to hear your "Victimology" on Travis. Should be interesting....

maudes harold said...

“I'm not sure what that even means “

C’mon Katie, seriously?

You have to know if you notice a kids’ (persons’, dogs’) worth and tell him, that they respond positively. It’s pretty simple and equally powerful.

I like words and use a lot of them, mea culpa. (Note to self—brevity, Maude, brevity.)

All I try to teach kids these days is kindness and good practical jokes!!

I got my ass kicked in Old Maid--and it was my deck! lol

katie8753 said...

One more thing, I hate it when people placate me by saying I hate Manson because of the victims. That's not true. I hate Manson because of what he is.

Long before there were murder victims, we had Charles Manson picking up hapless girls with no self esteem and promising them things that they'd never dreamed of, like his endless love. He was the "boyfriend" that would never leave them. He was the "man-like" creature that would protect them, be there for them, think for them, become them, teach them, create them, transform them, only to be the creature from hell that created their own doom.

Even if no one had EVER been killed, he killed these kids. He talked them into drugs, having sex with EVERYONE including same sex, and sex with the babies. That is SO FUCKING SICK! It's nauseating. It's the kind of thing that makes you heave!

Charles Manson WAS/IS a sickening guy. He's still controlling people. He's controlling that young girl that wants to marry him and he's ALSO controlling all the people who say he's innocent. HE'S STILL CONTROLLING YOU. But HE CAN'T CONTROL ME, nor will he EVER!

So PLEASE don't placate me by telling me that I don't like Manson because I like the victims. I DO plead for the victims, and I will never stop pleading for them, because there are people who like to say they "deserved" it because they were selling drugs, etc., are being controlled by Manson. They weren't selling drugs, they were victims of Charles Manson. Just like all of you are that believe in him! You're all spit-out victims of this drug-addled killer. And he spits you out every time you finally believe the truth.

katie8753 said...

"You have to know if you notice a kids’ (persons’, dogs’) worth and tell him, that they respond positively. It’s pretty simple and equally powerful."

Yeah I know that, but I never said "reflect back". What does "reflect back" mean?

katie8753 said...

"Reflect back" sounds like some kind of chronic back pain. What does that mean?

katie8753 said...

Please tell me what reflect back means!!!!

maudes harold said...

reflect back = show them they're worth something

"Reflect back" sounds like some kind of chronic back pain. What does that mean?"

Are you a medium?? LOL I guess it's true that our words reveal ourselves, I live with chronic musculo-skeletal-nerve pain, I guess it leaked out in my words, that or you felt my pain!! LOL

katie8753 said...

Maudes, reflect back = show them they're worth something.

Wow, that's something. So that worthless piece of shit Charles Manson "showed all those people" they're worth something? That's amazing.

I'm confused about the dog though. But we'll talk tomorrow. I'd love to talk about Travis Alexander. I hope your back feels better.

I'll say good night now. :)

maudes harold said...

“Wow, that's something. So that worthless piece of shit Charles Manson "showed all those people" they're worth something? That's amazing.”

Katie, my point is that Charlie made them feel they were worth something, not whether you believe they were. That’s a power he had over them, which he exploited and eventually, got people to kill for him. It’s straight out of the HS narrative.

I am not reinventing the wheel on any of these ideas, just throwing out my ponderings on them.

I am fascinated by the human mind and brain, especially the Abby Normal ones.

I will get to the Travis stuff, I just gotta figure out some ever-changing familial care-taking duties over the next several hours.

Thanks for the good thoughts on my skeleton, every little bit helps.

katie8753 said...

OK thanks Maudes. I love Young Frankenstein!! Talk to you later....

Marliese said...

Hi Katie, Narcissists are known to sometimes use a behavior, out of the bag of sick tricks they operate with, that's called reflecting back, or mirroring. It's like blame shifting. Very basically, whatever it is that they are doing, they say you are doing it. Not that you are the cause of their behavior, and not that you drove them to it, but that you are actually the one doing it. Since they are the ones doing whatever it is, they could be talking to a reflection of themselves in the mirror, not another person. But they can't take responsibility for the behavior, especially when it's atrociously bad behavior because they have to protect their false image, even at the cost of mistreating others. They will persist even if you have proof it's them and not you. It's very abusive, and they pair it up with another favorite...gaslighting . Their victims begin to doubt their own sanity after awhile.

Sent from my iPad

Marliese said...

I know it just sounds so sick, because it really is...
It's like the positive way they see themselves doesn't match up with their bad behavior, so they take their reflection...when it's bad, and throw it to you, projecting their bad parts to you, so that their reflection their eyes, perfect. I know a stage actor, once very accomplished, not famous now, possibly due to all the bridges he burned, but was in the 70's, and he is very narcissistic... can lie like no other, and throw insults around like no other, whatever he would say about someone else, and he loved to talk about people and theatre gossip, he was really saying about himself. Whatever he would say about his ex wives or girlfriends, for example, was really how he had behaved in the relationship. If he said they were passive aggressive, you eventually came to understand he was the passive aggressive one, if he said she cheated, you knew he had cheated...and the poor ex girlfriend or wife, was really the victim of his behavior. They take the bad parts of their reflection in the mirror, and throw it to someone else, like a movie projector. Anyway...when you said reflect back, it reminded me of the ease with which he flawlessly projects...almost daily, his bad behavior...reflecting it to other people, avoiding any guilt of his own. It's sad, because his God given talent was incredible, he operates from a very unhealthy place emotionally, still now after 30 years of psychoanalysis. But when he's good, he's very good.

maudes harold said...

DSCLAIMER TO KATIE lol: I am interested in examining Travis’ Victimology with my forthcoming thoughts, not Blame, that lies solely with Mistress Stabsalot. In order to do that I ask of lot of Why Travis questions, not questions designed or intended to ever even hint at requiring Travis to DEFEND himself for his death (if he were still alive to do it).

Victimology is as important as the Criminology in understanding HOW or WHY a crime occurred. It’s where LE always starts in investigating an unknown killer.

Victimology asks why Travis, in particular, died and none of her other lovers did ( we don’t know for a FACT there aren’t others, tho I doubt it, she wasn’t a super bright sociopath, not all of them are) Why didn’t she murder other lovers when she didn’t get her way or they broke up with her, or she felt they used her?? Why Travis?? What, specifically, drew Travis to her?

Those are the questions you ask when a victim gets murdered. It’s not a tool for blame.

I repeat, IT IS NOT A TOOL TO BLAME THE VICTIM, but rather to try and understand their choices.

maudes harold said...

Jodi Skarias was a rare sociopath—a deadly one. I Most sociopaths never commit major crimes, some not even a traffic ticket. Most just go about quietly terrorizing the ones they ‘love’ or work with thru exhausting manipulations and premeditated machinations. We probably know a few of these in our everyday lives too. I don’t think Travis had a clue what he was playing with initially.

Skankstress was in a whole different class. But, IF she was just the aforementioned garden variety sociopath before Travis, what turned her into a deadly one with Travis? What made the difference?

I think Travis’ early childhood trauma and neglect, aspects of his religious training and community, and some bad choices shaped his fate. He picked her. But WHY??

What drew HIM to HER?

He had sex with at least one of his ‘nice’ girls, iirc, maybe more that few know about. So I don’t think it was JUST about sex. Was Travis just a horny dude who picked the wrong chick? Why did he pick HER? Why did she kill HIM?

She was a cute, pink Deranged Easter bunny (to quote a fav movie-- ) hopping down the Playboy bunny trail, til she pulled her knife out.
It was a confluence of events that led to his brutally unfair death but no one is to BLAME except Skankarella herself. Travis had some responsibility with his choices, but that is a different animal than BLAME. Viewing Travis through the lens of Victimology, is not assigning blame to him. His choices kept him with her, tho.

Why did he choose that??

Why couldn’t he cut off Jodi?

There was a twistedness to their relationship, imo. Did it harken back to something that occurred in his childhood? Idk. I can hazard many guesses about what could have happened to a small Travis as his drug-addicted parents nodded off, leaving him vulnerable to whoever was around. I can also see a neglect in getting healthy, effective help in overcoming any trauma. His religious community typically does not talk about or dwell on the negative. The Bad Stuff stops and you go on. I’ve seen similar things in my Mormon step-family and in their community. (My family includes Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and a few Agnostics) Actually, I’ve seen that in all the communities I mentioned. Ugh.

I happen to think Mr. P was dead on in his assessment of the way Travis played with her, like he had a few others, just not deadly sociopathic ones. That in no way makes him a Puppet Master of Evil deserving his death, hardly, but may help understand the need he had in him that drew him to her and why he didn’t kick that scary bitch to the curb, when he realized she was ‘unstable.’

While this is overly simplistic, I wonder if Travis could have gotten his freak on w/o the fear of reprisal from his community or his own conscience, things might have turned out very differently. He might not have needed what Skankasarus had to offer. Instead of finding a ‘nice’ girl to get his freak on with, he got his freak on with a REAL fucking FREAK!!!

50 Shades of Stab Wounds.

I don’t think he had a clue she was capable of what she did until it was far too late, but I do think at the end he knew she was unstable.

And maybe Travis was just a horny dude who picked the wrong chick. We won’t ever know for sure, but that is the abiding question I am left with. What in him, drew him to her?

I think Travis was a good guy, not without flaws, trying to do good in the world, work hard and enjoy his success.

Like most of us.

He picked a deadly sociopath tho, unlike most of us.

I think I know why Jodi did what she did. Sociopaths aren’t too difficult to understand for me.

I know you can do the Criminology part of it. You do Jodi so well. LOL

But what do you think drew Travis to pick Jodi and keep going back once he realized she was unstable?

*I love Young Frankenstein too, not sure what my fav scene is, but I’m partial to Frankie and the little girl. Oh and the blind guy too!

katie8753 said...

Marliese!!! My good friend. Thanks for explaining this stuff to me!!

Narcissists are known to sometimes use a behavior, out of the bag of sick tricks they operate with, that's called reflecting back, or mirroring. It's like blame shifting. Very basically, whatever it is that they are doing, they say you are doing it.

Blame shifting is a term I'm very familiar with. I know the kind of guy you are describing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them around....

So...did Charlie's reflecting back on people make them kill folks???? Did he reflect his murderous rage back on his "children"? Is that what made them kill??

There are several other members of the Manson family who didn't participate in the murders, but expressed an interest in killing.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Maudes for your comments on Travis. I agree with you almost 100%. I have wondered myself WHY, after all he knew about Jodi, that he would even let her stay in his house on June 8. I really think she snuck in without his permission, but he was a big guy, he could have called the police, or just pushed her out of the house. Why didn't he just tell her to get lost that fateful day?

I really think that Jodi was like a drug to Travis. She would do anything sexually that he asked and he was drawn to that. Even though it conflicted with everything he felt was holy in his life, he was still drawn to the dark side.

He had made comments to friends right before that fateful day that he was afraid of Jodi, that her stalking was out of control. So why did he let her stay in his house?

We know that he did, because the pictures say so. We know they had sex all afternoon, the pictures say so.

I can only think that she came in apologetically, just saying it was "goodbye sex" and she'd be on her way. Maybe she even said she was on her way to make a life with a new BF in Utah.

Whatever the reason was, he let her stay there, have sex with her, and she ended his life in a vicious, horrible murder.

Why did Jodi do it? I have no idea. Maybe over the years she got more and more sociopathic? I don't know if people are borns sociopaths, or they develop it.

I'm not going to try and analyze Jodi Arias. But I will say this. You mentioned that people who are sociopaths have black eyes. And from what I watched on HLN during both of Jodi's trials, people mentioned her black eyes a lot. I never saw that, because sociopaths can pretend to be normal when they want. BUT...I did see on the last day when she went before the Judge for sentencing, she turned around and glared at Travis' sister, and I SAW those black eyes. It was scary.

katie8753 said...

I think that Manson & Arias are both Sociopaths. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I do know that a Sociopath doesn't have the ability to feel sorrow for anyone. They're void I guess of any feelings of sympathy, regret. I guess somehow they're born without something.

Charlie has NEVER expressed any sympathy to the victims' families, which is strange to me. If he was not the reason for their killings, as he keeps blabbing, you'd think that he'd at least express some sorrow for it.

And Jodi doesn't care one twit about what she did to Travis. She claims she ridded the world of a pedophile, but she made all that shit up. No evidence at all of it.

And the proof is in the pudding when she mentioned that she did remember cutting Travis' head off, and he was still alive. That's the most sickening statement she ever made....

maudes harold said...

Hey Marliese!


I know the exact moment you're talking about, her mask slipped, imo, and we got a flash of what Travis saw that last day. She played everyone during the trial, or thought she did, and enjoyed every minute. That trial was a greaat training video--How to Spot a Sociopath in One Painful Trial.

I wonder how that t-shirt business of hers is going.....LOL

katie8753 said...

Oh and I like those scenes in Young Frankenstein too!

maudes harold said...

I have heard Manson say he felt bad about Sharon and the baby once, in some more obscure interview I can’t remember now. But, you’re right, I don’t remember ever hearing him express any remorse for anything, except himself. A sociopath.

I don’t believe that pedophile shit either. It was as insincere in its’ presentation as the D/V t-shirts. I gotta admit the hair donating charity and t-shirts took me a bit by surprise. Hubris knows no bounds.

katie8753 said...

Maudes, Jodi Arais is just as self serving as Tex Watson. They're both pieces of shit.

Jodi says she's donating hair for a worthy cause and t-shirts for "survivors". HA HA. Well, I guess she is a survivor, since she's the one who walked away from the bloody crime scene.

She is smart enough to get into Travis' bedroom that day, but dumb enough to think she could get away with it. She tried to cut Travis' head off before he could get to the door, she cleaned the room as best she could, she put the sheets and towels in the washer, along with the camera, she locked his bedroom door and put the dog Napoleon out in the back to starve and die without water, in the hot Arizona sun in June of about 114 degrees.

Nice gal! :)

Well, those sociopaths will both be in prison for the rest of their lives. Which is fitting.

MrPoirot said...

Travis drove her insane with his I love you-get lost routine. She gave up everything including a relationship and a house to be with him and he suddenly decides he wants a virgin wall flower for a wife while he calls her a 3 hole wonder.
If you want a girl to kill you then just do what Travis did. I guarantee you she'll kill you.

MrPoirot said...

People seem to quickly think Jodi was the sociopath. Try looking at Travis. He dated Deanna 6 years and wouldn't marry. He then dates Jodi and wouldn't marry. Ever stop to think he didn't develop feelings for these girls because he too was a sociopath. Travis probably had to stifle his emotions growing up the child of drug addicts. That is how sociopaths are made.
I doubt Jodi was a sociopath because she wanted to marry her previous BF but he wouldn't marry her for some stupid reason having to do with his son.
I think Jodi had good grounds for a psychological abuse defense but she kept changing her story. You might too if you were facing a murder charge.
She had crap for a defense team though. I think Nurmi did well in the latter part of his defense job but he clearly learned on the job.

In the end I think she got what she knew she would get but she was not of sound mind when she carved up Travis as evidenced by the violence in the attack.

Most everybody can see how people commit murder in drunken rages but Travis made a girl kill him while she was dead sober. Travis had a knack.

katie8753 said...

Wow Mr. P. Travis was a sociopath and Jodi wasn't? Who killed who?

Getting mad because a man doesn't want to marry you usually includes throwing things, breaking things, maybe some hitting. It doesn't usually include attacking someone unaware in the shower, stabbing in the back, then in the chest, sawing their head off, shooting them in the head, and finally dragging them back into the shower to rot for days.

That seems a little intense to me. Sorry, A LOT intense to me. Somewhat brutal to me. Somewhat psychotic to me. Somewhat over the top to me.

Jodi's previous boyfriend was much older than her, and I'm assuming more adult than she was. But she evidently tired of him, because she dumped him for Travis.

You say Jodi loved Travis? Well she had a funny way of showing it. Not only did she do more harm to him than Tex Watson ever thought about doing, she played a game with it.

Her killing of Travis was completely premeditated. She thought everything through. And she even borrowed the gas cans from the former boyfriend, if that isn't creepy enough.

Not only did she dessimate him completely and leave him in his shower to rot, she also later played games on his phone, leaving lively messages to throw the cops off. And if that wasn't enough, she boldly called the detective on the case just to "help".

Yeah, she loved Travis allright. I guess her definition of love and mine are different. But as the saying goes "love means never having to say you're sorry".

maudes harold said...

“So...did Charlie's reflecting back on people make them kill folks???? Did he reflect his murderous rage back on his "children"? Is that what made them kill??”

Yes, I think so. I think he infused his into, and connected with, their rage. He knew how to channel it.

At the end of the day, tho, it takes tremendous ability to overcome the instinct Not to kill, especially ‘randomly’ or for no ‘logical’ reason (defense of self or others in immediate harm). We train soldiers by de-sensitizing them so they CAN kill. Each killer had to have something in them that allowed them to jump that extreme cognitive dissonance and kill. And while Charlie had de-sensitization training and used it, it wasn’t with military precision and included a lot of other variables. Mansonblog recently had a great posting about this difficulty in overcoming the instinct not to kill randomly.

maudes harold said...

Hey Mr. P,

Here’s where we depart on our assessment of Travis’ responsibilities and Jodi’s blame, unequivocally and diametrically. I have considered all the points and looked at all the sides you bring up awhile ago, and reached a different opinion.

I think Travis played with Jodi. And Jodi equally played with Travis. That’s where the responsibility part comes in, for both of them.

Where the difference comes in, for me, is in Jodi’s sociopathic and violent responses, not just the murderous one.

The other difference is that I believe Jodi is a sociopath and Travis is not.

Travis actions demonstrate to me an emotionally immature/flawed guy with a Princess complex (women seen as Princesses, no sex before marriage) and commitment issues, among a few others. While the same might be said for Jodi (except she played the princess/whore), her actions/behaviors/responses demonstrate a chameleon-like psychopath, and a murderous one. Travis’ didn’t.

I’ll ask the same question I asked of Jodi. Why didn’t Travis kill Jodi when she played with him? Why did none of Travis’ women ever kill him for his game-playing? Why did only Jodi? Why didn’t she walk away when treated miserably? I don’t believe she was a battered woman either. I think it’s cuz ultimately she was the criminal psychopath.

Marliese said...

Katie, Hi! As always, you make me feel welcome. Thank you! You know....I just don't know about Charlie's psych makeup, and, like you, I'm not a psychologist, I have a little first hand experience with someone I know who is a narcissist...a hardcore, malignant narcissist. They say there are somatic (body) and cerebral (mind) narcissists. One difference between them, as I understand it, is that somatic narcs use sex (among other things in their arsenal of abusive behaviors) to impress and conquer, while cerebral narcissists use their superior (according to them) intelligence and talents to control and impress....they know it all. Regardless of the type, they follow some of the sane paths in their relationships.

Everyone is a little narcissistic...we see it on facebook all the time, such look at me self absorbed behavior. I mean, people take pictures of their dinner plate of food and post it on facebook. I'm all for reviewing good restaurants, but please. I know people that talk about themselves and what they're doing every hour of each day, and could not care less about what they're friends are doing, never responding to anyone, only talking about themselves. There is so much narcissism on facebook and instagram. And I know healthy self esteem is good. On the other hand, I'm against 'the everybody plays' and gets a trophy just for showing up far as building success and healthy self esteem.

Anyway, back to Charlie. I agree that he's a sociopath. He shows no remorse for the victims, no horror at their suffering, or for the women he supposedly loved and was involved with that committed murder and won't ever see the light of day outside of prison, from the time they were very young women. He doesn't accept any responsibility for what he did to Gary, to Shorty, to Rosemary and Leno, or to any of his other victims, and expresses no interest in or sorrow toward his own children.

Maybe Charlie is a narcissistic sociopath? Narcissists...regardless of type, all "love bomb" when you first meet and begin a relationship with them. They say they love you almost immediately, say they've finally found their soul mate in you, shower you with addicting sounds like what he did with the women, especially Pat. After the love bombing...when you're good and addicted and would do just about anything for them, unless you're too healthy emotionally to fall for any of it, and Charlie's women weren't, next comes the devaluing...that's when they start projecting their bad behavior and gas lighting, the somatic ones start cheating, and the cerebral ones start insulting you, and they all eventually pull the rug out with disappearing acts and silent treatment, tll you're thrown away like a fast food pape bag...considered no longer worthy. Especially if you're on to Maude said, they can't allow the "mask" to slip..great word....the "mask" hides who they really are, and they can't allow you to see them without it. If you dump them first, they start a vicious smear campaign against you, if you have children together...they'll even try to turn your chilfpdren against you, smearing you in court...projecting their own bad behavior to you, and if they dump you first, they leave you in a heap of emotional damage that you have to work your way out of like any other victim of abuse.
And most all, regardless of type....sexual or cerebral, come back. It could take ten or 20 years, but they come back...just to tweak it...see if they can still get something from you...all narcs are users, see if you've moved on, see what it would Charlie's "she got old on me" Pat. The "on me" was throwing a crumb of attention to only a man in prison can's not like he can call her up..

So I'll call him a narcissistic sociopath. I do know he's a murderer, same as if he'd stabbed with a knife...

Marliese said...

Sorry about the typos, sane...same, they're...their, pape...paper etc, can't get back in to edit from ipad.

And thanks for the great Travis and three hole reading. Only know about that case what you all share here...just didn't follow it.


maudes harold said...

Spot on Marliese!

I think Charlie used both cerebral and somatic techniques, among a few others. He threw anything at those Wall Flower Children to see what stuck!!

katie8753 said...

Maudes said: At the end of the day, tho, it takes tremendous ability to overcome the instinct Not to kill, especially ‘randomly’ or for no ‘logical’ reason (defense of self or others in immediate harm). We train soldiers by de-sensitizing them so they CAN kill. Each killer had to have something in them that allowed them to jump that extreme cognitive dissonance and kill. And while Charlie had de-sensitization training and used it, it wasn’t with military precision and included a lot of other variables. Mansonblog recently had a great posting about this difficulty in overcoming the instinct not to kill randomly.

Thanks Maudes. I like the way you put things. It does take a tremendous ability to overcome the instinct NOT to kill. When you compare that to war, I have to say, during the 2nd World War, it didn't take anything to train to kill, but we already had an enemy, Japan. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, thousands of young men joined just to "kick the Japs butts". No prompting there. But if you consider the Vietnam "war" it probably took some coaxing to kill there. I hadn't thought about that. The war against terrorism probably wasn't hard, just hang up a picture of the World Trade Center on their bunks.

I like the way you say Charlie channeled his rage into them. I don't know if they had "rage" when they first met him, maybe "disgruntlement", but I think they certainly learned it from him. Good job!!!

maudes harold said...

I think even in those wars you mentioned Katie, they had to do that. From my understanding, that's basically what boot camp does--tears em down, re-builds em back up. To follow orders, work as a team and TOTALLY depend on your fellow soldier to accomplish the mission. No man left behind. From what I've read, it's partly that bonding that helps overcome the instinct not to kill--for the love of a brother, you will.

Even with the hate going on today, it still takes training to kill like that. (My high-school classmate was on the 2nd plane that hit WTC with her husband and 2 yr old daughter--they knew what was coming. RIP Sue and family.)

I think of all the Manson minions, Krenwinkle had some serious repressed rage. Definitely more than the others, except Charlie and Sir Stabsalot, imo.

MrPoirot said...

I know of no women Travis dated in his life that he loved. Travis very well may have been a sociopath. Sociopaths get murdered too.
The fact that they both mistreated each other but it was Jodi who murdered not Travis means nothing. I think Jodi deeply loved Travis. He didn't ever love any of his girlfriends. He didn't love any of his virgin wallflower chicks either.
Travis being a sociopath can account for his unfeeling treatment of Jodi. She was his dirty little secret. It takes a callous person to use Jodi as he did. Remember she is driving all across the Western US to see him. The most he drove to see her was half way to Yreka.

katie8753 said...

Marliese, an excellent observation!!! I really love your explanation of a narcissistic sociopath. I think that Charlie is both somatic and cerebral. He thought he was "a sex god" (in his mind), but the victims he picked probably didn't have any real sexual experience, and he thought he was smart (though he's not, but probably smarter than them).

I'm glad you pointed out that not only does he not have any regret for the killing of the victims, he has no regret for the ruining of young lives either. He doesn't say at any time that he's sorry he lead these young people down the wrong road, ruined their lives, ruined their families lives, and orchestrated their destruction by making sure they live in prison for the rest of their lives.

He's probably glad they're in prison. Since he's a jailbird, why not bring everyone else down to his level?

When he met them, he probably hated them. Here were young people brimming with youth, brimming with the possibility of a bright future, maybe some day accomplishing something important, maybe someday just having a home and family. He probably hated the idea of these young people having something he couldn't have, so he rounded up this gang of confused kids and made sure they hated.

And you're right. That jackass doesn't even acknowledge his own children, just left them in the wind like he was, not even caring if they had to suffer what he suffered, not even caring if they felt loved.

Like Moe said "I'm beginning to HATE that guy!".

He's such a pathetic loser. I for one don't know how anyone fell for his crap, I know for a fact that if I had met him in 1967 I'd have told him to fuck himself. I just don't know how those other kids fell for that crap!!! I'll never, ever understand it....

katie8753 said...

Maudes, you're probably right about the boot camp, although I think that in WW II the men who joined were chomping at the bit to get back at the Japs who destroyed an entire naval base, along with civilians.

I'm sorry about your classmate who died on 9/11. But I remember the hate I felt toward terrorists that would so blatantly come aboard an airplane and use it for a kamikaze tool to further their stupid cause. I don't think it would have taken more than a Pavlovian whistle to make me growl and bite. LOL.

Marliese said...

Hi Katie, when you say he probably hated them (the girls) that really made me stop and think. As you say, the girls were young...a lot younger than he was, brimming with possibilities, and he was a loser, a pimp, a thief, a jailbird. He'd done hard time with very bad guys like Alvin Karpis. I think you're right about charlie hating them. Narcs have a lot of built up resentment, jealousy, shame, and these girls...even damaged,represented more than what he ever was or where he came from. Except for Susan, they mostly came from middle class homes and schools, some were educated like Mary and Sandy.

i don't know if narcissists truly feel love, or if it's that they love how they feel when they're with the people they say they love...because of the partner's love for them, but I don't know about that either because I don't think they truly feel at all, except what they feel for themselves. They use people, they love to be adored and waited Susan washing his feet and all of them doing whatever he asked of them. It's very interesting to me how narcissists always come back to their victims too...they call it hoovering. Like a Hoover vacuum cleaner, they suck their targets back in...a girlfriend of mine has been hoovered back to her ex husband five times...counting the times before they were married. He's on his best love bombing behavior...."werent we so good together, you're my soulmate" ... And she goes back and it's not long before the cheating and abuse begins again, but not till after he's used her to pay his bills, or take care of his mother. They're very powerful that way...
Remember what Leslie has said...she wanted him to choose her to go the second night...wanted to prove her value....

Well...this is fun...wondering about these ideas...

maudes harold said...

Mr. P,

“The fact that they both mistreated each other but it was Jodi who murdered not Travis means nothing.”

It means a great deal to his family, friends and the legal system. It also probably means a great deal to her family too. Like this TLB crime, it deeply affected so many lives.

I can’t say whether he loved his other girlfriends, I know little of their lives together. My opinion of Travis is that he is not a sociopath, but he could have been, I’m not a psychiatrist (tho I played one on tv-lol just kidding. My undergrad was psych and sociology and I am an obsessive reader) Callus-maybe, a sociopath-not for me.

I don’t remember reading anything of his physically abusing anyone other than Jodi, and then only per her reports. She exhibited all sorts of stalking, obsessive behavior. Travis’ behavior exhibited more of a fucked up guy who couldn’t decide between piety and pussy (excuse the vulgarity). I don't condone his game-playing, but his responses to Jodi’s equal game-playing didn't include murder, assault or serious vandalism.

No one held a gun to Jodi’s independent, capable head to drive anywhere, ever, to meet Travis or anyone else. Jodi not only held a gun on someone, she shot him, decapitated and practically disemboweled him. The difference in responses to being played are staggering, imo.

And as Katie laid out-- the premeditation, man, the premeditation!! She had lots of hours to calm down and come to her senses. I’ve driven those roads, for long stretches too. Beautiful, peaceful and very calming, driving through the desert, especially at night. She didn’t calm down. Not to mention the post-crime behavior Katie mentioned too.

I think Jodi should be held accountable equally to Travis in pre-crime, game-playing behavior, but only she can be held accountable for her criminal behavior because she’s the only one that committed any…..but as they say…...Opinions May Vary.

katie8753 said...

Oh Marliese, Narcissists only care about themselves. Remember Narcissus from Greek mythology, who loved to look at his image in the river? He was so in love with himself.

Narcissists don't love anyone but themselves. It doesn't take a psychologist to figure Charlie out. After all these years, he's the same old dog.

He doesn't care about anyone but himself. Not even his children. Sad, sad, sad.

I'm sorry for your friend. When you repeat the same cycle over and over again, you usually just get tired enough of it you quit it. I say that, not as a "holier than thou" person, but as a person who endured it myself. I've been through that. The non-stop calls, the apologies, the threats, the promises, the crying, the suggestions, then the angry threats again, repeat, repeat, repeat, yada yada yada. It's like a broken record. At some point you realize that it won't ever change, it's just a bunch of bunk that's said to get your attention. I hope your friend realizes that because that's a road to nowhere.

Change the locks, and throw out the garbage!!!

And now one of my fav songs:

maudes harold said...


“I know for a fact that if I had met him in 1967 I'd have told him to fuck himself.”

While I believe that under certain conditions, circumstances, and at just the right time, many people can fall for the wrong thing, I have been reading you for about 5 years Katie, and I so TOTALLY believe that is true about you.

I envision you, depending on your age, as either kicking Charlie in the knee or the ass and sending him on his way while laughing your ass off!!! Then turning to your friend and saying “Oh NO he din’t!!! I don’t think you’d fall for his song and dance even if you were accompanying him on the piano and singing along!! LOL

“I think that in WW II the men who joined were chomping at the bit to get back at the Japs who destroyed an entire naval base, along with civilians.”

I think that was definitely a different generation of men. It really was. All war vets are survivors and go through hell, imo. They survived differently I think tho. I think the way WWII vets were treated upon their return as opposed to Vietnam vets defines one difference to some degree. I know that’s a gross oversimplification, cuz maybe WHY they believed they were fighting was a bigger difference, Idk. But I get what you’re saying.

katie8753 said...

Maudes, you crack me up!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and laughter is the best medicine!!! HA HA.

Thank you for the laughter.

I do think that that WWII vets were very different from the Vietnam War vets. A world apart. The reason I say that is because I lived it. I say I lived it because my Dad was a WWII vet, and I have his letters about kicking the Japs butts and coming back home. That didn't happen, it was a lot longer than he thought. It was a lot longer and sadder. And My Daddy wouldn't talk about his time in WWII. He was a bombardier pilot in the Army Air Corps. He absolutely wouldn't talk about it.

I had friends that had to go to the Vietnam War when we graduated from high school and they wouldn't talk about it either.

So I'm probably not making sense. Except that War makes no sense anyway. It's a shitty way to live. I hate war....

katie8753 said...

Oh well, the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand is on the 2. which means it's WAY past my bedtime. My mama told me years ago that sleeping late in the morning is the devil's tool. So I'd better get to bed.

Night y'all!! G'night Jugdish!!! :)

Marliese said...

Yes, I agree , Katie, and I'm sincerely sorry you've endured it. The only way to get rid of a narc is total no contact. Block, block, block. Block the phones, change the locks, no response if they get thru anyway, it's hard when you share children and custody, but even then there is a modified no contact...strictly child care business only.. It takes a lot of strength not to fall for the hoovering, And women end up wasting years and years of their lives on these psychos that care nothing about them or their children. That's not to say there aren't men who are victims of narcissistic women, wives, girlfrends, but I there are more narc men than women.

maudes harold said...


I think you’re doing a great job of explaining the psychological dynamics involved, especially for the girls and just what Charlie did. He was very good.

I think Charlie can be defined as a sociopath for sure-textbook. I am not convinced he was born that way (IF you believe they can be born)

Here’s why I think that:

#1) His love of music at a very young age. All reports say he had a special attraction to it at a very early age. I think it became a best friend and Savior while in jail and I think he thought it would be his Deliverance once out of jail. But underneath it all, he always loved it and it gave back in a way, unconditionally. He still has it to this day.

Of course the counter to that could be, “Well, yeah, but they say music soothes the savage (schizophrenic) beast too.”

Point well taken. Babies love it too.

But, for some reason I see this as his Saving Grace in the beginning from being a sociopath. Maybe I’m being too sentimental or just wrong. I’ve been wrong before…….ONCE. LOL (Anyone remember “Johnny Dangerously?”)

#2) In studying trauma, I’ve learned that trauma changes chemistry in the brain, affecting neural pathways and brain development; over/under-activating parts of the brain. This is especially and more permanently so, the earlier it happens. Pro-longed exposure can set someone up for all sorts of aberrant behaviors and reaction/responses in the brain that cause serious dysfunction. It is a fascinating yet kinda horrific bio-mechanism. That all happened to Manson and then some.

Music is one of the more effective treatments/therapies for healing these traumas and brain chemistries/response patterns, btw. Was is Robin Williams who said Music is the Harmonic Connection between all living things? In a movie?

#3) His training/programming in prison, both with Sychotology and Criminology.

#4) The drug experiments he was a part of at Vacaville and the long stretches of solitary. The effects on the brain of these kinds of experiments are out there to be read. And while I know, on record, this happened after the crimes, I think it contributed to his sometime schizophrenic behavior later.

For all those reasons I think he was created by his experiences. He became what he experienced. And went on to repeat the pattern and cause untold damage without a shred of remorse. Textbook sociopath.

maudes harold said...


You did a great job of describing Manson’s psychological characteristics and the behavioral techniques he utilized. As I said earlier, this doesn’t condone his actions or preclude his responsibilities in the end. He’s dangerous and belongs where he is.

He very well could have been born a sociopath and it was perfected by his experiences and perpetuated by his choices, but that love of music thing from the beginning tugs at something in me………..maybe it’s the savage beast!!

I also think he had some sort of real affection for Lynn. Charlie does lives by the prison honor code and Lynn never snitched on him and always remained loyal. I think she still is to this day, whether she has any actual contact with him.

I don’t think it’s that sociopaths have no human feelings at all, what distinguishes them, imo, is just that they have little or no regard for others’ feelings, especially if they are inconvenient or stand in their way. (Think Jodi Scarius and for Mr. P, I concede this can be said about Travis, but what separates them is their Response to frustration. And the level of Travis’ disregard doesn’t equal Jodi’s, imo)

I think they don’t process or respond to emotions in ‘normal’ ways either. (Scarius again and def Charlie)

I think anger is the most utilized emotion (possibly due to dysfunctionally activated brain centers and/or entrenched behavioral patterns), whether passive or overt, by many sociopaths.(Score another for Scarius)

I don’t think Charlie ultimately had any real regard for any of the others tho, despite some actions which might show the contrary (think Diane Lake’s convo with Bill Nelson and other stuff)

Why could others overcome similar things, and they have, and not become a monster like Manson?? What made him different?

Just a few more ponderings…

For your friend Marliese…

maudes harold said...


God Bless your dad and his strength.

My dad was a Captain in the Army during the Vietnam war, a physician who trained medics in Germany (where I was born). He never saw combat, but he sent the men he trained into it.

So, you could have kicked Charlie both in the knee AND the ass if you wanted to…….just sayin’ lol

Glad I could make you laugh, one of the best gifts my dad ever gave us. It was kind of along the adage “Physican, heal thyself!” only for us kids it was, “Geeks, Laugh at Thyselves!!”

Great song! Saw the Dead once. Friend blabbed in my ear the whole time about her bf, my bro. I should have kicked her in the knee or the ass…….

One for you….

katie8753 said...

Thanks Marliese, that was over 20 years ago, and thankfully, I don't remember a lot of it. But it is a scary thing, and it can happen to anyone. I agree, block and change the locks!! And Persevere!!!

katie8753 said...

Maudes, your Dad was a doctor? So was mine!!! My Dad wasn't a doctor in the war, but when the war ended, he went to UT in Austin, then finished at John Sealy in Galveston, TX. Wow, small world!

I love that song "WAR". Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Elaine told that writer that Tolstoy originally wanted to call his book "War, What Is It Good For", because Jerry told her that. HA HA.

Just kidding, actually I liked it when it came out in 1969 because of the Vietnam war and how everyone was so mad about it.

I agree, War...what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!!

katie8753 said...

Back to the 3-Hole Wonder, Mr. P seems to think that 3-Hole was some happy go lucky chick who had a wonderful life filled with flowers, doves and lots of love until she met Travis, and he turned her into some kind of horrific murdering sloth.

I don't think so....

Throughout time there have been people who were in love with other people who didn't want to marry them. 99.9% of those didn't kill the supposed intended. They moved on.

I can see wanting to carry through some childish prank, like making sure they looked stupid at a high school dance or ordering 50 pizzas to be delivered to their house, or ringing the doorbell and running away.

But the planning that went into Travis murder was time consuming and tedious. But 3-Hole did it. She made every effort to make sure that no one would suspect she went to Mesa that day. She wanted no connections to her. She knew what she had to do. Even going as far as turning her license plate upside down.

The way she killed him was way beyond normal. She has sex with him all afternoon, then when he gets in the shower, she mutilates him beyond recognition? Shoots him as an afterthought, and "fuck you" kind of move? Then drags him back into the shower? What was that about? I'm really, really surprised she didn't cut off his Johnson and take it with her, but I think that murderous act was all about a "one up" kind of thing.

And you don't turn into that kind of maniac with ONE relationship. Believe me, that must take YEARS to grow into that kind of maniac.

maudes harold said...

“I love that song "WAR". Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Elaine told that writer that Tolstoy originally wanted to call his book "War, What Is It Good For", because Jerry told her that. HA HA.”

ROFLMAO!! Now I’ll have that song stuck in my head all night.

The second song has been stuck in my head for well over a year. It’s actually become a refrain I sing whenever I’m asked why someone does something stupid and how it seems everyone is responding these days. (It’s been driving my hubby crazy for about a year now…)

This is why I think people do dumb evil stuff…

And this is how I think they do it…. Starring Bruce Lee and the indomitable….Chuck Norris- just to keep it TLB related……LOL

Dad was Catholic educated from 1st grade thru Med School. He ended up at Stritch Loyola in Chicago, where he met my mom, a nurse. My grandma, mom, step-mom, and 2 sisters are nurses. Yay nurses!!

maudes harold said...

“Throughout time there have been people who were in love with other people who didn't want to marry them. 99.9% of those didn't kill the supposed intended. They moved on.”

This is exactly why I say that it is the Response someone chooses that can, and does in both these cases, define and determine the difference between people.

Why did Jodi kill and not Travis?

Jodi could have still killed Travis and not been a sociopath, like Mr. P says. That scenario has certainly happened. But, all reported, anecdotal, and information directly from Jodi describes a sociopath, imo. No question about that. I tell my nieces and nephews, don’t play with peoples’ emotions, ever.

Why did Tex kill and not Paul?

Why did Leslie stab someone and not Sandy (for all we know)?

For me, asking these questions and examining this minutiae is what helps clarify things for me. Actually doing this writing helps too. Thanks for the opportunity to kinda barf on the page.

I have compassion for all of these people (I really do-Sir Stabsalot is a work-in-progress), tho I’ve also been known to be one morbidly, darkly irreverent bitch….with all due respect to the victims.

I have looked at them in terms of their own victimology and criminology (where it applies); victims, perps and those associated. It’s helped me form my opinions and sometimes ever-changing mind, however misguided, wrong or disagreeable they may be.

But at the end of the day, dangerous people who do dangerous, harmful things need to be stopped if they won’t and the public protected. As much as I love to wonder how they got there, and it has its’ purposes, safety is paramount and justice is accountability and then some.

katie8753 said...

Maudes I love your logic! I will post a Bruce Lee video at the end of this dissertation. But first, let me address your first concern: Jodi Arias. Oh wait first first, let me tell you that my mother was also a nurse. Small world!!! She earned her nursing degree in 1941, which made my Dad want to be a doctor. Then he left her for another woman, which, in the words of Seinfeld, that's what doctors do. Anyway...I digress.

If we have to start not playing with people's emotions, we're cooked darlin'! How many boyfriends did I have that I didn't want to have anything else to do with because he was (1) too short, (2) too fat, (3) too skinny, (4) Too hairy, (5) Not enough hair, (6) didn't have good teeth, (7) ate his peas one at a time (8) wore wool slacks, (9) didn't use floss, (10) listened to Boston, (11) had 2 cats, (12)loved his mother more than me, (13) like McDonald's, (14), threw up after dinner at restaraunts, (15) took 30 minute showers, (16) chewed their fingernails, (17) ate their boogers, (18) picked their noses, (19), drove the car too fast, (20) drove the car too slow, (21) wore polyester, (22), didn't want to go to church, (23), wanted to go to a mormon church, (24) ate with his fingers, (25) talked out loud during movies at the theater, (26) not as smart as me. HA HA. :)

maudes harold said...

LOL Katie!

katie8753 said...

Speaking of Jodi Arias, she killed Travis because she wanted to OWN him. That's not love, it's obsession. She wanted to OWN him. She wanted to be his last fuck.

Let me tell you something folks, anger is vicious. I know that for a fact. People get angry. But anger is instantaneous. It doesn't have a prolonged factor long before it erupts. It's instantaneous. In other words, if Jodi has just gotten mad at the last minute, she would have done something stupid, like throw the camera at Travis, or grab his legs and trip him, or push him down in the shower.

Stabbing him over and over, trying to cut his head off, and shooting him isn't anger. It's a long dwelling hate. A hate that consumes. A hate that cooks. A hate that eats.

A Hatred. Hate is a strong word. that's what Jodi felt for Travis. It wasn't love, it was HATE.

grimtraveller said...

And what's wrong with Boston and 30 minute showers ?

maudes harold said...

LOL Grim!

30 minute shower are verboten here in the deserts of California!! If you're snitched out by a neighbor or family member, they come and rip you out of the shower!! The fine is your first born child. Just kidding....for now at least!!

Growing up my mom showed us what a military shower was...Learn it, Love it, Live it!

I love Boston, they rock....and roll.

I have a booger issue tho, a hazard of the job I guess. My rule is you're not allowed to eat 'em after 7 years old!!

maudes harold said...

I think Charlie had many human emotions and wasn’t this robotic sociopath. I think his rage was voracious, tho well contained at times. It defined him ultimately. I think his rage was born of his early treatment AND cultivated and nourished by the hypocrisy he saw among the Haves. As a Have Not his whole life, and in certain institutions early on, he saw and experienced quite a bit of hypocrisy from an early age.

It is not hard to imagine little Charlie singing his heart out in church on Sunday morning feeling the Love, only to have some of these fine, upstanding community members, getting drunk and beating their wives, husbands, children and dogs on Saturday night. A tough conundrum for a little kid getting one message on Sunday and another on Saturday night.

Lots of others got this message too and didn’t act out.

Then add in his experiences at a young age in institutions designed to help or rehabilitate the young. If you’re getting raped or beat by the kid next to you, that totally sucks. If you’re getting raped and beat by the people who are supposed to help you, that mindfucks.

And it happens more than you would ever want to imagine.

The Haves and the Have Nots.

In that setting, what Charlie didn’t have was Power, and that’s probably why he abused it when he got. He was taught well.

Charlie learned about getting power from the worst teachers possible. Charlie got an education like most of us can really, really ONLY imagine. Institutions aren't about being nice and getting along, including the ones for kids. They are about survival and meeting needs. It’s like the complete flipside of what most of us were taught and experienced. We were taught not to lie. We were punished when we did and rewarded, thru social reinforcement, when we didn’t. Prison code is simple-don't snitch and survive.

I think that’s where a lot of his rage comes from. And a lot of the truth he does speak to. The hypocrisy of some of the Haves he had up close and personal experience with.

Tex might have had the hypocrisy, but he didn’t have the violent power differential meted out—at least not that we’ve been told.

Jodi might have had the hypocrisy experience (every one of us has had some level of experience with it), but not the violent power differential meted out either.

They both viciously, viciously stabbed human beings until they weren’t anymore, any of them.

And to try to make it sort of relevant to Kimchi’s post, I think what Charlie created within himself and for himself through his music was his salve and salvation in that situation. I think it still is. That was a smart and intuitively healthy choice for his own survival. But his inability to work together, sharing power in a sense, made his music career dreams a nightmare.

MrPoirot said...

Scientology and mind control played a huge role in creating Charlie. It wasn't just his mental problems and brutal upbringing. The Scientology aspect the the TLB murders were widely reported in media of the day but now the Scientology and mind control aspect are fading from the narrative leaving just the story of an abused kid growing up to be evil. Without Scientology Charlie would have remained a drug dealing pimp and car thief.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie must be smoking crack.

The album "Boston", is one of the best-selling debut albums in U.S. history with over 17 million copies sold.

Quite honestly, the album is a compilation of smash hits.
There isn't one bad track on the entire record, and it's one of my personal favorites.

Side One:
"More Than a Feeling" 4:46
"Peace of Mind" 5:02
"Foreplay/Long Time" 7:47

Side two
"Rock & Roll Band" 3:00
"Smokin'" 4:22
"Hitch a Ride" 4:12
"Something About You" 3:48
"Let Me Take You Home Tonight" 4:44

The group's subsequent albums were disappointing, producing only 2-3 decent songs among them, most notably "Don't Look Back" and "Amanda".

At the end of the day, some "Haters" might say that "Boston" was a "one-album wonder"... but in reality, it's simply not true.
The fact is, the band's debut album equates to a "greatest hits compilation".
It's really that good.

My point:
A record company could have easily produced THREE decent record albums, just utilizing the songs found on the debut record alone. (If they wanted to carve the album up).

There are no bands in 2015, who cram that much good music onto one album.

"Boston" had 10 hits, that garnered TONS of airtime... and sold millions of albums.
Ten hits, is a solid catalog of music.
Some bands produce several records (over a period of many years), before they amass 10 radio "hits".

Brad Delp's death/suicide was a huge loss to the music world.
There aren't many male singers, who can hit (and sustain) those high notes.
(And yes, Delp was really that good. I saw him perform "live", and he could really bring it).

Tom Sholz was a tremendous guitarist, writer, inventor and engineer.
In a sense, he WAS "Boston".

"Boston" had a unique sound, which I've never heard anyone reproduce... (not very well, anyway).
They were, in a word, "unique".

And for what it's worth, Boston's cover art was top notch!
The "flaming guitar space ship", jetting into space, leaving an exploding earth behind.... ???? !!!!


That is truly, one of the best album covers ever produced.


grimtraveller said...

While I love "More than a feeling" as a song, it's really the second album "Don't look back" that for me represents Boston's classic contribution to 20th century popular music. I agree with what you say about the debut but I just love that second LP to bits. Even the lame songs on it are really good and the great songs never have ceased to get me floating since I first got the album in the summer of 1980. The song "A man I'll never be" has always been so personal to me; it kind of sums up the relationship I had with my Dad until we started to get on when I was in my mid 20s. It was like the soundtrack to our battles. Mind you, though I love to sing it {the melody is so emotionally heart rending} I never meant the bit that goes "If only I could find a way/I'd be just like the man you believe I am...." because I was adamant from 14 that I wasn't going to be the product of anyone's imagination.
I particularly liked Boston's melodic heavy rock, a trait they shared with bands like Roadmaster, Kansas and Styx. But they each had a brilliantly different take on it.
I could talk about this all night so I'd better stop !
I was going to say that it was interesting how so many musicians congregated in the family {Charlie, Bobby, Bruce, Clem, Brooks, Paul, the singing girls....} but on reflection, it would've been stranger in those self taught, self expressive, creative times if there hadn't been musical people abounding around Spahn and elsewhere.

maudes harold said...

Mr. P,
I happen to totally agree with you there. I've studied both extensively, and had some up close and personal experience with the Sychotologists, not of my own doing, but with awful, personal consequences nonetheless.

Boston is a part of the soundtrack of my adolescence. LOVED 'em and the fact they were a bunch of 'nerds' from MIT ain't nothing to sneeze at, like a couple of the guys from Queen, forgetting the names atm. VERY bummed I never saw Queen or Boston in concert! Drats!!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

In fairness Grimtraveller, I never really gave Boston's second album ("Don't Look Back") much listening time.
So, it's not really fair for me to critique it so harshly.
I'll have to go back, and give it another listen.

Being a person who often prefers obscure "B side" songs (more than the popular "radio tracks"), I might end-up agreeing with you.

"The Doors" are a prime example of this concept.
Many of "The Doors" best songs, never got much radio play.
They have many great gems, that the casual listener wouldn't be familiar with...

Katie shoulda held-on to the "Boston" fan.
He was a "keeper". LOL

maudes harold said...


"They have many great gems, that the casual listener wouldn't be familiar with..."

I am a huge Prince fan (and Barry Manilow, the Bee Gees, and John Denver....I can hear the cackling) and some of his best songs have never been played on the radio. One of the best live performers I've ever seen too. And Mick Jagger.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

If I had to list my favorite "Boston" songs, it would definitely be "Hitch a Ride", "Something about You", "Peace of Mind", and "More than a Feeling"... and probably in that order.

I like the way Grimtraveller said, that the music gets him "floating".
That's an excellent description.

That's pretty much what "Boston's" music does to ya... it gets you "floating"... especially the mellow songs like "Hitch a Ride", and "Something about You".

The music is SO VERY refined, that it's basically "lighter than air", and lifts you off the ground.

Bottom Line:
Tom Scholz must have been a master at matching harmony with melody, because all of the various sounds in the music "match" (and blend) so well, that they combine together (almost melt together), into one uniform sound.

From what I understand, Scholz "played" and "over-dubbed" most of the sounds (and instruments) on the demo recordings... with the exception of the drums.
He must have been exceedingly competent and meticulous, because it all melded together seamlessly.

Describing audio in semantic terms, is like trying to taste color... or touch a smell... but, "floating" is a good start.


Scholz worked with Masdea and Delp to produce six new demos, including "More Than a Feeling", "Peace of Mind", "Rock and Roll Band", "Something About You" (then entitled "Life Isn't Easy"), "Hitch a Ride" (then entitled "San Francisco Day"), and "Don't Be Afraid".

Scholz played all the instruments on the demos, except for the drums, which were played by Masdea, and used self-designed pedals to create the desired guitar sound. The violin-like sound of the guitars was created in the early 1970s by Scholz, and it was a truly distinctive innovation in American music."

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Maudes said:
"Boston is a part of the soundtrack of my adolescence".

They really were, a huge part of that era in music.
They gave me a lot of enjoyment during my youth, as well.

maudes harold said...

Mr. P,

“It wasn't just his mental problems and brutal upbringing.”

A brutal upbringing is a method of programming.

Personal example, kinda to the flipside of Charlie and along the lines of the Response to situations I’ve been talking about, with a few differences.

I know a man who is both a rocket scientist and recently retired from the Special Forces. He has been, and still is with the science, involved in some of the biggest stories to hit the world and outerspace in those two areas.

He grew up fatherless and with an alcoholic mother who dragged him from bar to bar as a toddler and on up til she lost custody. He was on his way to jail until a benefactor stepped in, gave him an opportunity at an education and he made the most of it.

He had a traumatic upbringing and some controlled programming (purposely drowned 3 times in a pool for SF training—won’t go near a chlorinated pool to this day, but scuba-dives in the ocean).

So why the difference between his response and Charlie's? I guess I keep asking that dang question cuz I still can’t answer it!! Some would say cuz Charlie is just one evil muthafucka....

Btw, this man, his great love is music and spends most of his free time doing it.

Dilligaf said...

My first concert was Peter Frampton, on his Frampton Comes Alive tour. Subsequently, I saw Boston twice, Supertramp three times, Bob Seger, Steve Miller, Blue Osyter Cult, Van Halen in '78, Styx, Aerosmith, and AC/DC, all in the seventies, and all part of the soundtrack of my early life. Although, it was my sister, a child of the sixties, that introduced me to so much great music, including The Doors. Somewhere I still have my fan club membership card for The Doors, issued to me in '67.

Lynyrd, you are so right in that some of their best songs were only played on FM at best, otherwise left to just the album. Some of their live albums are also excellent, as songs such as The End, Light My Fire, and When The Music's Over are played differently on each live album, giving each song a different feel.

Music is certainly the fabric of our lives, and it is amazing how many songs mean similar things to many of us...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Dilligaf.

It would be difficult for me (or anyone) to choose just one "favorite band" of all-time... but forced to make a choice... I'd definitely pick "The Doors".

It was my older brother, who first introduced me to their "magic"... and I never turned back.

For my money, the two best "Live" bands of all-time are "The Doors" and "The J.Geils Band".

"All Right, All Right, All Right!"

"Little Red Rooster" performed "Live" is simply incredible!
"That's what I call a New York joint"!


The Doors probably have more "Hits" that never got much (if any) radio play, than any other band in history.

Awesome B-sides and Live tracks that never made the radio:

"When the Music's Over"
"Soul Kitchen"
"Waiting for the Sun"
"The End"
"Twentieth Century Fox"
"Alabama Song"
"Take It as It Comes"
"Moonlight Drive"
"The WASP (Texas Radio and the Big Beat)"
"Five to One"
"You Make Me Real"
"Peace Frog"
"Blue Sunday"
"Love Street"
"The Crystal Ship"
"Wintertime Love"
"The Unknown Soldier"
"Ship of Fools"
"Been Down So Long"
"Back Door Man"
"I Looked at You"
"End of the Night"
"You're Lost Little Girl"
"Horse Latitudes"

The list goes on...

maudes harold said...


I can’t necessarily disagree with a lot you’ve said about Mick, personally, and only from what I’ve read, I can’t stand the guy, but he can put on a show. Maybe not a great musically executed show, but he can pump up an audience.

I always crack up when I hear people going on about sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll and how it’ll kill ya (and it has) but I always have to ask them….….but then how do you explain Keith Richards????

MrPoirot said...

maudes harold said...
Mr. P,

“It wasn't just his mental problems and brutal upbringing.”

A brutal upbringing is a method of programming[end quote]
Mr Poirot replies:

You are equating a rough childhood with Brainwashing which is completely wrong.
Brainwashing is the complete removal of everything you have been taught to be replaced by a singular thought such as devotion to a leader. Brainwashing is not done for the achievement of self fulfilment and nurturing. We all grow up with some rough stuff to a degree but few of us are technically brainwashed to the point that we lose touch with all reality such as the belief that murder is acceptable and necessary in order to please a leader.

maudes harold said...

Mr. P,

“Brainwashing is the complete removal of everything you have been taught to be replaced by a singular thought such as devotion to a leader.”

I think this an oversimplification of what brainwashing/programming is. It’s more complex. It is not always just about devotion to a single leader. That is just but one outcome or goal.

“Brainwashing is not done for the achievement of self fulfilment and nurturing.”

Can you explain what this means and how it fits into what I’ve said? I’m lost there.

“You are equating a rough childhood with Brainwashing which is completely wrong.”

I’m not sure how you got to this conclusion. I’m saying that a designed brutal upbringing is ONE way they used to achieve programming back in the ‘20-‘50’s in mind programming research and experimentation. They have perfected those techniques, due to all of the brain-mapping, through other means now—using audio re-training, visual integrations and all sorts of other means. They key element is the purposeful induction of disassociation. From the manipulation of this technique, comes the most effective programming.

A lot of the brain-mapping info we’ve accrued, came as a direct result of the immoral and illegal experimentation. Much of the experimentation that was being done in the concentration camps(and here in the USA as well prior) was brought over here(Project Paperclip) and continued under MK-Ultra. If you read enough, you can filter through the hyped-conspiracy stuff and find the actual science, methods, doctors, hospitals and a few victims (St. Elizabeth’s in D.C where Charlene Cafritz and John Hinkley were is ONE such place associated with this activity). All my mind programming info got burned up in unsaved files a computer ago. Plus I had to walk away from that for awhile, it is intense stuff. I don’t have names, dates stuff like that anymore, but I learned how it worked and still works to this day. Look at people associated with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation-study some of those older people involved, extrapolate backwards and you can find the evidence. I didn’t start there, but came across it as a more recent organization.

MrPoirot said...

Brainwashing requires REprogramming. Remember how Pat Krenwinkle went home to see her Mom and Dad for the last time. Both Parents noticed she no longer thought of her own home as her home.

Charlie removed everything his Family were brought up with and installed his mind into theirs. Everybody became a Charlie. Free will was removed. He brainwashed them using his Scientology tricks.

Brainwashing is much the same as being bit by a Zombie. You become a Zombie if a Zombie bites you.

MrPoirot said...

Look at the word itself. You are washing away everything the person was taught and replacing that with new training. Brainwashing requires the removal of the mind.

Raising a child in a bad way is not washing away their old thoughts. A baby never had any thoughts. You can't wash away thoughts that were never there.

maudes harold said...

Mr. P,

I think we’re discussing chapters from the ‘same book’.

katie8753 said...

Hey Maudes and Grim, if you're tired of the comment moderation delaying your comments, just e-mail Lynyrd and he can send you an invitation to join the blog and you won't be under the moderation, you can just comment when you want.

Sometimes I don't get on to check for comments waiting on moderation for a few hours, so it probably gets a little frustrating.

But either way is fine with me! :)

MrPoirot said...

MH if you will remember Charlie preached to everyone that children are born innocent but programmed with bad ideas by their parents and society. Therefore he proposed the new CharlieWorld way to raise kids. All sex is good. There is no right and there is no wrong. He said no sense makes sense. Everything belongs to everybody. We know all his sayings he used on his Family. Yet we know there was more to it than just quaint catchy, cool sayings. There was more to Charlie's mind control methods than just words but we can't identify exactly how it all worked together to create such a powerful evil force over so many people.
What we don't know is the magic part. The mind control part. How did he get all those girls to bow at his feet and worship him: some for decades. That's the part we don't understand. How was he able to gain control over all those peoples minds? We believe he picked up things from Scientology and added his own turbo charger to Scientology mind control techniques.

I remember in 1971 Scientology was at its peak of unpopularity. Everyone in the US knew Scientology was evil. Everyone knew Scientology brainwashed people and used mind control.

maudes harold said...

Thanks Katie! I thought I WAS a member cuz I was posting.....uh.....duh....a blonde moment.

maudes harold said...

Mr. P,

“What we don't know is the magic part. The mind control part. How did he get all those girls to bow at his feet and worship him: some for decades. That's the part we don't understand.”

It is known how to do that. The info is out there. Again, a different chapter from the same book.

“I remember in 1971 Scientology was at its peak of unpopularity. Everyone in the US knew Scientology was evil. Everyone knew Scientology brainwashed people and used mind control.”

Not EVERYONE knew, or does to this day, tho many more do now. The bigger public awakening happened in the trial in Clearwater, which my kidnapped/deprogrammed cousin testified at during, I think 1980 or so, forgetting the exact year, atm.

Sychotology was just a way to get more subtle programming done, on a larger level, like a lot of the cults that proliferated in the 50-60’s and beyond. Hubbard knew the hard science. Now it’s in our public schools. Swell.

Charlie employed a slightly watered down version of the hard science, but still the exact same principals he was taught in prison.

katie8753 said...

I never heard of Scientology until Tom Cruise joined it. That was way after 1969. Just sayin'....

Dilligaf said...

Sadly, many people bought into Scientology in the Seventies much as they bought in to Synanon, which was just as dangerous. I spent a day at a Synanon compound back in '79. To say that it was eerie would be an understatement. I was never so glad to leave at the end of the day.

maudes harold said...

I learned about it, up close and personal, starting in 1977. Those fuckers killed my dog in 1978 and my cousin, pre-deprogrammed, used his Sychotology to actually make me feel better about it, my first real loss at 12!! Talk about some fucked up irony when I later realized it !?!?!

MrPoirot said...

MH I disagree that we know how Charlie so quickly was able to control so many people. if it were known we would have had far more cult killings than we've had. e would have had thousands more if we really knew. I think you are generalizing that we know. Yes we know bits and pieces. We know brainwashing and mind control in etreme cases when we see it but as far as what made Charlie so powerful so fast no I don't think we know. We just sorta know. Imagine what 50 people like Charlie could do? Luckily we've only had a few.
We see Group Think methodology used against us in our media every day. I know people who have strong support for transgenders but they don't even know a single one. Yet they are lining up to support the latest Group Think crappola.

katie8753 said...

Wow, Synanon, Scientology, Manson...lots of cults in California. LOL.

maudes harold said...

Lots of funny business here in ole Hotel can check out, but you can never leave......oo-ee-oo. lol

katie8753 said...

LOLOL!!! :)

beauders said...

Maudes Harold you need to a three book set titled "Sinister Forces" by Peter Levenda. He writes quite a bit about mind control and Manson. An anonymous author called Simon wrote in 70's a book titled "The Necronomicon." The book was published in 1980. Simon is Peter Levenda. I don't espouse much of what Levenda writes but these books are very interesting.

beauders said...

Katie, you forgot People's Temple. They really weren't a cult in San Francisco but things turned real cultish real fast once Jones moved to Jonestown.

katie8753 said...

Hi Beauders! Thanks!

maudes harold said...

We do know how he did it Mr. P. He used the concept of dissociation and achieved it thru techniques of de-sensitization. He disassociated them from the paradigms they grew up with. He used specific things like:

-sleep, food, affection deprivation

- the use and manipulation of drugs, sex, loyalty

-logic inversions, purposeful cognitive dissonance

-Neuro-Linguistic Programming thru music, phrases and lots of repetition

-their own emotional dissociation/disaffection ----->Us vs. Them

-unpredictable violence , which is a powerful tool that leads to an internal locus of control of the fear of violence, creating better submission (it’s a gift ya know!!) outside of the presence of the threat, much like what happens with guilt too. It’s the FEAR of it alone.

-threats of violence or shunning

-dissociation of prior life relationships (trauma and addiction specialists will tell you that one of the better indicators of successful recovery is a good foundation of familial or community relationships)

-charisma, power, control

I know I’m leaving stuff out.

In reading Susan’s interview with Caballero/Caruso at Cielo’s site that he recently shared, you can see some of his techniques in Susan’s comments.

It’s not hard to see how Charlie got people to do lots of things, criminal or otherwise. It’s a harder jump with the brutal killings, but he did.

I think Manson LOVED the power and control, but when the mewlings of his minions created demands requiring Responsibility as the leader, he balked and shirked, unable to handle it. This can be evidenced in his response to professional recording attempts of his music, especially as related from an un-programmed outsider like this one in Kimchi’s post.

Was Manson trying to shirk some responsibilities with these murders, as in dumping a few minions when they got caught??? Hmmm. Sir Stabsalot brought the Crowe mess to him, was involved in every murder except Gary, and I include Sir Stabsalot in Karl Stubbs murder too-he conveniently left the family right after!

maudes harold said...

Thanks for the info. I think I came across him in my readings. I can’t remember atm. I tried to stay away from the more polarizing figures in researching mind programming, cuz, well I’m suspicious of their agenda. People like Alex Jones, David Ickes and such and focused on doctors, hospitals and research. The Nazis weren’t alone, nor the originators, in these ‘endeavours’ as some would like to suggest.

I think Jonestown was a cult in San Fran. I think it got more purposefully cult directed after Belo Horizonte in ’65, but that’s for another blog. lol

Mrstormsurge said...




MrPoirot said...

Maude are you talking about what Charlie did to his Family to brainwash them or are you talking about what mass media is doing to force Group think onto Americans?

MrPoirot said...

MH there isn't much difference between Charlie's Helter Skelter and the Left's Global Warming. They are both variations on an end-of-times theme commonly used by cult leaders to instill devotion by the followers.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Stormy!!! :)

grimtraveller said...

Mrstormsurge said...



That 27:11 minute take was the third take of three attempts that night of a session that went on until 3.30am the next morning. From 1965's "Rubber Soul" sessions onwards, all night recording sessions had become pretty much the norm for the Beatles and in fact, the long recording was the last of takes that just got progressively longer, the first take being 10:40, the second being 12:35. All three were treated as rehearsals, more or less. What the Beatles did during the recording of the White album was to rehearse each song, recording each rehearsal as a numbered take and then select the best one to overdub on and complete. As Mark Lewisohn put it "Few songs on Sergeant Pepper's lonely hearts club band, the ultimate exercise in economical 4 track recording, had gone beyond ten takes. Few songs on The Beatles {The White album}, stopped there. One, 'Not guilty', went as far as 102 takes and was still left unissued." Lewisohn went on to say "the 18th July recording of 'Helter skelter' had partly fulfilled Paul's wish to create a rock music cacophony...."
There's an edited version of the 12:35 version on the Beatles Anthology 3 album. It's pretty boring.
Earlier that day from 2.30pm until 9.30pm, they had finished off "Cry baby cry" which features a lyric {verse 4} that Bugliosi & Gentry used at the start of their chapter "The killers" in the book 'Helter skelter.'

maudes harold said...

Global Warming???? I just read that the sun might disappear in 15 years due to Global Cooling, like in the 70's.... Where the hell is Chicken Little when you need him???

MrPoirot said...

Global Warming causes Obama.

katie8753 said...

Maudes, HA HA. The sky is falling.

That global warming is just the left wing recipe for money. Nothing more.

maudes harold said...

I have no dispute we are having an impact on our environment. I have not read the science to speak with any real opinion other than to say I trust no source til I look at the Board of Directors et al and the source of funding of the studies. LOL

Everyone’s got a Fear to shill these days, and with the inundation of information in the global paradigm shift that is the Net, it makes finding the truth a bigger endeavor.

If anyone is interested, I read this site called Statement Analysis. It is run by Peter Hyatt who does this for a living. Statement Analysis is basically a forensic analysis of someone’s statements in determining truth or deception. Like a polygraph of your actual words.

There is an accepted science to it and he does a great job of teaching you how to analyze the statements people make. His accuracy rate is astounding and the principles of how we choose our words is well examined in a really blogger-friendly and accessible way. We know instinctively when someone is lying and their words can bear this out. Not always and this is also addressed. This gives you a framework and vocabulary to understand your instincts.

He used to focus on missing kids and crime cases like that and still does, search Casey Anthony for some great stuff in learning the principles. I learned the most from his analysis of that case.

Lately tho, he has gotten into the political realm and his beliefs are becoming a lot more a part of the posts. I agree with some of his personal/political beliefs, but there are many I don’t. I can live with that. There is a lot of shit happening to discuss in the world around us, but it can bring out some icky comments and some things I just flat out disagree with. I can live with that too and still learn from the principles he applies and teaches to the readers. I figure it’s good to be challenged by things you disagree with, it either makes you see the flaws in your own beliefs or it sharpens your understanding of their strengths.

I am grateful for his sharing of his time and expertise . He has been amazingly generous with his time in giving away info for free that he charges for in really intensive professional trainings. It’s a great tool for honing your ability to discern truth from deception within people’s statements, personally or on the larger stage.

beauders said...

I wish someone would start up a Jonestown blog. After Manson it is my favorite subject to discuss but I have no one to talk about it with.

MrPoirot said...

Maybe Statement Analysis can help find out if OJ murdered his wife?

Mrstormsurge said...

I believe Nicole and Ron's killer is at large and probably playing at The British Open today.

MrPoirot said...

OJ has a new book out: "If I made the cut".

katie8753 said...

Beauders, you can talk about Jonestown here if you want.

MrPoirot said...

The problem with Jonestown and Heavens Gate was everyone died. There was nobody left to interview. The victims pretty much ended every aspect of discussion by wiping themselves off the face of the Earth. They ended the story with mass suicide. They got the final word. How do you add to that? What they did was final.
Ever walk up to somebody because you need to talk to them and they walk off? That ended the discussion.

katie8753 said...

No Mr. P, Jim Jones' son survived.

maudes harold said...

Mrstormsurge said...
“I believe Nicole and Ron's killer is at large and probably playing at The British Open today.”

Who’s playing in the British Open??? Lol

MrPoirot said...
“OJ has a new book out: "If I made the cut".

Is that his new book about his acting career???

Several people walked out of Jonestown alive. I've got the books of a few who did.

In looking for blogs recently on Jonestown I came across one(, but haven’t completely vetted it yet. It appears to focus on the anti-Apologists’ approach to Jonestown, maybe as a balance to the Moore/MeGhee site( It doesn’t look like it’s been active either recently.

I love the Moore site because of its’ primary source documents- organizational, governmental and personal. In reading you can see the delusion with some members still, of events both past and present. But if you dig into the personal testimonies of people directly and indirectly involved you can get a greater understanding of what PT meant to different people, how they were led, despite economic, racial and cultural differences, and why some believed in it, especially in the beginning in San Fran. Fascinating stuff ranging all social sectors.

I can understand why people would call Moore an Apologist and why she would want to skew it certain ways—her 2 sisters were Jones’ deluded henchwomen. Atm, I can’t actually remember anything of hers I’ve read…I like the primary source documents.

I have recently focused my interest on those who enabled Jones in his endeavors, this did not happen in a self-contained vacuum, and just from skimming the site, this appears to be a focus.

Here’s a fascinating article about a guy researching brains of psychopaths and realized his mapped brain showed he was one……and the Nature vs. Nurture discussion.

Can ya tell I’ve got Brain on the Brain???

maudes harold said...

*'s the brain link

beauders said...

Actually Poirot fifteen to twenty people survived Jonestown itself, including an eighty something year old woman who hid under her bunk and fell asleep and awoke the next day to find 917 people dead including her sister, the entire staff in San Francisco survived, and there were many defectors who are still alive today.
Jonestown was part of my teen years, I went to school with kids who family there. I was fourteen when it happened and went with my father and sister to the Temple in San Francisco when they had the auction of the Temple's possessions. My father a salesman, was selling antiques at the time, purchased a lot called "picture frames." What my was in the frames was very interesting. They included pictures from school sets of 8 1/2 x 12 of historical events such as the Holocaust, Slavery, the bombing of Hiroshima, Lynching, and other disturbing things. My father didn't so he threw them away, except I asked if I could have the one on the Holocaust, and he said I could. My mother was so disturbed by it she threw it away without my knowing it. Jones used these posters as a teaching aid, that is to show his followers what was coming. In Jonestown he told them that it was happening then, that there was a Holocaust happening where Black Americans (2/3 of Jonestown was Black, many elderly) were the victims.

beauders said...

These elderly people and the children (over 300 were children) were trapped in Jonestown. They were told they were going to paradise but ended up on a plantation that pretty much enslaved those capable of working in the fields. The children were killed first, they did not commit suicide. After these deaths the parents didn't want to live and took the poison. Once though the people saw the children in agony from the cyanide it got harder to get the followers to take the poison so they started injecting it into them. Again these people were trapped, they were in a jungle hundreds of miles in and two hundred miles from any help. Jones was such a coward he most likely had his nurse shoot him in the head (Annie Moore, his nurse and Jones were the only people found shot).
I have read the letters of the Moore sisters and they are interesting and very detailed about life in Jonestown, of course putting a very positive spin on it. Jones was crazy and these women-his wife, his mistresses, his nurse, etc. could have stopped the massacre but didn't. They knew with the assassination of Leo Ryan, Jonestown was over and so they let massacre happen.
When I say People's Temple in San Francisco was not a cult. I mean the rank and file members, yes they believed in faith healing, but so does some mainstream churches, especially historic ones. Jones and the planning crew were cult like, but they belonged to a major Christian Denomination, Disciples of Christ. Jones was also a politician in San Francisco (he was head of the Housing Committee) and met with Rosalyn Carter of all people when her husband was running for President. They continued a written correspondence until Jones left for Guyana.

maudes harold said...


Spot on!

I’d love to have a conversation with Tim Stoen, Terri Buford, Tim Carter, Jean Brown and Mark Lane, just to name a few.

Of the dead, I’d love to talk to Marceline. I hate the fact that she gets this glorious make-over as a Mother Mary, when I think she could have had Jones killed at so many different times. She knew many, many years prior what a sick fuck Jim was, but she had no problem absconding with money, both government and members’. While I can understand not leaving for fear of her kids early on, at that time in history, battered woman and all that, but at the end, she could have made sure Jim died and that fiasco could have been stopped. I don’t place the blame squarely on her shoulders, it’s too simplistic, but I believe she could have prevented the massacre, had Jones been taken out either before or after the Ryan killing. He was half-dead anyway and his death could have been made to look natural.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thank You Stormsurge.
It's always a pleasure to see you.