Charles Manson Has Roots In Ohio Valley,
Childhood Friends Recall
May 10, 2012 - By D.K. Wright
Charles Manson has none of the folk hero charm of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or Bonnie and Clyde. He is a living symbol of the dark side.
Yet before he was a serial killer, he was a little boy growing up in McMechen.
Charles Manson has none of the folk hero charm of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or Bonnie and Clyde. He is a living symbol of the dark side.
Yet before he was a serial killer, he was a little boy growing up in McMechen.
At age five, he came to the home of his uncle and aunt when his mother went to prison. "When he was with us, he was Chuck," said Dorothy Bartlett of McMechen.
"We didn't know him as Charlie. He was Chuck Manson. There was nothing that I saw in him that was any different from the other boys. It seemed she took good care of him. He played with us. He got dirty just like we did."
They say he went to church a lot, had strange reddish-brown eyes and ran faster than anybody else. He would show up and play with the other kids on the street.
"We would play outdoor games like normal kids did back then," Bartlett recalls.
"We spent a lot of time outdoors. And we would play hide and seek and I think there was a game called "Run Sheepie Run."
They say he was clean cut, good looking, almost pretty. And they say he was quiet.
"He was a very quiet young boy," says Bartlett. "He was a nice looking young fellow. He really was just like the rest of us at that time."\
While his schoolmates were shocked at the way this quiet little boy turned out, mental health professionals are not.
"I think he probably was a very quiet child," says Dr. Tricia Bailey, clinical psychologist in Wheeling. "Maybe he learned not to speak up at that young age for a number of reasons."
The other children had no idea of his horrific family life. "His mother was only 16 years old when she had given birth to Charles Manson," says Dr. Bailey. "And from the information that we have at hand, we know that she was an alcoholic and that she had a difficult life herself. Shortly after that, she tried to sell her son to a waitress in a place for a pitcher of beer. And then it took an uncle several days to go out and find Charlie and bring him back home."
Despite a high IQ of 121, in Center McMechen school, he was a mediocre student, quiet and unnoticed. He eventually was passed from one relative to another. He started stealing, got in trouble with the law, and ended up in reformatories and jails.
"At this point he becomes extremely violent himself," relates Dr. Bailey. "There is one account of him taking a razor blade to another boy's throat while he's sodomizing him in that facility." More crimes and jail terms followed.
In August 1969, the news came out about the Sharon Tate and LaBianca murders and the Manson Family cult. In McMechen, Dorothy Bartlett read the paper that day, but didn't make the connection.
"I laid the paper down and didn't think a thing about it until my mother called me and asked what I thought about the trouble my buddy had gotten into," recalled Bartlett.
"I told her I didn't know what she was referring to. She asked me if I had read the paper, and I said yes. Then she said 'Chuck Manson.' "
Manson turned out to be charismatic, manipulative, remorseless and evil.
Dorothy Bartlett says with a smile that she'd really rather have had some other claim to fame than having grown up with Charles Manson.
Manson, on the other hand, must have liked his Marshall County roots. It is said that he once wrote a letter, requesting to be transferred to the West Virginia Penitentiary to live out his sentence there. The authorities said no, but legend has it that they framed the letter.
His schoolmates wonder sometimes if he could have been rehabilitated.
Dr. Bailey is emphatic about that. "He expresses not on iota of remorse, guilt or shame for what he has done to other people," she said. "It's almost as though they deserved it in his eyes. There's no medication, there's no psychotherapy, in my opinion, that would help him."
In California, Manson was recently turned down for parole again.
He'll be 92 when he can reapply.
Submitted by Katie. Thanks Katie.
35 comments:
I really liked Dorothy Bartlett of McMechen.
She reminds me of a nice old lady, I once had on my paper route.
She'd always have fesh baked cookies ready for me on collection day... invite me in... and talk my ear off for 30 minutes. LOL
I didn't mind though.
She was cool!
I could have done without "Dr. Tricia Bailey", clinical psychologist in Wheeling, however... LOL
She was just annoying.
I just updated the "Thread hall of fame".
Another stripe for Katie, Kimchi, Michael from Backporch, and MattP (2).
Thanks guys/gals! You ROCK!
Wow, what a shock to find out a kid you played in the street with was behind some of the most horrific murders in American history!
I like that house Charlie lived in. It's quaint. 2 stories, up on a hill....
I'm thinking Charlie's mother has denied that story about selling him for beer. Then again, she's denied a lot of things. LOL.
"He expresses not on iota of remorse, guilt or shame for what he has done to other people," she said. "It's almost as though they deserved it in his eyes. There's no medication, there's no psychotherapy, in my opinion, that would help him."
Well said. Charlie had a chance to grow up in a civilized neighborhood, go to school and excel, but he chose not to.
He chose to steal and go to prison. He chose to steal, pimp girls out and go back to prison.
He chose to gather a harem of witless girls and guys who doted on him to carry out his wishes. Stealing from their own parents, stealing from others.
He chose to order murder. He chose to participate in murder.
He WAS at the LaBianca house. He admitted that.
He chose to make a mockery of the justice system, then whine and cry like a little baby that he didn't get a fair trial.
And he still chooses today to never have remorse, never take responsibility for his actions, or even remotely act like a human being.
He doesn't attend his parole hearings because he doesn't like the rules.
Well that's why he's still in prison. And surely will stay there until he dies.
LOL
Please...
Tell us how you really feel. : )
Everyone behind the yellow tape.
She's about to blow!
AHahahaha
If Charlie, et al, were in court in 2012, they wouldn't have gotten away with 9/10 of the crap they got away with in 1969.
These judges have a tremendous responsibility. I wouldn't want that on my shoulders. They have to do the "thumbs up or down" many times in deciding if someone should go to prison, be on probation, or even get the death penalty. That's quite a burden. And county employees aren't that well paid.
Dill, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's changed dramatically since 1969. Judge Older permitted way too many antics in that courtroom back in 1969.
In today's standards, the very first time they stood up and chanted and yelled, they would have been dismissed from the courtroom for good. Not to mention someone lunging at the judge to kill him. LOL.
In fact, if they showed up bald and with an "x" on their foreheads, I doubt if they would have been admitted to the courtroom at all. At least not while the jury was present. It might have been a brief encounter, but they would have been dismissed.
And I know that where I live, if people showed up on the sidewalk with "x"s on their foreheads protesting a trial, they would be removed quickly. It's called security.
There are a lot of people who like to say that Charlie didn't get a fair trial. But these people obviously have not read the trial transcripts and other information which will enlighten them on what really went on in that trial, and how much was tolerated back then.
Come on Lynyrd. You have said many times that if Charlie had only towed the line, worn a suit, acted "normal", he would have gotten off scott free.
And that's the truth.
But he chose to act the fool, stir up trouble, double dip and continue to lead these scragglers along. It was so obvious to the jury and judge that he was the leader of this clump.
You'd think that Charlie would be smart enough to stop his shenanigans. But he was so ego-fied, that he kept on, and ultimately lost his freedom.
Bottom line is, Bugliosi didn't really win his case...Manson won it for him. By his own actions.
Manson only has his own self to blame.
Que Lastima.
Thanks, katie!
Katie said:
"Come on Lynyrd. You have said many times that if Charlie had only towed the line, worn a suit, acted "normal", he would have gotten off scott free."
I never said Manson would have gotten off scott free... not in a million years.
That's absurd.
I never make statements that bold.
Your assertion, is an extreme exaggeration.
I said (paraphrasing)... that Manson may have stood an outside chance at acquittal... or a reduced sentence, if he played his cards differently.
I said something much more tempered and restrained like that.
Manson could have given himself a fighting chance... but, he didn't.
That was my point.
That's significantly different than "scott free".
And yes...
I have said... many times... that Manson assisted Bugliosi's case.
That's because, it's true.
Also... there were several more parameters to my statement, in regards to "playing his cards right"... than just wearing a suit.
I have to run.
Peace...
CAROL!!!! Good to see you!!!
I've missed you and Venus!!! :)
i don't mind if that shrink lady says there is no therapy or drug that will rehabilitate Manson as long as she tells us why that is so. Why has Manson remained the same as he was in 69? How is that possible? Even the Grand Canyon has worn its' river bottom deeper since 1969. We already knew Manson was incurable. Why didn't the lady shrink tell us why he is unable to change his ways if she is so smart?
How can any human being remain the exact same person for decade after decade? What froze Manson's psyche?
"We are each responsible for our own life - no other person is or
even can be."
Mr. P., those are good questions. I don't know the answers. Anyone????
HI MARY!!!! Great to see you!!!! I've missed you!!! :)
Hi Mary!
I agree Katie, Mr P asks excellant questions. The obvious answer would be Manson lives in a sort of suspended animation test tube. He lives primarily in his head with minimal human interaction. The SOB has such innate intelligence and charm you have to wonder if he had been put in a mental health facility if his 'schizo/borderline personality disorder' might have been altered.
Back in the 70's I put myself through college working the graveyard shift on the ward for the criminally insane at Austin State Hospital. Charlie would have been like the Nicholson character in Cookoo's Nest if he had been on the ward.
But what is interesting to me is that not just Manson but a couple of others have maintained their "Spahn personalities" as well. I am thinking of Cappy and Red and Blue mostly.
Sure would be nice to have an update on Squeaky. Is she still coming out with another book?
Leary I agree. I think also one of the reasons that Charlie has never evolved from his 1969 status is probably because he doesn't want or think he needs help. Even if getting help might eventually lead to his release. Or maybe he's just resigned to the fact that he'll never get out and just wants to stay "Charlie". LOL.
Sandy & Squeaky were pretty hard core. I get the feeling that they would rather just be left alone. No more attention seeking for Charlie or ATWA. But I don't know enough about what either of them are doing to know that for sure.
What makes you think Cappy still has a "Spahn personality"?
didn't she comment recently that she regrets not being asking to go out on those August nights?
I just had a sense that she remains loyal to Manson and whatever his current cause is.
I think Charlie likes his reputation. Maybe he really has changed, but refuses to let that side of him show? I tend to doubt that, but it is a possibility. He has this scary rep and I think the little weasel (I offer my sincerest apologies to any weasels who might be reading this as no personal insult was intended!) really enjoys that. He loved doing TV interviews and showing off his boogeyman attitude so to act (relatively) normal would destroy his legacy of being a murderous monster.
Hi Venus!!
>>>He loved doing TV interviews and showing off his boogeyman attitude so to act (relatively) normal would destroy his legacy of being a murderous monster.>>>
So true!! LOL. And if he didn't do the gobble-de-gook talk, people might think he had turned articulate or something, which wouldn't be good for his image either. HA HA.
Leary, I read that Cappy said she regretted not being picked, but surely that was when she was young and foolish. I can't imagine her saying that recently.
Oh, Katie, he did like his gobbledy-gook and mumbo jumbo, didn't he? And the dramatic arm movements and the way he'd say things for dramatic effect. He missed his calling, he should've been a performer because he seemed to enjoy hamming it up in front of cameras.
Yeah, not to mention making silly faces at people. When he wasn't mad and ranting and raving about something, he could be kinda funny. LOL.
After I posted my last message, it dawned on me that he DID want to be a performer. That leads to the question that if he'd gotten a record contract, would all of the murders have happened? Or would that not have been good enough? Would he have expected to appear on "The Ed Sullivan show" or something similar? Would there have been no end to the list of things that he seemed to require for fame or whatever it was that he was looking for?
That's a good question Venus. If Charlie had gotten a contract, that probably wouldn't have been enough for him. He'd probably want to sell more records than the Beatles or something. That wouldn't have happened. LOL.
So it's hard to say....maybe the murders would have been delayed????
Hi Venus.
I got your messages.
I sent you a reply.
Thanks!
: )
Off subject for a sec:
I'll Have Another (TB) just won the Preakness. If he wins the Belmont in a few weeks, he'll be the Triple Crown Winner. YEAH!!
Hi Katie,
Sorry it took a little time to get back to you, I have been busy warping my grandsons minds. I just turned them onto "The Curly Shuffle", since I have turned them into Three Stooges converts.
Your question is not as easy as it appears on the surface. In some regards, a judge today would have kept a tighter control, but there still would have been theatrics today, maybe not of the same magnitude.
When you look at the OJ trial, there was much theater that goes on, you cannot escape it when you have such sensational crimes. These things occur daily across the country, just on a lesser scale and unnoticed by the media.
However, when you are dealing with a capital case, a judge will do as much as he can to afford a great amount of leeway to a defendant, as that person is literally fighting for their life. Any judge worth their salt will want to ensure that upon appeal, which will be automatic in a DP case, higher courts can find little if any fault with the trier of fact. In doing so, a defendant can push the envelope just a bit more than we may like. If you look at the antics in the TLB trial, while it was scripted, the court had no prior knowledge to act upon, but, the defendants were removed mutliple times for their actions.
I hope that answers your question..
Thanks Dill!!
>>>Sorry it took a little time to get back to you, I have been busy warping my grandsons minds. I just turned them onto "The Curly Shuffle", since I have turned them into Three Stooges converts.>>>
Good for you!!! Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk.
I agree with you that the Court will be as lenient as possible in order to avoid an overturn of a conviction.
I do think that some judges are more hardnosed about the proceedings than others. I think that Judge Older let things slide a LOT, but as you say, I'm sure he'd never experienced anything like that before in a court of law. They were probably gaping in disbelief at these antics.
Maybe this trial set a new precedent regarding trial protocol??? LOL.
Dilligaf, You Rock.
Case Closed...
I'm reminded of the Warren Jeffs trial in West Texas. Warren was a "cult leader" like Charlie, and like Charlie, wanted to represent himself. And like Charlie, he presented a list of demands that were supercilious.
The judge in that case was very smart. She allowed him to represent himself. His first request was to have a 6 month extension so he could "learn how to do it". That was denied.
Then on his opening statement, which he presented sans jury, he threatened that anyone who convicted him would be struck down by God. The judge quickly said you won't say that in front of the jury.
Then in his closing argument, he stared at the floor. The judge kept saying "you have 20 minutes...10 minutes...5 minutes...okay time's up". LOL.
This judge did a super job in allowing all the rights she could to the defendant without bending over and letting him run the courtroom.
A Control Freak naturally would want to represent themself in court rather than give up control to an attorney. Control Freaks suffer from OCD/Obaessive Compulsive Disorder just as Paul Watkins said all of those at Spahn Ranch suffered from.
Post a Comment