Wednesday, November 6, 2013

The Charles Manson Juror Stare Down


This is an excerpt from an article written about the jury members after the Tate LaBianca trial was finished.  The juror mostly featured in the article is Jean Roseland.  The complete article was written by Robert Kistler for the Los Angeles Times and syndicated to other newspapers.  My copy of it is from the Saturday April 17, 1971 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle as is the picture.

It seems the Charlie amused himself during the trial by competing with individual jurors in a stare down.  This is Juror Roseland's description and feelings about that event.

"Well, today's my day with Charlie."  Jean Roseland laughed as she and the other jurors prepared to go to lunch.  During the past five months, it had become a standing joke among them, and this morning had been Mrs. Roseland's turn to try to stare down Manson.

"He has those eyes of his on me all morning," she said to a colleague.  "He just sat there staring at me."  The other juror smiled, then shrugged, and the group went to lunch.  In truth, this habit of Manson's wasn't that funny.  Frankly, Jean thought, it was unnerving and she wished he'd stop.

Later, after the trial was over, she would try to explain her uneasiness about Manson.  "I wasn't ever able to stare him down," she said.  "I always turned my eyes away first.  Some of the other jurors said they got him to look away once or twice, but I never managed it.  "I still don't know why I couldn't.  I certainly found no magnetism, or anything, in his eyes.  It was always the same blank expression, the same expression they all had in their eyes.  Maybe, it was the LSD and other drugs they had been taking for so long..."

Mrs. Roseland and the others never heard Manson speak, except for his periodic outbursts that usually got him removed from the courtroom.  She is convinced, however, that his apparent ability to manipulate others came not from within himself, but "from the voids within the minds and souls of his followers."





51 comments:

Max Frost said...

Absolutely.

Mind control is a two way street.

Matt said...

Ahhh "Mind Control" That is the question: Whether it is legal to control someone's mind, to the extent they will KILL for you, or whether YOUR killing someone is merely an expression of YOUR being programmed.

From kindergarden through 12th grade YOU are required, by law, to attend school (for FREE) but then thereafter YOU must PAY $$$$ (by choise) to accuire a HIGHER level of education. At a recent CineFamily screening of MANSON during the discussion that followed, I asked if there were any college graduates present. A small few raised their hands and I asked one that specific question: Why did you PAY the government for a college education, why didn't the government pay YOU? He could NOT answer why.

Four years in collage and the question of WHY you have to pay the government for something that was FREE to everyone for 12 years, and the issue was never formally raised in any class?

Therein lies a society's deepest/darkest "mind controL" secret.

Robert Hendrickson


Dooger said...

I am starting to really like Robert Hendrickson, Matt. haha.

And, I am sure these staredowns really didn't help the jury sympathize with Manson. Gees.

Suze said...

Dooger, I'm socking away money to go on the next tour. I specifically hope to meet Mr. Hendrickson as I always look forward to his take on the subjects presented here! Hopefully my car holds out another year. LOL.

ElComadreja777 said...

Charlie knew he wasn't going anywhere. I guess he figured he'd have a little fun.

Doc Sierra said...

I've always thought that Chucky's need to control and dominate people partially centers around his being a small man. I think there's something to the whole Napoleonic complex thing. Some of the most aggressive, manipulative, control freaks that I've known in the business as well as personal worlds have been little men. No offense to anyone reading this. I've also known a lot of small men that weren't control freaks.....

Max Frost said...

He didn't have a need to control. He spent most his life in prison where the only ones controlling anything are the guards.

He got out at the right time, ended up in the right place(s)... And when he DISCOVERED the control he could have over some (not all) of those kids, it blew his mind and he ran with it.

bobby said...

I thought residence of the State of California did receive free college education. I thought it was just states like mine ( NY ) that college ed. had gotten too expensive for the avg. resident. I have a daughter who just started community college this fall. Even community college is far from free !

Matt said...

I hear you, bobby. College was so affordable when I went in the early 80's. Paid for the whole thing myself without my parents. Totally out of control now.

DebS said...

Tuition at a university campus in CA is $12,864. for the academic year. It was on the news last night that the price was not going up for the upcoming school year. That does not include books, insurance, transportation, food or housing.

My local junior college is $46 per unit plus all of the above charges. These prices are for residents of CA. Non Residents pay more.

Panamint Patty said...

As a second bachelor's student, patty pays $4200 per semester in tuition at a CA state school. This is nearly the amount her whole first degree cost in 1991.

Panamint Patty said...

furthermore, she is limited to 9 or fewer units at a time. sucks ASS

leary7 said...

the last thing in the world I want to do is enter into another silly spitball fight, but did "somebody" really write "in prison where the only ones controlling anything are the guards"!!!
That may be the most naïve and misguided proclamation anyone has ever made on this blog.

I respect and admire RH for all his work, but I just never get where he is coming from. Is he really arguing that college should be free for everyone in the country? Sorry, but that is just idealistic utopian nonsense.
Like Matt, I worked and paid my own way through both college and grad school. I went to Texas and worked for a year right out of HS so that I got in-state tuition and then worked my ass off to earn scholarships.
But I did work my first two undergrad years at the Austin State hospital on the graveyard shift on the ward for criminally insane. We had a few Charlies there, and worse.

Max Frost said...

You really think a 5 feet, 5 and 1/2 inch guy was controlling people in prison Leary?

Max Frost said...

Actually Leary, nobody made the comment you are referring to - you imagined the whole thing.

Feel better now?

orwhut said...

How tall is Charlie, anyhow? I've seen from 5'2" to 5'7".

Max Frost said...

5' 5.5"

Max Frost said...

Think Michael J Fox with dark hair and a swastika on his forehead.

orwhut said...

Max,
Why do you trust that figure?

Max Frost said...

That's how tall (short) he is. Anyone who knows him will tell you that.

It's also backed up by multiple police reports - including the latest one posted on LSB.

The cops always round it off and list him as 5'6"

orwhut said...

Thanks Max,
I don't guess the police would have a reason to lie about Charlie's height. I've thought he was much shorter for years.

Matt said...

Leary: First YOU tell me when YOU first discovered that the education system is designed to create a control within YOUR mind? In other words, in what grade or year of college did YOU realize that the system had "programed" YOU to be who YOU are? IE: the person they want YOU to be. AND did YOU ever ask yourself, why is there even a college system at all? Why didn't they just start charging me money to go to High School? What exactly is the "mental" benifit of continuing on through college? Is it OOPs they forgot to teach me something?

Robert Hendrickson


Matt said...

According to AC, who has visited him:

As you will see from the picture of him standing with me, Charles is now about 5'4".

Exhibit A

Charles is about an inch taller, and I am 5"3". We were both wearing sandals with no heel. He has, according to friends that've known him for a long time, shrunk a bit with age, as everyone does when they get older. Perhaps he's wearing boots in the D/L photo.



orwhut said...

And thank you Matt. I came across an arrest and property record showing Charlie as 5'7". It gives his last name a Benson, with Manson as an alias, making me wonder if they measured the right person.
http://www.mansonblog.com/2013/01/bus-exodus-made-stops-for-murder.html
Helter Skelter says he's 5'2". That's probably where I got the idea he's shorter than 5'5".

1nonbeliever said...

college should be free, is like saying, everyone should be rich or equal. Its a nice thought and catchy phrase but it is not realistic in a growing society. The status quo will not ever changed, everyone can't be part of the upper class, it would destroy the dream, but everyone has a part to play in life, and no one said it would be fair.

Panamint Patty said...

please be nice to Leary. :)

DebS said...

The 5'2" height for Manson probably comes from the picture of him taken when he was arrested in Inyo County. The picture shows him standing in his buckskins in front of a height chart and it looks like the chart puts him at 5'2". But, Manson is not standing against the wall the chart is on so the measurement may be deceptive.

Rob King said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Max Frost said...

He has shrunk with age.

Take a close look at the chart that shows him being 5'2" and you'll see the chart is not properly measured to the floor.

Who's not being nice to Leary?

Max Frost said...

Bugliosi continues to this day to claim Manson is 5'2" even though he knows it's false.

It helps add to the illusion of the "demonic dwarf" with magical satanic mind control powers, etc.

Matt said...

Patty says to be nice to Leary and I hope I am, but there is frustration do to the fact that Leary, you are thinking INSIDE the box. From kindergarden through 12th grade we are ALL taught INSIDE the Box. IF we pay to go to collage, we are then allowed to peek through a small window to the OUTSIDE world. Some of us eventually step outside of the BOX and look back at the person who was trapped INSIDE the Box. I was only trying to trick YOU into experiencing what it is like to breath some fresh air OUTSIDE of the box.

Robert Hendrickson


Max Frost said...

I used those exact words in response to one of Leary's posts not long ago...

"Think outside the box."

Cielodrive.Com said...

I think we can all agree he is short, right?

Max Frost said...

Yeah but 5'6" is not nearly as freaky as 5'2"

Cielodrive.Com said...

Maybe so Max, but neither are intimidating statures

Max Frost said...

You didn't think Michael J was intimidating in Teen Wolf?

Panamint Patty said...

Marty McFly? He'd need a whole dojo full of creepy crawlin' kick boxers and a Shannen Doherty mask to freak Patty out! *snicker*

orwhut said...

I think it's in Nuel Emmons book where Charlie says if he stands up real straight he's such and such a height. Can anyone remember what it is? It won't come to me.

Max Frost said...

You were right the first time orwhut - the cops wouldn't have a reason to lie about manson's height.

Multiple police reports - from different decades - list him as 5'6"

There would have to have been quite the conspiracy involving different cops from different eras all predicting the future of Manson and the TLB case - KNOWING how fun it would be to throw a little disinfo into the mix for people to chew on DECADES later.

Doc Sierra said...

Max Frost said...

There would have to have been quite the conspiracy involving different cops from different eras.
-----------------------------------
That would be even be greater than the LAPD conspiracy to frame OJ.....

orwhut said...

I found it. On page 23 of Emmons book, Charlie says, at his fullest height with a little cheating, he's 5'5". He was 51 years old at the time. That's what the book says, anyway.

christopher butche said...

There is a view that as the Manson saga is awash with stories of Manson's sexual virility combined with a harem of willing women, it is necessary to always describe him as "small" so as to diminish his masculinity and success with women.

Imagine Hugh Hefner with a swastika.

Trilby said...

I absolutely love each and every one of your comments, Mr. H. Brilliant.

Trilby said...

Yep. And all the replies stressing that we have to pay for education, or have a hierarchal structure to society, just illustrates how we are conditioned and "programmed" every minute of our existence - kindergarten wasn't early enough, so enter "pre-k" nonsense and an endless stream of kiddie commercials during cartoon hours. Institutionalized learning, K-12, exists to stamp out creativity and original thinking, & prepare us to become corporate drones with the mindset of enslavement to mortgages/manipulated interest rates, Wall St./401k "When I retire I can do what I want" mentality. Step outside that train of thought and you will be punished and disenfranchised by the system. Why NOT free education and healthcare instead of corporate welfare and oil company subsidies? Is it because these two issues, which cause huge indebtedness in America (medical bills & student loans), are actually a convenient way to manipulate and control people? You know, I'm no fan of Charlie at all - in particularly disgusted by his hiding behind his prison no-snitching "code of honor" & waffling on his involvement in crimes - "chickenshit" is the term that comes to mind - but Charlie is a pisher compared to the programming we all receive from society, particularly in the military. Perhaps programming would describe the military better, & conditioning describe society.

Trilby said...

... And don't even get me started on GMOs and food additives/processed food, fluoride, electromagnetic fields, etc. As I said, I dislike Charlie, but there was some truth in some of his views.

Matt said...

Dooger & Trilby, thank you. You two obviously understand Robert. I love it. He inspires people to think. I love that about him.

Trilby said...

That's what I love most about Mr. H, too, Matt. I don't care what side of an issue someone's beliefs lie upon, as long as a person is willing to listen to all possibilities. I love open minds (& debate!).

Trilby said...

And also let me make it perfectly clear that my comment wasn't directed at Leary, I don't want him to think that. I enjoy his posts, & admire his courage alot. Healing wishes to you, Leary.

leary7 said...

Patty, thanks for the concern but I grew up in a 'not nice' family so conflict and disagreement are just part of the life flow.
And Mr. H. is NOT someone I would enjoy being in conflict with since I admire and respect his work and insights to the max.
But I can't bring myself to see our different perspectives as inside/outside the box, nor are they conservative/liberal or enlightened/unenlightened.
I do confess to being a born-again functionalist so maybe I tend to be to pragmatic on these issues.
My belief is simply the a govt should offer basic education to all - and it is NOT free as it is paid for in spades with taxes. And now if kids want to do extra like play sports or in the band or such most places make em pony up even more moola.
College is "higher learning". And yes ideally it should be available to all and affordable but the reality is that is a utopian concept. Taxes would have to be tripled to even meet basics.
I know Robert doesn't mean to insult but suggesting that he has to "trick" me into getting outside the box is really demeaning. And who is he, or anyone for that matter, to define where the lines of the "box", i.e. subject matter, lie.
On the subject of education, RH seems to view it as a right whereas I see it totally as a privilege. And we all know that true learning can take place at any age and in most any environment.
I just don't buy this "inside the box/outside the box" crapola. It's a tired old cliché/crutch. Say what you mean - you're saying that you believe your view is enlightened while my view is limited and programed. I say my view is pragmatic and yours is delusional. Potato, tomato.

gracias Trilby, kind of you.

leary7 said...

Sorry, just one last point.
I've never believed for one second that the educational system or school defined me in any way, RH.
Family defined me, DNA, peers, choices and experiences shaped and defined me.
But education/school is just information. You learn basics in K-12. Basic math, basic history, basic science and so on. College clearly offers more varied and defined information, i.e, "higher learning".
I would never let 'information' define me as a person any more than I would let reading the morning newspaper define my mood for the day.
It's all just information, data really, and every individual can choose what to process and what to not. Teaching Burmese refugees these past four years has taught me that in spades.

Max Frost said...

Great words Leary. Really.

Now...as much as RH, myself, or anyone could certainly benefit from pondering what you said...so could you.

We are not always masters of the insights we are so quick to impose on others.