Monday, December 12, 2022

Bruce Davis Prison Intake Report

 


After a defendant is convicted and sentenced, they are sent to a sort of clearing house to determine where in the prison system they should be housed. They are interviewed and given various evaluations including a psych evaluation.

All factors are weighed before assigning the prisoner to a specific facility.


This is Bruce Davis's prison intake report and includes the psych eval.


Some of our readers enjoy reading and dissecting the contents of the documents of the Manson Saga, others, not so much. Since I've recently been able to obtain a large number of documents, I will be focusing on getting them posted. Some documents will simply confirm what we already know. Some documents will dispel mistruths. Other documents will clarify certain situations. And some documents will make you wonder if law enforcement knew what was actually going on. 


25 comments:

Unknown said...

"And some documents will make you wonder if law enforcement knew what was actually going on" 😆😆 Count me as one of those who give a resounding "FUCK NO" to that last part of your statement! Thanks btw for all the great work you've been doing lately putting up these original documents. Invaluable service you've been providing. 👍👍

David Lane said...

‘He should at least be given a bible’

Appears to me the prison systems in Christian countries have financial stakes in promoting the sale of bibles.

Torque said...

Awesome, Deb. Documents are gold. Looking forward to seeing them.

shoegazer said...

It's interesting to read the evaluations, the language and tone used by the evaluators, and what this says about them, and more importantly, what it says about the zeitgeist of the era, as opposed to contemporary sensibilities.

Like quite a few others who read/post here, I'm old. I was almost 22 when TLB happened, was in college, was a sort of moderate, politically: against the war, smoked dope socially, affected the appearance of being a student radical, but was not, I later realized.

One of the biggest differences between the expressed sentiments of the current era and that of the mid/late 60s is that today's sentiments *immediately* lean towards a sort of worldly cynicism, whereas during the Manson era people like myself, and probably most of his followers, did not automatically assume that everything could be attributed to ulterior motives.

People were optimistic and hopelessly naive. Manson, himself, seems to me to have been a sort of manipulative cynic, perhaps due to his early life, and he used this element of trust (Blind Faith--huh?) against his followers.

Another thing that I think is to realize that the PRIMARY sin recognized by people like me of that era, and doubtless by Manson's followers, was hypocrisy. Just as the term "racist" trumps all possible negative epithets today, "hypocrite" was the ultimate condemnation.

So in reading comments of the era, it's good to understand that very often the writers of such comments were sincere in their *belief* that they were being fair and were benevolently motivated--doing "what's best".

I think many readers here already know that, but fairly often I get the impression that some readers are assuming that today's attitudes were prevalent and common back then, and they were not.

It is very much different now in many ways that may not be apparent to readers who have a shorter timeframe. Deeply held attitudes changed, big time but gradually, after Nixon's disgrace (you could no longer assume authority to be largely public spirited and benevolent), and then with Clinton's impeachment for crass sexual misbehavior and his attendant lies and deceptions in trying to evade involvement.

It has been a cumulative process of acquiring a sort of smug cynicism, like something portrayed in a French film. This is not entirely unjustified, but it's not how the bulk of the population felt back then.

starviego said...



Thanks again, Deb!

excerps:

[page numbers are marked at the bottom right of the pages. (Some pages seem to be missing.)]

pg4
"In October, 1968 he relates that he took a trip to Europe as the guest of several(3) young women, returning in May, 1969 after having visited North Africa, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, England, and other places of interest. He declares that the girls paid most of the expenses although he had used some of the $2,000 which he claims he inherited upon his father's death in 1968.

"In discussing his feelings about Manson, he relates that "they even wanted me to testify against Charlie. I couldn't do that, man--I love the dude too much. He is a great guy--he's for real, and anything he says you can count on. He doesn't jive." "


Arrest record pg4,5&12

March 9, 1968 "..arrested in the Los Angeles area for possession of marijuana." Charges dismissed.

May 2, 1968 arrested for possession of marijuana in LA, charges dismissed

Oct 12, 1969 -- "Within a week of his twenty-seventh birthday he was arrested in Independence, Missouri for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, receiving stolen property and auto theft." (charges dismissed)

Jan 21, 1970 "Within three months he was arrested in the Los Angeles area for receiving stolen property." (charges dismissed)

March 7, 1970 "Within two months he was arrested, again in the Los Angeles area, for false identification to obtain federal firearms. This involved his illegal purchase of a 9mm pistol."


pg8
Met the Family while they living in Topanga Canyon, presumably at the 'basement house,' after being invited up there by another. He says the house had slid off its foundation and rooms were initially filled with mud. He gave the landlord his car when she complained about the Mansonoids trespassing.


pg11
".. he... describes as absurd the possibility that Manson had some sort of hypnotic hold over his followers."

starviego said...

"In October, 1968 he relates that he took a trip to Europe as the guest of several(3) young women, returning in May, 1969..."

Who were these generous sirens who lured the second-in-command away from The Soul? Very odd! There is something more to this, for sure.

DebS said...

Great post, shoegazer. You've spelled out the difference between then and now very well. I'm old, too, I was 18 at the time of TLB. The things we take for granted now weren't known back in 1969.

Just like evolving beliefs and mores, solving crimes has evolved, too. There would not be as many questions about the murders had they been committed in the last 20 years. The idea of preserving evidence so that it is free of contamination wasn't considered. No one wore gloves when collecting evidence and, in a few instances, items were passed around barehanded for people to inspect. It's not just DNA evidence that has evolved.

shoegazer said...

The use of the term "dromomania" to describe Davis is really interesting.

Of course I had to look this up... ;^)

It can be used to describe someone who seems unable to settle down in the "normal" sense, and I read one brief analysis of the condition being rooted in a sort of endless search for a complete family connection, often stemming from a lack of this sort of emotional stability experienced in youth.

Related to this is a lack of, or inability to set, personal goals.

Really, this loose description could be applied to many of Manson's followers. He provided the sought-after family connection (emotional security) and also set the goals for the group of which they were a part.

starviego said...

Don't crosscut saw me, bro!

pg8
"...he happened to meet another person who told him that he was going to "crosscut saw a person" and invited Davis to come along with him. ... it was implied by Davis that the person who was going to be "crosscut sawed" was a member of the Manson family. However, this did not take place...


Something was lost in translation:

www.mansonblog.com/2015/05/the-mansonfamilytodayinfo-files-bruce.html
In 1967, Davis was with a friend in Topanga Canyon, who had borrowed a cross cut wood saw. This friend needed to return it to its owner, and he invited Davis to come along. .. The owner of the saw was none other than Charlie Manson.



Doug said...

I can't see the docs
Am I the only one who cannot see them as pdfs with the link provided?

Torque said...

Shoe, yes. I appreciate your analysis of the world of 1969 compared to now. I'm reminded of little things that came up in discussion during the investigation of TLB. One of them was Billy Doyle discussing hair length on men in his interview with LAPD in Toronto(see cielodrive.com Audio Archives). We probably would overlook the length of men's hair today by comparison.

Another issue is the age gap. In Anerica at least, there was a greater prevalence of young people age 15 to 25 than ever before. Manson discussed this at least at the trial, even though he was 35. The irony of that to me can be seen in the slogan, "never trust anyone over thirty "

And of course the reality of the war in Vietnam ignited a generation into an organized anti war movement. This of course had many flashpoints, namely the deaths at Kent State, where students lashed out over the hypocrisy of escalating the war after Nixon promising this would not happen. Many argue that there is no real anti war movement today by contrast.

grimtraveller said...

shoegazer said:

some readers are assuming that today's attitudes were prevalent and common back then, and they were not

I think it would be naive to assume that many of today's attitudes were prevalent 50~60 years ago, especially given the way that varying attitudes changed throughout the 20th century.
But it was, as you point out, during the 20th century that many of the attitudes in various western societies began to change and in some places, gained greater traction than others and with greater numbers than in others.

This is not entirely unjustified, but it's not how the bulk of the population felt back then

One could justifiably argue that this is not the way the actual bulk of the population feel now.
But at the risk of sounding dismissive {and I am not being so}, I don't think it's that important what the bulk of the population felt or didn't feel then or now. What may matter are what those involved in and around TLB felt then, and their fairly immediate circles. And no offence, but I don't think that you are representative of the mindset that so many of that number and their immediate circles had because it is clear to me just by reading a variety of what people in various disciplines were saying at the time {and how these carried on into the 70s, 80s and now} that there was a serious shifting of thought going on and this permeated behaviour of a great many people. I've pointed out a few in the past, song lyrics {"Meridian Leeward" by Nazz, "I am the walrus" by the Beatles, "My White bicycle" by Tomorrow} that tell you something about young people's perspectives towards the police, films like "The Detective" and "Madigan" from 1968 which indicate a growing cynicism that has never really gone away and general stories from the stars {the Rolling Stones and Beatles' tales of their drug busts are instructive} stand alongside those that come from people that say or infer "I was there and I alone can say what it was like."
You were all young and thinking ~ and thinking different things.
None of us speaks for everyone and a small but sizeable minority has been shown in our lifetimes to sometimes go on to be just as, if not more, powerful in the long run than the majority at the time.

grimtraveller said...

Shoegazer said:

People were optimistic and hopelessly naive

I agree, a lot of young people were. A lot of young people still are.
But I don't think a lot of Black youngsters were, about White America. I don't think too many prostitutes were. In fact, I'd say it was arguable that a lot of cops were in many of the big cities once they'd been on the job a while.
What I find with a lot of kids and young people {0~25} today is that much of their cynicism is what I call a second-hand cynicism. It contains much that is based on what may be true, but very little that is actually experienced.

Manson, himself, seems to me to have been a sort of manipulative cynic

If the stories he has told of his first 15 or so years are true, then he had every justification for being a cynic and I'll even go as far as to say a manipulative one. Because the world about him, both the legal, law-abiding one and the illegal law-breaking one taught him pretty much the same thing, namely, eat first or be eaten. That doesn't justify anything illegal that he actually did, but he simply responded to life in the way both sides of the tracks that he encountered showed him it was, in reality.

the PRIMARY sin recognized by people like me of that era, and doubtless by Manson's followers, was hypocrisy. Just as the term "racist" trumps all possible negative epithets today, "hypocrite" was the ultimate condemnation

And that gave rise to increasing cynicism.
Manson told Steve Alexander in 1970 and Nuel Emmons a decade later, that when he got to Haight-Ashbury, he ran into a 15-year-old that slept where he wanted and thought the idea of working was for idiots and he was Charlie's early teacher in the Haight. That 15-year-old was cynical and it does make one wonder what had happened to him to make him so cynical at such a tender age. And it is interesting that Manson went on to become a sort of haven for disaffected runaways that were already pretty cynical about life, even if they didn't actually know that's what it was at the time. Few people run away from home believing the best about everyone else around them ! They may have been hopeful of the new people they met that seemed to speak the same language {and which left them ripe for exploitation}, but there was already an underlying cynicism because many of them had experienced hypocrisy.
Pat Krenwinkel is a case in point. She only had to look at her Dad with his affair and then her parents' subsequent divorce to have her world unstitched and cynicism to set in. It's interesting that Manson pegged her as being resentful {read: cynical} about her sister's drug addiction.

shoegazer said...

GT, I want to make just one clarification.

You'll notice this phrase:

"...the zeitgeist of the era, as opposed to contemporary sensibilities"

Basically I'm proposing that various eras have differing *general* sensibilities and that I'm pointing out in which ways they were different given my remembrances from that time and my present observation of current sensibilities.

If you're not sure about the validity of idea of differing pervasive values across time, at that point when I was living with a girlfriend in the summer of 69, she went to great lengths to hide this from not only her parents, but mine as well because there was a significant stigma associated with this.

Compare this concern of hers with how it would be viewed now. A young woman's parents would probably be *glad* to hear that she was in a stable intimate relationship with a male companion. They could at least relate to this.

I have lived thru a period of time in which as a young kid radio ads told me to buy Product X, remove the box top, fill out my name and address, place it in envelope along with a quarter (25 cents) taped to the box top, and send it to the supplied address, often Battle Creek. MI. Three weeks later I'd get my handy-dandy baking soda-powered submarine, or a "ray gun" that puffed flour clouds at my enemies.

And by god, I *did* get these things, not once, but many times without fail.

Think about today putting any amount of cash in the mail with the expectancy that it would actually arrive, and think too, if any company would be so callous and naive as to advise you to do this.

Times, and general perceptions, change.

grimtraveller said...

By and large, I agree.

orwhut said...

Doug,
I found a package of Sea Monkey eggs on a novelty rack somewhere as an adult and remembered the comic book ads, so I bought them. They hatched and soon died.

Doug said...

Brine Shrimp!

Mine did the same...excellent marketing team behind those suckers...eventually making US the suckers lol

shoegazer said...

But, but...what about living in a time when a little kid could trust adults not to steal his quarter!!!

Which was made mostly out of SILVER!!!

;^)

Doug said...

Melt those suckers down!!! Time to ca$h in!!!

Monica said...

This is going to be good, Deb! Thanks for your sleuthing!

"KC" Kern County Slim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
"KC" Kern County Slim said...

Baking soda submarine!!!
Heeee. Blue Otter Pops...and the purple "Alexander the Grape" variety come to mind.
This is going to be a nice read in the tub tonight.
Cheers Deb!


I pulled the first post as I didn't see it update my ID...this is just a repost
I don't like fully anonymous folks online. I don't trust that shit, so I made a profile finally.
I'm writing w Deb now to let her know I'm legit. Thanks y'all for having me. I've been lurking and learning for some time.
The level of conversation and thought that goes into this place is appreciated.
KC

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Secrets or artifacts?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Thank you for calling the Manson Blog. Please listen closely as our options have changed. Press One to whisper sweet nuthins into our ears. Press Two for a free quote on your string scorpions and shower shoes.

Loegria15 said...

"And some documents will make you wonder if law enforcement knew what was actually going on." A priceless and timeless statement!

Thank you for the hard work you do in gathering all these docs! May you never get a papercut, ever!