Manson Saga Discussion Panel (Paulcast) Interviews Mike Brunner

 

Mary Brunner and PTSD

Was PTSD a factor in Mary Brunner's bizarre courtroom behavior? 

Empathy comes a bit easier when I see people as kids. I always search for everyone's youngest photograph online before doing anything else. Wondering wtf happened in Cali and staring at the photo is the next step. For many of these folks, I never move beyond the wondering stage. Everything is just so crazy. And some of the explanations seem crazier. 

The last month or so, I've been working on a Mary Brunner timeline. Mary's performances across courtrooms from trial to retrial to trial etc shocked me to say the least. I wondered if I could follow her personal arc through literature and official documents and arrive at some place that made sense. 

Additionally, my cousin and I made family trees for Mary's Brunner (paternal) and Baker (maternal) families. Mary's DNA profile is consistent with the white European population of the Upper Midwest in the decades surrounding the start of the twentieth century. Wonder Bread before Wonder Bread. I found a black and white photo of Mary's dad doing a handstand. Total research career highlight. The champ is here. 

Anyway. Mary intro via Fromme. 

Babes in the woods. Summer 1967. Burton Katz said Mary was "well on her way to a Master's Degree" but I can't find a confirming source. Mary is twenty-three and the right age to be a grad student but many accounts have her moving to California in 1965 after graduating from Wisconsin. Graduate students aren't typically library assistants either. That is more of an undergrad thing. 

Our traditional introduction to Mary is at the Berkeley gate where Charlie is strumming a guitar and Mary's dog Muffin runs up yip yip blah blah blah, "Woman! I'm gonna kick your dog! 

"You better not!" 

I prefer Emmons for this scene but to each their own. Let's set the dune buggy time machine for mid-April, 1968. Law Enforcement  arrives late night in Ventura County at the scene of a bus wedged into a deep drainage ditch. Beside the bus that is assumed stolen but not yet verified, a group of fifteen-ish hippies are asleep naked on the ground. Among them is Mary Brunner and baby Pooh Bear. 

Charlie stole the bus in San Francisco nine days earlier on April 12th. Kind of romantic in a Hollywood movie way but not when you get locked up for it in real life. And then of course since the gang is the gang, they crashed their stolen bus into a ditch. Somehow, no one was injured. A celebratory bonfire and weird group unclothing followed. 

I pictured the first policeman on the scene, a Vietnam vet or something like that, shining his light on their pale bodies and thinking everyone was dead. The scene likely resembled something straight out of Roswell. If you're unaware of what happens next, Charlie is arrested for the stolen bus and having two driver's licenses. Other nude people also receive false identification charges. Yeller and Brenda are charged with disorderly conduct. I imagined them fighting the police naked in slow motion while Japanese girl group surf rock blasts. 

Mary gets busted for her underdressed and shivering baby sleeping beside her. No charges are filed against Charlie over Pooh Bear even though the infant is half his responsibility. Oh how times have changed. 

Knuckleheads pops into my head a lot when I think about these kids and Charlie in their early days. He was older but at a similar maturity level. Charlie lost his mom for several years at the age of five over the The Great Heinz Bottle Stickup of '39, fell into the care of Glenna, toothless Bill, Uncle Jess Kaboom, and finally the clink at age thirteen. 

Ohio River payback cake from an Easy Bake Oven is the order of the day but not yet. Here is the first time tiny Gen X'er Pooh Bear, later named head of the Manson Family by Clem Grogan, is taken into custody. While a social worker will later tell Mendocino investigators this arrest was little more than police harassment of hippies, Mary is now on paper. She receives a suspended sentence, two years probation, collects her baby, and promises to return to Wisconsin where she belongs. 

Which is slippie code for Mendocino. Here are a few highlights contributed by an anonymous friend. 

(I want to feed that cute baby goat and raise it at my house!)

You remember little Allen's snake legs and all that plus how the other boys tore the place up. Everyone arrested or questioned at the scene except Mary gives a fake name. Mary rented the cabin using her real name and knows she's doomed. The gang admits to the LSD and some pot seeds and help the police find the drugs in either the woods behind the cabin or a shed in the woods behind the cabin. Mary takes the fall. 

Pooh Bear is sheltered and cared for in the home of Dr. Roger Smith upon Charlie's request. My opinions are whispers in the wind of course but I think Smith got a raw deal in O'Neill. 

More germane to this discussion is what was Mary's state of mind at this time? My quest was how does a person go from taking their flute out to California with them to their library job to sitting naked with Kenneth Como or even the machine gun photos. How did she get there? When did the changes occur? 

All of this is from cielodrive.com. Thank you, Mr. Bo. 

Mary could be playing the game because she wants her baby returned but she's not displaying any red flags. 

Professional references are provided including Dr. Smith. 

The final paperwork.

This far into it, do you think Mary is cracking under the pressure or displaying any overt revolutionary tendencies? She seems like she's holding up okay to me. The gang is still getting arrested for stupid things and maybe nothing feels real but Mary is playing a game with inescapable consequences. 

George and Elsie Brunner surely begged Mary with genuine fear in their voices to return home. But Mary loved her baby's father like many girls love their baby's father and ignored her parents. Everyone always talks about cult this and mind-controlled that and while they might be right, I just don't know for sure. What if it was a simple perfect storm type of situation and the train came off the tracks in the worst ways? 

Viewing Mary as a girl who wanted to live with her friends and child's father more than returning to her parents and their I-told-you-so's resonates with me. And if neither option was ideal, Mary was stuck somewhat like the stolen bus in the ditch with nowhere else to go and that's a different issue. 

Which brings us to Gary's. 

That photo triggers me every time and I wasn't there. How many times do you think Bobby viewed it online over the years and wished he'd never taken that ride? I wonder if Mary ever looked into all of this? I bet she'd do anything to go back in time and keep everyone from walking up those stairs. 

Bobby, do you read these? 

It's impossible to gloss over what happened at Gary's or write an apologetic piece. Gary's life became a nightmare until he ceased to exist over the course of a gruesome weekend in July 1969. Bobby lured Mary into going to Gary's because they were friends and Mary would put Gary at ease. Mary to her great detriment is unable to keep from admitting to things she's done wrong. Because of that, we know she told Guenther and Whitely that Bobby informed her of the robbery about to take place at Gary's during the drive there. 

Her first version of events places the amount they sought at Gary's at three grand btw. 

Mary said she thought nothing of Bobby's comments because she knew Gary had no money. Evil Bruce McGregor Davis dropped them off and scurried away into the darkness like a rat. Sadie gave the signal once the coast was clear. Mary stood inside like a foolish girl from Wisconsin until there was no chance to leave. 

Guenther and Whitely also found out from Mary that Bobby shared with her his decision to kill Gary. Put yourself in Mary's shoes. What could she have done? Die with Gary? She must've been terrified. I'd never recover from that hellish scene. 

We all know Gary's ending. Mary and Sadie took turns smothering his death rattle after Bobby told them to do it. There's no escaping what they did. Awful isn't a strong enough word. 

Over the next week and some as July works into August, we don't hear much from Mary until what Dreath dubbed The Sears Caper. 

Mary looks scared. She's thinking her goose is cooked. And has a thousand yard stare. Here's a scholarly article on the relationship between witnesses to violent crimes and PTSD. Google is filled with many others. Mary fits the profile every time.  

Eventually, Kitty from the sidewalk tries to nuke Mary in court by saying she witnessed Mary driving Gary's vehicle after his death but she is too late. Guenther and Whitely have already talked Mary into cutting a deal. Texas high hurdles state record holder (4A) Tex Watson later writes that Mary would have been at Cielo if she wasn't in jail. 

When I'd see that Tex quote in the past I always thought yeah right whatever weirdo man. Anymore, I'm not so sure. If the story about Tex retrieving Pooh Bear from Dr. Smith's house in Melcher's car is true, maybe Tex and Mary were close. Whatever the case, Mary and Sandy were unavailable the night of Cielo after bungling a simple retail hustle. And I'm happy about it. 

Somewhere between Gary's murder and the Twinkie truck accident, Mary's brain changes. Clear evidence exists. She becomes agitated and emotional every time we see her in the public record afterward. The first Wisconsin interview. Her affidavit. Court. 

Mary should be forever grateful to Judge Keene. I wonder if she ever watched him on Divorce Court? Boring program but on right after school in my day. Countless peanut butter sandwiches were consumed while actors in their forties who looked old to me pretended to divorce one another. 

In the coming year, I'd like begin a discussion on Mary's court appearances after the Hinman murder. At one point, Mary tries to die for or alongside Bobby before Judge Keene steps in and saves her life. She is safe for awhile but more astonishing blunders are coming. 

Something is wrong with Mary. No one gives a shit because she suffocated Gary and has a baby with the boogeyman but by Christmas of 1969 the time bomb is activated and ticking. An appointment on the wrong side of these bullet holes awaits Mary at the semi-conclusion of her antics out west. +ggw

Sorting out the issues behind Manson's estate

Charles Manson is dead. His estate (and his body) remain, legally, 'at issue.

Only one person seems to have presented a legitimate will. That person is Michael Channels. Does this will take precedence over Manson's "heirs"?

At issue right now is whether or not the case is in the correct court. For some reason the case is in LA County because that is the county that Manson lived in before he was arrested. LA County thinks that Kings County where Corcoran is located and where Manson lived for so many years should be the proper place for the case. Manson died in Kern County and if anyone wants to go back to the last county Manson lived in while he was free, it would be Inyo County where he was arrested the last time. We are not sure if the case will stay in LA.

The issue comes up this way.
_____

“A decedent, prior to death, may direct, in writing the disposition of his or her remains*****” (California Health and Safety Code Section  7100.1(a)). The writing would be Manson's will. 

_____

Administering a will requires a probate proceeding.

_____

“If the decedent was domiciled in this state at the time of death, the proper county for proceedings concerning administration of the decedent’s estate is the county in which the decedent was domiciled, regardless of where the decedent died.” (California Probate Code Section 7051)

_____

This would seem to be a rather simple issue. The key is where was Manson ‘domiciled’ when he died? Common sense says Corcoran State Prison, Kings County.

But it’s not that simple.

‘Domicile’ means the place where Manson was last physically present (lived) with an intent to remain at that location. as odd as it may seem, under the law you can change your residence and not change your domicile. Your domicile does not change until your intent changes.

This issue becomes more complicated because it is a generally accepted aspect of the law that ‘domicile’ must be ‘voluntary’ and that, therefore, an inmate’s domicile does not change. Incarceration is not voluntary. Nor do they intend to stay there, indefinitely, regardless of the reality of the situation.

So, Inyo County (which isn't even on the radar) actually appears to be the correct county. And here’s the argument why:

1. ‘Domicile’ requires that Manson be present in the county and have an intent to remain indefinitely to establish a domicile.

2. Incarceration does not change ‘domicile’ because it is not voluntary. 

3. Manson last lived in Inyo County. 

4. Manson expressed his desire to return to Inyo County (the desert) to the press during the TLB trial, in post incarceration interviews and at parole hearings. This seems to show his intent. Remember, the fact everyone knew he would never get out of prison doesn't matter. 

Does Inyo County make sense? No, of course not.

We could also add our second argument:

The state conclusively proved Manson’s domicile was Inyo County during the TLB trial. Bugliosi proved Helter Skelter was the motive. Part of Helter Skelter includes living in the bottomless pit, which allegedly was in Inyo County. 

Therefore, since Manson was present in Inyo County in October 1969 and Bugliosi proved Manson intended to remain there for 100 years by proving that Helter Skelter was the motive for the crimes, Inyo County is the proper venue for the probate proceeding.

Now, on to the people who have made a claim on Charles Manson's estate and those who have a legal right to do so by virtue of actually being legally related to Charlie.

Manson had a son by Rosalie, his first wife. Charles Milles Manson born in 1956 in LA. Rosalie divorced Charlie while he was in prison and was remarried Nov. 8 1958 to Jack White. Her second son Jesse White was born Feb. 3 1958 in LA before her divorce from Charlie was final. Jed White was born Apr. 4 1959 in Riverside County CA. Shortly after that the whole family moved to Cadiz Ohio. Charlie Jr changed his name to Charles Jay White. He married Elizabeth Noel July 5 1985 in Clark County Nevada. They had a son Paul Jay White Jan. 25 1986 in Galveston County TX.

So, Charles JR., who Jason Freeman claims is his father, actually did have a son who is legitimately Charlie's biological grandson.  Note that in Rosalie's obit in the above link that Jason Freeman is not named as her grandson.  Rosalie would have been every much a grandparent as Charlie. Did Freeman ever try to connect with her or was he only interested in riding Charlie's coattails?

Manson's marriage to Leona Musser is a little murkier but they did get a legal divorce and in the divorce papers it does say the Charles Luther Manson was his son. Charles Luther was married and had two daughters, Angela and Starla. He changed his name to Jay Charles Warner, BTW.

So, there are two more grandchildren, children of Charlie's sons - both named Jay.

None of the three legitimate grandchildren have laid claim to Charlie's estate.

Jason Freeman... His mother's maiden name was Freeman, he was born out of wedlock Sept. 2, 1976. We'd bet dollars to donuts that his birth certificate says "father unknown" but we haven't seen it.

Matthew Roberts... It is unknown if Charlie is really his father despite the fact that he does have a resemblance. However, Matthew was adopted as an infant so he has no legal claim to Charlie, in our opinion. An adopted child has no legal claim to their birth parents or anyone in their birth family, so it's silly to think any adopted person could make the claim that Matthew Roberts is trying to make. The will that was presented looks phonier than a three dollar bill, too. It is made on an online will form and it does not even look like Charlie's signature on it. It is included below. The red box is around the url of where the will form came from.

Upon reading it if you thought "Oops, you are missing a witness"... then you are thinking like us. Doesn't ANY will require at least two witnesses to attest to the sound mind and absence of coercion?  It seems to us that this will is invalid on its face.

This is the will that Michael Channels submitted to the court.  It was posted online by TMZ and was heavily redacted by them.  This will appears to have been written on a form provided by the prison and filed with the prison.

These are the requirements for a valid will.

_____

California Probate Code Section 6110:

"(a) Except as provided in this part, a will shall be in writing and satisfy the requirements of this section.

(b) The will shall be signed by one of the following:

(1) By the testator.

(2) In the testator’s name by some other person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction.

(3) By a conservator pursuant to a court order to make a will under Section 2580.

(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the will shall be witnessed by being signed, during the testator’s lifetime, by at least two persons each of whom

(A) being present at the same time, witnessed either the signing of the will or the testator’s acknowledgment of the signature or of the will and

(B) understand that the instrument they sign is the testator’s will.

(2) If a will was not executed in compliance with paragraph (1), the will shall be treated as if it was executed in compliance with that paragraph if the proponent of the will establishes by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time the testator signed the will, the testator intended the will to constitute the testator’s will."

_____

The underlined words are the key, legal jargon. This is why Roberts has a problem. The will can be valid if not witnessed correctly but the standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ is a tough one to reach in court. 

The usual standard in a civil matter is ‘a preponderance of the evidence’. Think of the standard this way: you have to prove you are 51% right or win 51-49. In a criminal case the standard is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ or by 99% (99-1). ‘Clear and convincing’ is somewhere in between and means Roberts has to prove he is 75% right (75-25). That is hard to do, especially if all Roberts has is the will.

Michael Brunner was adopted by Mary Brunner's parents, George and Elsie Brunner. So, the same adopted argument prevails. He is no longer legally Manson's son.

Here is 'legally' why.

"An adoption severs the relationship of parent and child between an adopted person and a natural parent of the adopted person unless both of the following requirements are satisfied: [the exceptions are not relevant here]" (California Probate Code Section 6451)

A 'completed' adoption severs the right of a child to inherit from their biological parent unless that parent 'contractually' provides for it. In other words, leaves something in a will. The key is 'completed'. There is a difference between 'giving the child up for adoption' and adopted. As long as Michael Brunner et al were adopted they are cut off absent a will.

David and DebS contributed to this post.