In the new Hendrickson film there is a short sequence where Sandy breastfeeds a baby, presumably young Ivan. It is up close, explicit, and very loving. Of course, Sandra threw her son away for Charlie. I vaguely remember one of my videos where she is asked about him and terminates the discussion.
Supposedly Sandy and George are off the radar, living life one day at a time. Did she ever re-establish contact with her son that any one knows of?
59 comments:
That visual made me sad, knowing what happened later.Ivan is the happy microphone grabbing kid in some of the footage of old, isn't he? Obviously, from the description, she loved her child. (but loved Charlie maybe a little more than that, which I can't fathom. Be it for some cause,for some man whatever I don't get it. That child is blood and lived inside you for nine months)
When did he get taken away? Before the letter thing and P Street house?
I do not know what happened to him, but wish I did.
My perspective on this is a bit different. I don't agree that Sandra threw away her son for a relationship with a man. Sandra made sure that Ivan was in a safe place, with loving people, far from overzealous paparazzi, interfering social service agencies, and death threats. It was the most loving gesture a mother could make, like the women who put their babies on the helecopters during the evacuation of Viet Nam, never to see them again.
When Sandra and George are ready to come back, they will, and not one second before. (Hope that is soon youse guys -- Heeeeelllp!)
I read somewhere -- can't remember where that Sandy's parents raised Ivan. He's did well in school and even played football and Sandy has a relationship with him but more like an aunt or something as opposed to a parent but I think on one of the interviews shows she said he was doing well.
Deb
Okay, but she broke the law for what?
And when did she supposedly place Ivan in these places? For my recollection places Ivan in her lap in the trial, so their were pictures being taken then..
Or was Ivan placed somewhere before she got popped for the letter thing? (meaning she chose to give her child away and follow what ever bubble headed idea popped into her head, instead of taking care of her child.)
And, who was making death threats on Sandy? I recall her making a few??
Thanks Deb. I am glad he is doing well.
cats, I'm with ya there. don't even have kids of my own but cannot imagine ever giving a child up for anything in the world. I think about my many nephews/nieces and wonder how anyone could just let a child float out of their life like that no matter how devoted to any "cause".
But maybe Ivan was better off, and maybe on some level Sandy knew that. But imagine growing up knowing your mom tossed you aside for Manson. Poor guy. He's almost exactly my age, as baby Paul Polanski would have been. the irony of that seems lost on Sandy, based on the interviews - i.e. Paul and Ivan being the same age.
And think about the irony in this, her parents werent "good" for her, but she felt they were "good" enough to raise her child.The money and the society that she was fighting to shun, she shoved her child into. (and I am glad he is okay, don't get me wrong. )
Sorry for the pun, been a long day. Really not trying to be a smart ass, but the statement is true.
oh c'mon, a.c. the "most loving thing" Sandy could have done would have been to get her head together and be a mother to her child instead of making a spectacle of herself and running away to prison for 10 years (and asking to stay longer).
The only logical conclusion is that Manson, the "cause", and the spotlight were more important to her than her own child.
And I mean no disrespect to you at all but I find it somewhat laughable to compare her situation to the situation in which the Vietnamese women found themselves.
I thought Ivan was raised by a family that was friendly with the Goods in San Diego but not the Goods themselves. But they were likely of the same or similar backgrounds so your point still stands, cats. Sandy spoke quite openly about how much she hated her mother's values, and it seems that is the lifestyle she gave to her son.
Exactly. For hating society so much and what it stood for, Sandy surely had no problem collecting welfare while living with Red in that hotel while waiting for the court date for the gun possesion charge for the gun in the mailbag.
I am not saying she was not entitled to it, but it was like she was so set on this "cause" but failed to live by the rules she set for everyone else??
It was Michael "Pooh Bear" who was raised by his grandparents and thought his mother was his sister until he was in like the 3rd grade.
=)
cats you are touching on one of my biggest problems with the philosophies of these folks, which Sandy reflected very well. they had no problem collecting welfare as you say, receiving money from daddy when needed, sponging off rock stars, living on grandma's ranch, eating out of "establishment" garbage bins, and even stealing other people's belongings. It's fine if one wants the "I'm out of society" lifestyle. Have at it, I say. Lord knows this society is not and has never been perfect. But to then turn around and condemn society when you are essentially feeding off of it is extremely hypocritical IMHO.
And worse, to suggest that everyone "in" the larger society deserves death for their lifestyle, while you're cashing in the stocks that daddy invested for you? LMAO!
(sorry I'm such a blowhard!)
Monk, it just annoys me that is all. If you believe so strongly in something to threaten to kill strangers over it (which, in my book is a bit derranged to begin with) you would think you would live your life in accordance with the rules you screech over that everyone else should follow.
The whole "what's mine is yours" bull is hysterical in some aspects. It seemed to only apply when scarfing someone else's stuff. I seem to recall Manson and Danny DeCarlo having a disagreement over who owned the bread truck or some other vehicle.
And, if someone told me to walk and get a coconut, well, it brings to mind that old All in the Family when Edith finally had it when Archie was bitching about no dinner. So she slapped a frozen piece of meat and a can of veggies or something on the table and said there you go.
ha ha! Edith!!!!! Dingbat was fed up and wasn't gonna take it anymore!
I would love to have been around back in the day, if only just to have Charlie tell me to go to Jamaica and get him a coconut, so that I could laugh in his face. Of course, then he would likely pull a knife on me and tell me that my ego wasn't ready to die or some such nonsense.
Man, those kids were DUUUUUUUMB.
Oh Archie. LOL.
But seriously, when did Ivan get placed with that other family? From what I can find, we have Red and Blue and Susan Murphy hanging out. Red flips for Ford, Susan and Sandy get it for the letters etc., but no mention of a baby or child with them? Where was Ivan?
(I believe the children are our future---kicking myself. I need to stop smoking my shoe strings, my shoes fall off. LOL. Been a long day. )
I love All In The Family.. It's my favorite rerun...
I don't get a lot of the political stuff though. Most was a bit before my time lol
=)
me too heaven, I loved that show even though like you I was too young to grasp the deeper concepts at the time. and weezy and george jefferson were their neighbors for a time. funny, the show premiered not too long after the TLB trial, right? A lot of the subject matter was a reaction to the crazy stuff happening in american society at the time.
cats I could have sworn I saw a picture somewhere (I think on Bret's site) of Sandy sitting at the kitchen table of the P Street apartment along with Ivan, obviously older than he was in the spahn ranch footage. I will look for it.
agnostic monk said...
oh c'mon, a.c. the "most loving thing" Sandy could have done would have been to get her head together and be a mother to her child instead of making a spectacle of herself and running away to prison for 10 years (and asking to stay longer).
The only logical conclusion is that Manson, the "cause", and the spotlight were more important to her than her own child.
And I mean no disrespect to you at all but I find it somewhat laughable to compare her situation to the situation in which the Vietnamese women found themselves
agree monk
Funny about TV, ain't it. I remember watching All in the Family as a kid. That and I would watch the Green Acres reruns which had a lot going on in it as well. (and SpongeBob does too, nowadays).
Let me know about that picture and P Street apartment. From all news accounts (and they almost always mention the presence of children etc.)at the time of the Ford thing, there was no child present. And funny enough, the neighbors remember Red "drinking port" and popping alot of "reds".
But then again, John Gacy's neighbors thought he was a nice man. And God forbid, you ask my neighbors about me what they would come up with.
If I recall correctly, I was sent a picture of Ivan from someone and it showed him with Sandra and he was holding his child...
=)
I think I know of what you speak, and if the source is the same, it is questionable.
As some of my esteemed colleagues of the OTLBMBlog may have come to realize, my viewpoint on this and other matters pertaining to Mr. Manson and Ms. Good is that of a sympathizer / supporter / defender*, and may thereby respectfully conflict with your own considered and worthy opinions.
*These words may be synonymous with “brainwashed cultist” to some of the good people reading these comments. To which I politely yet earnestly reply: “WhatEVER.
Many of the young ladies in question were receiving anonymous threats of physical violence during and after the trial. Social service agencies investigated the Manson women not fewer than three times. Following the abrupt conclusion of Ms. Fromme’s discussion with Mr. Ford, there were more confrontations with both governmental agencies and the general public. Not conducive to the tender and gentle art of child-rearing. Therefore Ms. Good did what she felt necessary and acceptable for her beloved Ivan’s safety. Like, better bourgeois than dead. Or taken to live in foster homes, as I’m certain that she’d listened with a palpable shudder to Charles’s many tales of woe at his experiences with the vagaries of what passes for a social service system here in Amerika. And watched the fate of wee Z – taken by the Establishment, never to be seen again.
For those of you who may not have experienced the pleasure of extreme passion for the noble cause espoused by Ms. Good, I offer the following explanation: Without breathable air, without drinkable water, and without a sustainable biosphere, NONE of our children will survive. (Not proselytizing, dear Colonel, honest and truly, just clarifying a position which the regarded readership may not be as familiar with as I.) As Charles himself assures us, it is not HIM but the philosophy he advocates that is important: We must nourish our environment, or we all perish. (Paraphrased a bit, but you get the general idea.)
That said, could I give up my own dear children to further our most beneficial cause? Wow, I might have to make that decision myself some day, mightent I? Yikes. I guess we’ll never know until a Solomonian judgment of this proportion stares me in the face, and may I be blessed with the good king’s wisdom should that ever come to pass.
Okay, someone sent me the picture of supposedly Ivan and Sandy at the table.It more appears as if at one of the ranches than an apartment. Also, the child appears more to be one of the Rice children,that are shown in the first Hendrickson movie. So, I don't think it was Ivan nor at P street.
A.C., with all respect, social services had a duty to investigate the ranch and the situation. When found at Barkers, they were burnt, malnutritioned etc.
Nowhere is it mentioned about Ivan being at P Street. All the reports, all the newspapers etc, do not place a child there. If Sandy didn't want investigated, perhaps at the point of the Ford thing, she should not have remarked "I am the world upon my shoulders now. All executives are going to die." She is the one making threats, who choose to run off screaming death threats and crazy talk, and yet there is wonder why social services was investigating?
Perhaps if she paid more attention and care to loving her child instead of loving the cameras and the press, the child may not have had to be placed elsewhere besides with its parent.
You can be passionate about the cause, i.e. the environmental issues mentioned above, without sympathizing with a bunch of cold-blooded murdering lunatics. Try relating instead to Al Gore, Bill McKibben, or Ralph Nader for crissakes!
And crikey-them enviromental (mental being the best part of that word) were written on trees. Sent thru machines that made pollution...
Without allowing this discussion to deteriorate into a political rant, Pristash, I must express my opinion that Mr. Gore is not a true environmentalist, despite the sanction of the Nobel committee. Mr. Gore warns us of the perils of global warming, while himself maintaining ownership of a large factory farm, which emits enough methane to choke Spokane. Mr. Gore also joined another "liberal" senator who refuses to put his money where his mouth is, Mr. Ted Kennedy, who refused to allow the building of wind turbines along the Atlantic coast, as his constituants complained that it would "spoil the view", thus not only squelching an attempt at generating sustainable electricity, but furthering our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
At least Charles is honest... Mr. Gore "I invented the internet" is a hypocrite of the worst stripe, and we all had a good yet bitter laugh about melting down the physical icon of the Peace Prize for scrap metal recyling. Or making Charles a belt buckle, although it is unlikely he is allowed such objects within his current surroundings.
Sandra's methods of environmental revolution were found to be inappropriate & inadequate for the place and time at which she attempted them. Lynette's methods, ditto. (No disrespect meant, as they were perhaps unaware that no revolution has truly succeeded since Michael Collins freed Ireland in 1916). Us folkses are fixing to try something different now. Working within the system, and beating 'em at their own game.
Cat's: Social Services considers raising one's child to be a vegan as "malnourished" and promoting a lifestyle as anything other than monogamous and Christian to be abusive. I have myself fought 'em and won, but perhaps that is due to bigger, meaner, toothier attorneys than Ms. Good had access to or funding for. If you should care to read my blog, you'll note that my kids seem to be quite well-adjusted and successful, despite the false accusations of lackeys of the government who desire to push their own agenda.
And all my writings are done on 75% post-consumer-waste recycled paper, or the Internet, thank you Mr. Gore for inventing that for us.
:-)
Umm..I know people who raise their kids and live as veggies, and they have no issue with social services. So that may not be true?
Do have documents stating this?
Only my own, Cat's... In my experience, Social Services can make any accustation they please, without any actual evidence, and without due process. If someone makes an accusation, one isn't allowed to confront them in court, as outlined in our Constitiution, because their anonymity is maintained. Social Services can investigate your home without a warrant or probable cause, merely an accusation. It's done automatically when the parents are accused of any crime. Not convicted, merely *accused*. It doesn't matter if one's children are well-bred, dearly loved, straight-A &B students, with many extracurricular accomplishments and stellar personalities. Especially if one is associated with alternative lifestyles.
But I still won. Poor Sandra did not have my resources, access to assistance, or bulldog tenacity.
Sandra didn't have the resources because she chose not to.
So, because of your experience with social service, you assume all agencies are like that? Kind of narrow minded isn't it?
Just because a blue jay poops on me, it doesn't make all birds nor the blue jay bad.
Cat's Cradle... Not just my own experiences; I am an advocate for far more than ATWA. Though I am willing to consider that the methods and practices of the DSS may have improved in recent years. The government of CA may have become more compassionate. And pigs may fly, if you feed them enough helium.
But we are straying wildly afield of the current topic. My point was that Sandra chose to give her child to a stable, loving home, rather than accept the crapshoot offered by a government agency in the 70s.
Great posts guys thank you.
Andmy point being, she wouldn't have had to offer another home if she removed her head from Charlie's ass long enough to take responsibility as a parent.(not broke the law, etc.)
cats, I am in complete agreement with your arguments on this. Sandra asked for every ounce of attention and scrutiny that she got, by her own actions and words. No one forced her to make DEATH THREATS to corporate executives. She was not a victim.
A.C. no offense but I am not buying these excuses for her behavior. You can't fairly compare the intrusion of social services on a vegetarian or pagan home to the investigations made into the well-being of the children at Spahn and Barkers. That seems a bit of a stretch (come out here to CA to see how commonplace "alternative" lifestyles are these days, btw).
Certainly the secret service overreacted to the Ford incident, as evidenced by the fact that they fanned out as far as new hampshire to harass and monitor people like Kasabian who wanted nothing more to do with the manson scene. But they weren't taking any chances.
And I mean no disrespect, but your perspective on Manson and his philosophies, while perfectly welcome and interesting, are not at all new to anyone with the degree of interest in the TLB case as those on this here blog.
oh and I will one-up pristash's wise words. "Environmentalists" like Sandra actually HARM the movement to improve the well-being of the planet and environment. The mainstream recoils from the kind of tactics she has employed. The current progress toward a sustainable ecology has occurred in spite of, not as a result of, that type of "activism." All Red and Blue succeeded at was looking nuts, getting themselves thrown in jail, and possibly doing a disservice to the cause they held so dear. No credit is deserved for those gimmicky and violence-tinged stunts.
agnostic monk said...
oh and I will one-up pristash's wise words. "Environmentalists" like Sandra actually HARM the movement to improve the well-being of the planet and environment. The mainstream recoils from the kind of tactics she has employed. The current progress toward a sustainable ecology has occurred in spite of, not as a result of, that type of "activism." All Red and Blue succeeded at was looking nuts, getting themselves thrown in jail, and possibly doing a disservice to the cause they held so dear. No credit is deserved for those gimmicky and violence-tinged stunts.
3:13 PM, October 25, 2007
i dont usely coment but i am to agree with cats and monk,other than acting insane and makeing charlie look even more insane what did they ever do for the environment?on wait i remember they set a logging truck on fire and polluted the air.
I think I am going to respectfully agree to disagree with A.C. My final thought on the matter:
Saving a tree, or my child? A no brainer. Sorry, but it is the truth.
My next door neighbor takes in foster children.(who she has since adopted, bless her heart). One of the little ones when I first met him at the age of two, did not speak a word. He and my son are the same age, and as my son was babbling around, this little one would come sit on my lap and not breathe a word. Just sit, and I would rock. Gave him popsicles etc., and wondered what in the hell happened to this child to make him so mute.
'Bout four months later there was a knock on my front door. There stood this little one with a big smile and he said "Popsicle". Dayum skippy-I got the kid a popsicle.
My point in all this is, one has an obligation to make sure the little ones are safe. They come first, not some con man, not some trees, not some camera.
So, at that, I respectfully agree to disagree with you. Peace.
you know Deadwood, you brought up a really good point. Taking away my own judgments and looking at it objectively, Lynette and Sandra's escapades in the 70s did not help to deflate the media image of Charlie as a maniacal cult leader. The robes, the new rainbow religion, photo shoots in graveyards, dire warnings to the media and the public about more bloodshed and murder, the "we're waiting for our Lord" type statements... only helped solidify the public perception of Charlie that we still see today. And years later both he and they would complain about that image. Honestly, what did they expect?
and cats, where's MY popsicle? I like the orange ones.
AC, Say what you will...your calling Al Gore a faux environmentalist says more about your politics then me calling him a real one says about mine...
Al Gore has done more to save the earth than ole Charlie Manson ever has any day.
Charles Manson did something to save the earth?
I must have missed it in all the pictures taken of Spahn with all the junked cars piled up, trash everywhere and mattresses left all over the place lol
For environmentally loving folks they sure left every place they stayed looking like a dump...
=)
Amen, Heaven, amen....they sure left a lot of human refuse around too....both living and deceased.
Gracious sakes alive, but didn't I throw a rock into the hornet's nest this time? :-) No offense accumulated, for if I dish it out, I surely must be able to take it. As long as Cats will save me one of those tasty popsickles; a purple one, if there's any left, please.
And I'd love to come to CA, Monk, in fact, we're planning a trip to San Diego for a conference next February... if there's any of San Diego left to visit, that is. I've heard that it has all burnt down. Recall Charles's prophecy, as stated a couple Blogger posts ago? We will be happy to donate some water from the Great Lakes, but you'll have to figure out a way to transport it there.
Anyhoo, onward to the debate -- Barker's and Spahn's ranch looked as they did in photographs taken during the post-police-raid phase. Namely, trashed. Have any of you good and gentle people ever witnessed the aftermath of a vigorous felony investigation? Our friends in law enforcement are not always inclined to delicacy with one's treasured heirlooms.
Pristash, re: Al Gore... don't get me started. 40% tax increase on the Aldag family paycheck during the Clinton era. Promises of rebates for our many environmentally-friendly home improvements that never materialized. Promises of reduced dependency on foreign oil, ditto. Manson never lies, Gore does so like a berber rug.
At the fringe of every movement, there is radicalism to balance the mainstream. Martin Luther King had Malcolm X. The Gay Rights movement has Queer Nation. Starhawk has Z Budapest. Ghandi had that dude with the funny collared jacket. The radical arm of the environmental movement is comprised of ELF, Sea Scouts, and ATWA. Quick, someone design us a pretty logo.
And folks, if we ever tire of having a nice, friendly, civil, polite discussion, we could always mud-wrestle like Xena Warrior Princess and Sheena of the Jungle. Or The Edge vs. Stone Cold Steve. Now, just TRY to get that image out of your heads!
There is always enough popsicles for everyone. So enjoy-and while the sugary sweetness invades the tastebuds, lets for a moment believe that the world is a fair, just place.
And for the Colonel, I have the red, white and blue Bomb pop-for always standing by his word, and keeping it real in the best American way possible.
AC, Social Services putting vegan children in foster care? Vigorous felony investigations? You speak like you know a lot about such things! Hmmmmmmmmm.....
Not rising to the bait, Pristash. Suffice to say that my little darlings ain't vegan; though I'm frequently admonished by older and wiser individuals for "poisoning" the treasures of my heart with vile animal flesh.
As previously mentioned, I do a great deal of advocacy work.
Wanna see examples of how law enforcement authorities treat Pagans? Google the name "Darla Kaye Wynne". An example of how the courts work with Pagan parents? Try Thomas Jones and Tammy Bristol of Indianapolis.
This is germaine to the discussion at hand, as many of the defenders of ATWA self-identify as Pagan, Wiccan or some other form of nature spirituality. Discrimination exists in our enlightened modern society, as exemplified by the cases cited above.
No doubt discrimination existed circa 1974, when the child in question was the offspring of a gentleman convicted of a high-profile murder, and a mother with unconventional political views.
agreed, heaven. thank god we have Charlie to save the environment and the world and to save us from ourselves. If it weren't for him, none of us would ever know the importance of climate change and alternative energy. He deserves immeasurable credit for waking America up to the dangers of pollution and waste. Al Gore created the internet and Charlie Manson created ecological awareness!
*massive eye roll*
(so much so that my eyes are rolling into the back of my head Linda Blair style)
A.C. no offense intended, but to label Manson's statements about fires in the cities a "prophecy" related to the current problems in southern california is kind of like me predicting that a huge earthquake will eventually hit the Bay Area and then someone giving me credit for the prediction when it finally happens.
"In my minds eye I make the Muni public transportation system run late!"
I'm a PROPHET! Heed my words!
Getting my bowl out. Hey Monk, I want my pea soup with ham, Linda Blair style.
Hey Monk, as I tell my poor, long-suffering, sadly neglected children: "If you roll your eyes like that, your face is going to stick in that expression, and THEN whatever shall you do?"
Question, do major cities in CA burn up often? You're writing as if it's a commonplace event. Um, think I'll stay right here, and battle seven-foot snowdrifts and the mosquito Air Force, thank you kindly.
To answer Col's questions in his front-oage post final paragraph: Yes, and yes.
AC,
I didn't mean to bait you...sometimes I just like being a smartass...or in some cases a dumbass...But Monk makes a good point...maybe Sharon Tate didn't die in vain at all but rather for the greater good. Cue the
MASSIVE EYE ROLL
a.c. wildfires in california are not uncommon at all. almost every night on the local news there are reports of fires in various wooded areas. Tahoe had some big fires within the last couple years I think. usually they are isolated to the less populated mountain/forest areas, but sometimes they creep closer to denser civilization. this is annual santa ana wind season, which is red alert. granted, these fires invaded much more populated areas than normal, but is that a reason to equate this with a fulfilled Charlie prophecy? I'm going with negative.
Now if simultaneous fires sprang up all across the country in inexplicable fashion, you might be on to something.
: )
pristash the blog wouldn't be the same without your smart ass. And yeah, as late as 1994 if not later, Sandra was callously dismissing all of the victims, including Sharon's blood-smeared, swollen-bellied body, as a necessary wartime kill.
"If these people in Hollywood had to go, that made sense to me, that made sense to all of us. In war sometimes killing is necessary."
"You bet we killed, and with relish."
Oh and one of my paraphrased faves: "Sharon wasn't praying to God when she was being killed, she was stoned on coke."
Disgusting statements. She should be ashamed of herself for such vile nonsense.
speaking of socal fires, are the Col and his home ok? I hear it hurts to even breathe down there in some areas...
let us know, dear blog captain.
Yeah, all kidding aside, hope everyone is okay out there in CA. Some newspeople are comparing the devistation of the fires to Hurricane Katrina. Stay safe and blessings, all ya'all on the West Coast.
a little of the fire topic,Charlie knows when he is being used,when you have no ude for his friends anymore .........hes going to drop you and you know who you are on this blog,
Dear Becca, please don't be talking smack about me. Am not using you, Charles or anyone. In fact I'm putting an awful lot on the line for this cause. Please call or write.
i am not smack talking ,i believe mr manson doesnt want out of jail,i never mentioned any names on this blog.He doesnt care about the fires only the animals that may be getting killed,he doesnt care about people thats just the way he is.ever heard the phrase its all about ME!!!! well thats charlie.
deadwoodhbo,
I am a little confused. Your name is on the list 2 times. One with a husband named Rick in Canada.
One with a husband named Frank In Calif .
Are there 2 Deadwoodhbos on the Blog?
60skid said...
deadwoodhbo,
I am a little confused. Your name is on the list 2 times. One with a husband named Rick in Canada.
One with a husband named Frank In Calif .
Are there 2 Deadwoodhbos on the Blog?
1:33 PM, October 28, 2007
frank reichard is my husband ,i just never told anyone i knew charlie because this is what happpens
Post a Comment