Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2008, Page 6
through sequential processes mediated by LSD‖ (Faith, 2001:111). The professor
concluded,
A powerful guru can take hold of the minds of his subjects while they are
under the effects of LSD, and reinforce his authority over them in times when
they are not under the drug‘s effects. This was surely the case with Charles
Manson. (Faith, 2001:114)
Important to note about the Van Houten case is that, apparently, her parole board finally
acknowledged that Manson had brainwashed her, but it still did not use that
acknowledgement in order to grant her release. In 2000, ―After thirteen hearings, beginning
with her first one in 1978, a board panel finally officially acknowledged that Leslie had
indeed been the victim of cult brainwashing‖ (Faith, 2001:152).
Still, however, the board denied her parole, perhaps because of the viciousness of her
crimes and the continued opposition from the family of her victims (Faith, 2001:151-153).
As is the case with former members of Aum Shinrikyo, the severity of the crimes that Van
Houten committed seems to outweigh the official acknowledgement that she had been
brainwashed when committing them.
Winnfred Wright
An acknowledgement of brainwashing also took place in a 2003 California court case in
which a man and two women were convicted for the malnourishment death of a nineteen-
month-old child. Many of the twelve other children in the home suffered from
malnourishment and rickets. The male head of the household was a vegan Rastafarian
named Winnfred Wright, who fathered these children with the women under his control.
One article written about what it called this ―cultlike‖ group that referred to itself as The
Family indicated that various authorities and others who had contact it alleged ―that Wright
manipulated these women with drugs, sex, violence, and racial guilt‖ (Brown, 2002:2). I am
unable to find out more about the alleged manipulation through drugs, but two of the
women charged along with Wright, Deirdre Hart Wilson and Mary Campbell, asked for, and
received, permission from the judge to ―enter a treatment clinic for former cult members‖
(Klien, 2003:1). Prosecution and defense lawyers argued over whether the women had been
brainwashed, with the defense attorney taking issue with the prosecution‘s ―contention that
Wilson was no more a victim of brainwashing than ‗Patty Hearst, John Walker Lindh or the
Manson women‘‖ (Garretson, 2003:2). Ironically, some observers would contend that all
three of those figures in fact had been brainwashed.
In any case, upon returning from a month at Wellspring (which is a rehabilitation facility in
Ohio for former ‗cult‘ members), Wilson stated, ―‗Mind control is a reality,‘‖ and referred to
herself as a ―‗psychological amputee‘ as a result of physical, psychological and sexual abuse
during her 15 years with Wright...‖ (Garretson, 2003:1). It is unclear whether the judge
factored in her brainwashing and subsequent counseling when he sentenced Wilson to seven
years and four months for felony child abuse (Garretson, 2003:1), which was less than the
eleven years and four months that she could have received. Likewise, Mary Campbell‘s ten-
year sentence could have been four years longer. Wright‘s sentence, however, was for
sixteen years (Garretson, 2003:2). While I cannot be certain whether the judge ever said
that the women had been brainwashed, the fact that he allowed—over the prosecution‘s
objections--two defendants to obtain treatment for their subjugation under Wright suggests
that he suspected that they had been. Brainwashing, therefore, likely mitigated the
women‘s sentences, but did not completely absolve them from guilt. If in fact brainwashing
played this mitigating role in sentencing, then it is in line with recommendations that a
lawyer and a psychiatrist made about the utility of the concept in light of issues raised thirty
years ago in the Patricia Hearst trial (Lunde and Wilson, 1977:377).
through sequential processes mediated by LSD‖ (Faith, 2001:111). The professor
concluded,
A powerful guru can take hold of the minds of his subjects while they are
under the effects of LSD, and reinforce his authority over them in times when
they are not under the drug‘s effects. This was surely the case with Charles
Manson. (Faith, 2001:114)
Important to note about the Van Houten case is that, apparently, her parole board finally
acknowledged that Manson had brainwashed her, but it still did not use that
acknowledgement in order to grant her release. In 2000, ―After thirteen hearings, beginning
with her first one in 1978, a board panel finally officially acknowledged that Leslie had
indeed been the victim of cult brainwashing‖ (Faith, 2001:152).
Still, however, the board denied her parole, perhaps because of the viciousness of her
crimes and the continued opposition from the family of her victims (Faith, 2001:151-153).
As is the case with former members of Aum Shinrikyo, the severity of the crimes that Van
Houten committed seems to outweigh the official acknowledgement that she had been
brainwashed when committing them.
Winnfred Wright
An acknowledgement of brainwashing also took place in a 2003 California court case in
which a man and two women were convicted for the malnourishment death of a nineteen-
month-old child. Many of the twelve other children in the home suffered from
malnourishment and rickets. The male head of the household was a vegan Rastafarian
named Winnfred Wright, who fathered these children with the women under his control.
One article written about what it called this ―cultlike‖ group that referred to itself as The
Family indicated that various authorities and others who had contact it alleged ―that Wright
manipulated these women with drugs, sex, violence, and racial guilt‖ (Brown, 2002:2). I am
unable to find out more about the alleged manipulation through drugs, but two of the
women charged along with Wright, Deirdre Hart Wilson and Mary Campbell, asked for, and
received, permission from the judge to ―enter a treatment clinic for former cult members‖
(Klien, 2003:1). Prosecution and defense lawyers argued over whether the women had been
brainwashed, with the defense attorney taking issue with the prosecution‘s ―contention that
Wilson was no more a victim of brainwashing than ‗Patty Hearst, John Walker Lindh or the
Manson women‘‖ (Garretson, 2003:2). Ironically, some observers would contend that all
three of those figures in fact had been brainwashed.
In any case, upon returning from a month at Wellspring (which is a rehabilitation facility in
Ohio for former ‗cult‘ members), Wilson stated, ―‗Mind control is a reality,‘‖ and referred to
herself as a ―‗psychological amputee‘ as a result of physical, psychological and sexual abuse
during her 15 years with Wright...‖ (Garretson, 2003:1). It is unclear whether the judge
factored in her brainwashing and subsequent counseling when he sentenced Wilson to seven
years and four months for felony child abuse (Garretson, 2003:1), which was less than the
eleven years and four months that she could have received. Likewise, Mary Campbell‘s ten-
year sentence could have been four years longer. Wright‘s sentence, however, was for
sixteen years (Garretson, 2003:2). While I cannot be certain whether the judge ever said
that the women had been brainwashed, the fact that he allowed—over the prosecution‘s
objections--two defendants to obtain treatment for their subjugation under Wright suggests
that he suspected that they had been. Brainwashing, therefore, likely mitigated the
women‘s sentences, but did not completely absolve them from guilt. If in fact brainwashing
played this mitigating role in sentencing, then it is in line with recommendations that a
lawyer and a psychiatrist made about the utility of the concept in light of issues raised thirty
years ago in the Patricia Hearst trial (Lunde and Wilson, 1977:377).
