International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 8 2025 100
joining the Family: accepting him as their leader,
adopting his belief system, and ultimately committing
murders on his orders.
Nielsen states that Manson had such great psychological
insight into his young followers that they believed he
had the actual ability to read their minds (1984:321).
Moreover, he greatly impacted those he met. He created
confusion and then provided leadership with quick but
complicated answers to questions:
Even though he told everyone to do their own
thing, to be themselves, his own personal
magnetism, combined with a constant process
of selection, attracted those who thirsted for a
leader. Control was what Charles was into all
along, in spite of the claims of liberation and
freedom. (Sanders 1971:36)
While interviewing Family members before the Tate-
LaBianca trial, Bugliosi gained insight into how Manson
manipulated, or “brainwashed,” people by using LSD,
“a mind-altering drug which tends to make the person
ingesting it a little more vulnerable and susceptible to
the influence of third parties” (Bugliosi with Gentry
1974:237). The Family frequently took LSD trips, and
Manson was responsible for dispensing the doses, often
taking a smaller dose himself so he could retain control
(see Kent 2004:111). Family member Paul Watkins
believed that Manson used LSD trips “to instill his
philosophies, exploit weaknesses and fears, and extract
promises and agreements from his followers” (Bugliosi
with Gentry 1974:237). Brooks Poston, another Family
member, confirmed Watkins’ hypothesis, adding
that Manson implanted his philosophies while new
members were under the influence of LSD (Bugliosi
with Gentry 1974:235).
Through the combination of his psychological insights
and the use of LSD, Manson ultimately controlled the
thoughts and actions of the Family members. Leading
up to the Tate-LaBianca murders, he “continued
programming members of the family, preparing them
to carry out his orders without question: the drug
effects began to blur distinctions among the many faces
of Charlie—it was not really the ‘father’ anymore—
as much as an extremity of the ‘Infinite Soul’ which
was, of course, everything and everybody in Manson’s
inside world” (Gilmore and Kenner 1971:85). At the
trial, Bugliosi provided the jury with many examples
of Manson’s control over the group and proved that
“Manson had such a hold over his followers, and
specifically his co-defendants, that never in a million
years would they have committed these murders
without his guidance, direction, and orders” (Bugliosi
with Gentry 1974:225). Indeed, a former Family
member described Manson’s co-defendants as “virtual
zombies” who followed his orders without question
(Daily Breeze 1977:A5).
A lack of remorse or guilt is another manifestation of
psychopathy. According to Hare,
Despite the brutality of innocent victims being
slaughtered in their own homes, Manson showed no
remorse for ordering the Tate-LaBianca murders.
When reflecting on his feelings at the time of the
murders, Manson described his thoughts: “Fuck this
world and everyone in it. I’d give them something
to open their eyes, and then take our group out into
the desert” (Manson and Emmons 1986:203). While
Manson felt anger toward society, he claims he felt
nothing toward the victims. When his co-defendants
relayed the horrific details of the Tate murders,
Manson said he wasn’t shocked and “did not feel pity
or compassion for the victims” (Manson and Emmons
1986:206). Rather than feel “remorse or compassion,”
Manson instead was amused at the “theories and
speculations of the police and reporters” (Manson and
Emmons 1986:208). Even when time had passed after
the murders, he still claimed he felt no remorse, but
only the fear of getting caught (Manson and Emmons
1986:218). Over a decade later, in an interview with
Tom Snyder in 1981, he remained remorseless (Tampa
Tribune 1981:5-A).
Hare includes shallow affect as a criterion for
psychopathy. “Psychopaths seem to suffer a kind of
emotional poverty that limits the range and depth of
their feelings. While at times they appear cold and
Psychopaths show a stunning lack of concern
for the devastating effects their actions have
on others. Often they are completely forthright
about the matter, calmly stating that they have
no sense of guilt, are not sorry for the pain and
destruction they have caused, and that there is no
reason for them to be concerned. (1993:40–41).

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54208/0008 101
unemotional, they are prone to dramatic, shallow, and
short-lived displays of feeling” (Hare 1993:52). Manson,
by his own admission, was void of positive emotions
and admitted to having bursts of temper. When Manson
awaited the return of Family members from the Tate
murders, he claimed to be “totally without conscience,”
and that he could not “put a finger on when I became
devoid of caring emotion” (Manson and Emmons
1986:202). He even went so far as to acknowledge that
he experienced emotions differently than other people:
“A normal person would find the details of the night’s
events shocking and horrifying, but I had long ago
stopped measuring myself by society’s standards. The
story I was hearing from Tex and Sadie did not shock
me” (Manson and Emmons 1986:206).
Manson’s shallow affect also influenced how he
experienced fear. According to Hare, for psychopaths
“fear—like most other emotions—is incomplete,
shallow, largely cognitive in nature, and without the
physiological turmoil or ‘coloring’ that most of us find
distinctly unpleasant and wish to avoid or reduce”
(1993:56). Family member Paul Watkins claimed that
“[f]ear turns Charlie on” and that Manson believed that
fear was the equivalent of awareness and love. Rather
than avoiding fear, Manson sought and embraced the
emotion (Bugliosi with Gentry 1974:225).
At the scene of the LaBianca murders, Manson’s
shallow affect was evident. When recalling the events
of the night, he discussed how he methodically entered
the home, confronted the victims, gave direction
to another Family member, and even tested Leno
LaBianca by turning his back on him. Manson does
not mention feeling fear or anxiety while entering the
home of strangers and planning their murders. He
does, however, express that he was concerned that
one of them would do something to ignite his temper
(Manson and Emmons 1986:209–211). Manson’s
shallow affect, as exemplified through the LaBianca
murders, is consistent with the emotional poverty of a
psychopath.
Being callous, or lacking empathy, is another indicator
of psychopathy closely associated with shallow affect.
Hare asserts that
[m]any of the characteristics displayed by
psychopaths—especially their egocentricity,
lack of remorse, shallow emotions, and
deceitfulness—are closely associated with
a profound lack of empathy (an inability to
construct a mental and emotional “facsimile”
of another person). They seem unable to
“get into the skin” or to “walk in the shoes”
of others, except in a purely intellectual
sense. The feelings of other people are of
no concern to psychopaths. (1993:44).
In addition to Manson’s obvious lack of empathy
toward the Tate-LaBianca victims, he showed a similar
callousness toward Family members and associates.
While Family members treated Manson with deference,
he often manipulated them to maintain his dominance.
According to Bugliosi, “Manson would seek out each
individual’s greatest fear—not so the person could
confront and eliminate it, but so he could re-emphasize
it. It was like a magic button, which he could push
at will to control that person” (Bugliosi with Gentry
1974:238). Manson demonstrated his callousness by
coldly capitalizing on Family members’ fears to retain
control over the group. Hare states that “the weak and
the vulnerable—whom they mock, rather than pity—
are favorite targets” of psychopaths (1993:44). Manson
was especially callous toward vulnerable Family
members who demonstrated less than total devotion
to him. When underage Family member Stephanie
Schram admitted to being homesick and wanting
to leave the group, Manson hit her in the head with
a rifle (Sanders 1971:358). Similarly, when pregnant
Family member Kitty Lutesinger fell asleep during
one of Manson’s sermons, he punched her in the face,
knocking her into the campfire (Sanders 1971:362).
Violence is a manifestation of the callousness of
psychopaths. According to Hare, “While most of us
have strong inhibitions about physically injuring others,
psychopaths do not. For them, violence and threats are
handy tools to be used when they are angered, defied,
or frustrated, and they give little thought to the pain
and humiliation experienced by the victims” (1993:88–
89). Family member Dianne Lake was a frequent victim
of Manson’s violence. “Apparently, not finding Dianne
submissive enough, Manson had, on various occasions:
punched her in the mouth kicked her across a room
hit her over the head with a chair leg and whipped
her with an electrical cord” (Bugliosi with Gentry
1974:205–206). Manson clearly lacked the empathy