Fire at Hidden Lake Academy

[Ursus]

HMMmm... I can't honestly say anything one way or the other about the "Smith" part.  You are obviously remembering that more vividly than I am.  However, it was Phil B-something.  The other guy I don't know.

However, the reason I kind of doubt it was Jamie Smith is because I was under the impression that both kids (that set the fire) were sent away somewhere after that blaze of glory, never to return to that great bastion of character development and unique potential.  And Jamie Smith did attend the regular year.  In fact, it is my understanding that both he and Phil (brothers) ceased their involvement with Hyde due to an altercation between Gauld and Sidney Smith (the father) re. publication of one of the son's "story" in what was to become the "Courage to Grow" book.  It may not have been the book, Gauld also used these stories for his newspaper column at the time.  At any rate, Jamie would have had to have been there long enough for him to have written his story, and my guess is that just couldn't have happened in the relatively brief period of the summer session.

My guess really, totally, and I am fully ready to stand correction...

You've jogged my memory. Phil B (rhymes with hamburger) was one of the arsonists. Hyde agreed not to press charges against the arsonists if their parents had them committed. I recall that Jamie Smith did time in a mental institution prior to Hyde, which is why I confused him with the other arsonist. But indeed Jamie was a student after the fire, so it couldn't have been him. Arsonists and lunatics were my schoolmates because my parents fell for the Hyde character education spiel!

Hey... between the two of us, we've made some progress! :lol:

Re. time spent in mental institutions:  there was a running insurance scam prevalent in that era, whereby kids were often institutionalized for short periods of time, that is, until the parents' insurance allotment ran out.  This was often invoked in cases of rebellious errant youth, e.g., runaways, minor drug offenses, etc. and in reality had nothing to do with the psychological health of the individual in question.  Even the courts were in on it; to them I am sure it was not a "scam" but, rather, a means of delegating responsibility or simply just "the way things were done" for the time being... but in retrospect it really was a scam.  

I am not sure how Jamie's situation figured into all that.  I do recall that his father was a psychiatrist or psychologist; I rather think the latter, but I could be wrong.  At any rate, anything is believable; this was a time when a lot of people got schnookered into that charade and intelligence and/or profession would have served little to ameliorate that.

[Anonymous]

HMMmm... I can't honestly say anything one way or the other about the "Smith" part.  You are obviously remembering that more vividly than I am.  However, it was Phil B-something.  The other guy I don't know.

However, the reason I kind of doubt it was Jamie Smith is because I was under the impression that both kids (that set the fire) were sent away somewhere after that blaze of glory, never to return to that great bastion of character development and unique potential.  And Jamie Smith did attend the regular year.  In fact, it is my understanding that both he and Phil (brothers) ceased their involvement with Hyde due to an altercation between Gauld and Sidney Smith (the father) re. publication of one of the son's "story" in what was to become the "Courage to Grow" book.  It may not have been the book, Gauld also used these stories for his newspaper column at the time.  At any rate, Jamie would have had to have been there long enough for him to have been written his story, and my guess is that just couldn't have happened in the relatively brief period of the summer session.

My guess really, totally, and I am fully ready to stand correction...

You've jogged my memory. Phil B (rhymes with hamburger) was one of the arsonists. Hyde agreed not to press charges against the arsonists if their parents had them committed. I recall that Jamie Smith did time in a mental institution prior to Hyde, which is why I confused him with the other arsonist. But indeed Jamie was a student after the fire, so it couldn't have been him. Arsonists and lunatics were my schoolmates because my parents fell for the Hyde character education spiel!

Hey... between the two of us, we've made some progress! :lol:

Re. time spent in mental institutions:  there was a running insurance scam prevalent in that era, whereby kids were often institutionalized for short periods of time, that is, until the parents' insurance allotment ran out.  This was often invoked in cases of rebellious errant youth, e.g., runaways, minor drug offenses, etc. and in reality had nothing to do with the psychological health of the individual in question.  The courts were in on it; to them I am sure it was not a "scam" but, rather, a means of delegating responsibility or simply just "the way things were done" for the time being... but in retrospect it really was a scam.  

I am not sure how Jamie's situation figured into all that.  I do recall that his father was a psychiatrist or psychologist; I rather think the latter, but I could be wrong.  At any rate, anything is believable; this was a time when a lot of people got schnookered into that charade and intelligence and/or profession would have served little to ameliorate that.

It stands to reason that as a mental health professional Sidney Smith was fully aware of the financial benefits enjoyed by parents of institutionalized children. How sickening that he could do that to Jamie under false pretenses in order to milk the insurance company. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Smith received a kickback for every child that he referred to Hyde.

[Ursus]

It stands to reason that as a mental health professional Sidney Smith was fully aware of the financial benefits enjoyed by parents of institutionalized children. How sickening that he could do that to Jamie under false pretenses in order to milk the insurance company.

I am totally not sure about that.  I do not know any different, but I don't think it is fair, knowing the family, to come to that conclusion from what little we know.  Do you know any facts that would suggest differently?

I do know, for a fact, that very few people understood this insurance scam while it was going on in the early '70s.  I think more people became savvy to it as time went on.  It was also out of parental control if the courts got involved in any way, e.g., the kid was caught with drugs, ran away, violent or self-destructive behaviors at school, etc.  I got the overall impression that the beneficiaries were mostly the institutions, certainly not the parents.  What exactly went down in Jamie's case, I don't know.  I knew Phil better.

[Anonymous]

It stands to reason that as a mental health professional Sidney Smith was fully aware of the financial benefits enjoyed by parents of institutionalized children. How sickening that he could do that to Jamie under false pretenses in order to milk the insurance company.

I am totally not sure about that.  I do not know any different, but I don't think it is fair, knowing the family, to come to that conclusion from what little we know.  Do you know any facts that would suggest differently?

I do know, for a fact, that very few people understood this insurance scam while it was going on in the early '70s.  I think more people became savvy to it as time went on.  It was also out of parental control if the courts got involved in any way, e.g., the kid was caught with drugs, ran away, violent or self-destructive behaviors at school, etc.  I got the overall impression that the beneficiaries were mostly the institutions, certainly not the parents.  What exactly went down in Jamie's case, I don't know.  I knew Phil better.

I do know that it is impossible to institutionalize a child for the above-listed offenses without parental consent. Either Jamie was insane in his father's professional opinion, or he was not and his father gave his consent for other reasons. Unlike you, I do not know the Smith family. You probably know better than I why Sid Smith consented to have Jamie locked up.

[Anonymous]

There is a prize for naming both the arson suspects

One was named Phil...

His full name was Phil ** Smith. Am I entitled to half the prize?

Couldn't have been Phil Smith.  Phil Smith did not attend the summer of 1975, he was already entrenched in the school year program the year prior (and probably back further than that).  It was Phil something-else...

One of the arsonists was named Smith. So, if one was Phil, but not Phil Smith, then the other was Smith, and it was Jamie ** Smith.

HMMmm... I can't honestly say anything one way or the other about the "Smith" part.  You are obviously remembering that more vividly than I am.  However, it was Phil B-something.  The other guy I don't know.

However, the reason I kind of doubt it was Jamie Smith is because I was under the impression that both kids (that set the fire) were sent away somewhere after that blaze of glory, never to return to that great bastion of character development and unique potential.  And Jamie Smith did attend the regular year.  In fact, it is my understanding that both he and Phil (brothers) ceased their involvement with Hyde due to an altercation between Gauld and Sidney Smith (the father) re. publication of one of the son's "story" in what was to become the "Courage to Grow" book.  It may not have been the book, Gauld also used these stories for his newspaper column at the time.  At any rate, Jamie would have had to have been there long enough for him to have been written his story, and my guess is that just couldn't have happened in the relatively brief period of the summer session.

My guess really, totally, and I am fully ready to stand correction...

You've jogged my memory. Phil B (rhymes with hamburger) was one of the arsonists. Hyde agreed not to press charges against the arsonists if their parents had them committed. I recall that Jamie Smith did time in a mental institution prior to Hyde, which is why I confused him with the other arsonist. But indeed Jamie was a student after the fire, so it couldn't have been him. Arsonists and lunatics were my schoolmates because my parents fell for the Hyde character education spiel!

  Is Jamie the one that was really close to Joe or was that his brother?

[Ursus]

It stands to reason that as a mental health professional Sidney Smith was fully aware of the financial benefits enjoyed by parents of institutionalized children. How sickening that he could do that to Jamie under false pretenses in order to milk the insurance company.

I am totally not sure about that.  I do not know any different, but I don't think it is fair, knowing the family, to come to that conclusion from what little we know.  Do you know any facts that would suggest differently?

I do know, for a fact, that very few people understood this insurance scam while it was going on in the early '70s.  I think more people became savvy to it as time went on.  It was also out of parental control if the courts got involved in any way, e.g., the kid was caught with drugs, ran away, violent or self-destructive behaviors at school, etc.  I got the overall impression that the beneficiaries were mostly the institutions, certainly not the parents.  What exactly went down in Jamie's case, I don't know.  I knew Phil better.

I do know that it is impossible to institutionalize a child for the above-listed offenses without parental consent. Either Jamie was insane in his father's professional opinion, or he was not and his father gave his consent for other reasons. Unlike you, I do not know the Smith family. You probably know better than I why Sid Smith consented to have Jamie locked up.

You are dead wrong about your assessment of necessary causes for institutionalization without parental consent.  I personally know someone who was institutionalized for the grand crime of running away from home.  Student was caught because they did not want to interrupt their schooling and hence continued to attend classes (junior high) whilst sleeping on the run.  Talk about being dedicated beyond the parameters of common sense.  Kid was arrested at school, hauled into court and ordered to return home.  Kid refused due to fear of further abuse at home.  Kid was sent to a detention center filled with hard core budding rapists and arsonists who routinely set the walls on fire.  After a period of time, kid was hauled back to court.  Kid still refused to return home.  Kid was thence institutionalized in a psychiatric facility 'till the father's insurance policy ran out, thence discharged to a foster home, miraculously "cured."  I've seen mainstream television news programs on this issue.  This type of stuff happened to lots of kids.  Where have you been?

Shit like this still goes on, 'cept maybe the insurance companies are now a little more savvy about being bilked.  Check out the Gina Score story on the Troubled Teens Forum posted by Hanzomon4 last night.  Story is about a case in 2000.  Gina Score is dead.  There is another case of a kid mentioned within that story where the kid stole the parents car and crossed the state line with it.  Parents called the cops, worried about their son.  So now he's in the system and what happens?  Sent to boot camp, think it was 6 months, then he becomes a ward of the state 'till he turns 21.  The parents wanted their kid back, but because the system got involved, they lost custody of him.

I do not know what Jamie's issues were.  Like I said, I knew Phil better, but I didn't even know Phil all that well.  I do not know the circumstances under which Jamie was institutionalized, nor for that matter, whether he ever really was.  That tidbit came from you.  If you say so, I'll go with that.  But I certainly don't know what Sid had to say about all that, or even whether what he might have said would have even mattered.  Given what was going on at the time with institutionalizing kids for seemingly minor infractions to shake them up, "scare them straight," and milking parental insurance policies to do so, I find it eminently believable that parent Sid may not have had any say in it.  I say may, as I truly do not know.  The boys in that family could be quite "passionate" about their issues, and that included the father.

[Ursus]

Is Jamie the one that was really close to Joe or was that his brother?

My guess is that that would be Phil.  He was more old school.  But I would hardly characterize that relationship as "close."  Phil could be a real pisser.  But I could be wrong...

All this discussion of Jamie has made me wonder... I always got the feeling that there was something emotionally fragile about the guy, a kind of sadness, and that Phil was often protective of his brother.  If indeed Jamie was institutionalized for something, perhaps it was for events related to this.  Again, I do not know...

There was also a sister... Melissa?  Was that her name?  Somebody help me out here...

[Jesus H Christ]

Is Jamie the one that was really close to Joe or was that his brother?

My guess is that that would be Phil.  He was more old school.  But I would hardly characterize that relationship as "close."  Phil could be a real pisser.  But I could be wrong...

All this discussion of Jamie has made me wonder... I always got the feeling that there was something emotionally fragile about the guy, a kind of sadness, and that Phil was often protective of his brother.  If indeed Jamie was institutionalized for something, perhaps it was for events related to this.  Again, I do not know...

There was also a sister... Melissa?  Was that her name?  Somebody help me out here...

  Wow there is a blast from the past.  I can't tell you much about Jamie because I was close to no one at Hyde, not even myself.  i was afraid if I let myself know what I was doing I would turn my self in to Milton and I would end up moving fire wood with Jimmy Vita.
 I do remember that Jamie had a gold Les Paul and was a talented musician.  I have wondered if G.E. Smith of the SNL Band, Dylan side man etc, was not Jamie.   They are about the same size, faces don't quite match but I heard that Jamie kissed the ass end of a flatbed truck and had a bunch of facial re constructive surgery after  leaving Hyde.  I have a friend of a friend that knows Sid.  She told me that Sid confided that he use to beat the kids.  Shit.  A shrink that beats his kids, what an asshole.  

Signed
Joe's egomaniac and narcissistic soul brother

[Ursus]

Is Jamie the one that was really close to Joe or was that his brother?

My guess is that that would be Phil.  He was more old school.  But I would hardly characterize that relationship as "close."  Phil could be a real pisser.  But I could be wrong...

All this discussion of Jamie has made me wonder... I always got the feeling that there was something emotionally fragile about the guy, a kind of sadness, and that Phil was often protective of his brother.  If indeed Jamie was institutionalized for something, perhaps it was for events related to this.  Again, I do not know...

There was also a sister... Melissa?  Was that her name?  Somebody help me out here...

  Wow there is a blast from the past.  I can't tell you much about Jamie because I was close to no one at Hyde, not even myself.  i was afraid if I let myself know what I was doing I would turn my self in to Milton and I would end up moving fire wood with Jimmy Vita.
 I do remember that Jamie had a gold Les Paul and was a talented musician.  I have wondered if G.E. Smith of the SNL Band, Dylan side man etc, was not Jamie.   They are about the same size, faces don't quite match but I heard that Jamie kissed the ass end of a flatbed truck and had a bunch of facial re constructive surgery after  leaving Hyde.  I have a friend of a friend that knows Sid.  She told me that Sid confided that he use to beat the kids.  Shit.  A shrink that beats his kids, what an asshole.  

Signed
Joe's egomaniac and narcissistic soul brother

At least he admits it, appears to not feel so great about it.  Many parents of that generation still did practice corporal punishment, eh?  My parents did too, mostly my mother.  Half the time, I was afraid for my life.  It was always done in a fit of insane rage, armed with a dustpan broom.  I was afraid she could no longer recognize the limits of my limbs, and that I would not survive...

That shit dies with me, not to be passed on to the next generation.  When I specifically instructed my mother that that kind of discipline would not be acceptable with my son (his first visit to Grandma's house), she got a glazed look in her eye, and averted her gaze just slightly, like she didn't want to know what I was talking about.  That's as far as she's come to admitting anything.  It's a non-issue, just like Hyde.

[Ursus]

I do remember that Jamie had a gold Les Paul and was a talented musician. I have wondered if G.E. Smith of the SNL Band, Dylan side man etc, was not Jamie. They are about the same size, faces don't quite match but I heard that Jamie kissed the ass end of a flatbed truck and had a bunch of facial re constructive surgery after leaving Hyde.

G.E. was allegedly born in 1952; my guess is that Jamie was probably born in 1959, give or take a year.  Plus, I think G.E. grew up in Pennsylvania; Jamie grew up in Massachusetts.

But you are totally right about the general build, size...

[Anonymous]

I personally know someone who was institutionalized for the grand crime of running away from home.  Student was caught because they did not want to interrupt their schooling and hence continued to attend classes (junior high) whilst sleeping on the run.  Talk about being dedicated beyond the parameters of common sense.  Kid was arrested at school, hauled into court and ordered to return home.  Kid refused due to fear of further abuse at home.  Kid was sent to a detention center filled with hard core budding rapists and arsonists who routinely set the walls on fire.  After a period of time, kid was hauled back to court.  Kid still refused to return home.  Kid was thence institutionalized in a psychiatric facility 'till the father's insurance policy ran out, thence discharged to a foster home, miraculously "cured."

"Someone's" story sounds remarkably like your own:

I was semi-normal.  Had problems with my parents, had run away previously due to undue strictness and corporal punishment, and had spent some time in JuVie and a mental hospital for that (hospital/insurance scam, popular at that time, 'course I didn't know that then).  But, totally straight, zero drugs, zero cigs, no drinking, no sex.  In fact, I was caught for running away because I didn't want to interrupt my schooling, so they knew where I was during the day!  LOL!  So I was semi-normal, albeit traumatized.  After my stint at Hyde, I was even more traumatized, and I honestly feel like I have lost most of my life due to them.

I don't want to say "I told you so," but your story supports my point that the state doesn't institutionalize runaways. In fact, you were initially ordered home, not institutionalized. It was your refusal to comply with a court order and the acute need to resolve your homelessness that landed you in detention, asylum, foster care. I'm sorry about the traumas you endured at home and in the system, as well as the injustice you endured at Hyde. It sounds like there's blame enough to go around. You have my sympathy. As Chekhov said, "When I was a child I had no childhood."

[Ursus]

::seg::  Yikes'um!  Seriously, Mike, I've done a lot of research over the years to try to put this in its proper perspective, and I've run into certain trends and facts, etc. because I've always had half an ear open, so to speak.  We live in a world where most of the elements that very much influence and shape the features of our lives and thinkings are held invisible, beyond our reach.  About the only things shoved in our faces have marketing ploys attached to them.  People begin to lose touch with their souls when the parts are always one step removed, never fat in the hand.

Mundane realities, Mike: States can lock kids up for even the suspicion of some behavior if somebody is willing to lie about it.  Go read the Gina Score story, talk to some U.S. professionals in the mental health field who are savvy to the troubled teen scene, oh hell, email some reporters that are old enough to have this issue in their back pocket!  This is old hat, everybody the least bit touched by it knows it, and I'm not going to waste my time today arguing with you about it.  Actually, here's a little tidbit from that article to get you started.  They are talking about boot camps here, in our day it was Juvie or mental hospitals or reform schools.  Sometimes, of the options available to the courts, psychiatric institutions may have appeared to be the kindest alternative.  I say may, as you have no idea about the kind of stigmatization that comes along with that package.

The harsh punishment in boot camps has often outweighed the crime. Many states have placed not only gang members or others guilty of violent crimes in their facilities, but also those known as "status offenders" -- runaways, truants, and curfew violators. In the social service jargon of South Dakota, such kids are called CHINS, children in need of supervision. "Incarcerating CHINS goes against every moral, ethical expectation about what is right for children," says Dr. Susan Randall of the South Dakota Coalition for Children.

Enjoy your ivory tower; me, I'm still shoveling the horse shit out the barn so to speak, but damn, don't the apple trees smell fine this time of year!  :wink:

[Anonymous]

Enjoy your ivory tower; me, I'm still shoveling the horse shit out the barn so to speak, but damn, don't the apple trees smell fine this time of year!  :wink:

If you mean my academic ivory tower, expert legal opinions are but a phone call away.

If you mean the ivory tower I grew up in, I could tell you horror stories about the child abuse I endured. To be honest, my initial response to you was a variation of "Get over it, you're too old for this crap." That said, I do understand how hard it is to let go of past baggage. I continue to struggle with it myself. I'm "lucky" in that my wife has met my mom and dad and so can understand my anger and intolerance for them. Even now I frequently blow up at them on only the slightest provocation. But as frustrating as they are today, she still doesn't completely understand what it was like growing up in such a negative, miserable environment. I've given up trying to make them understand, or admit, their shortcomings: my mom still insists I had a perfectly happy childhood! I guess it makes them feel better as parents to believe that. So I don't mean to sound trite, but if you don't have anybody close who can relate to what you experienced, have you considered talking to a specialist? It just seems wrong that the past continues to impact your life in such a negative way.

Mike

[Ursus]

Amazon link HERE

by Joe Sharkey



From the Inside Flap
As Americans examine the out-of-control spending on health care, Bedlam exposes one of the costliest and most insidious medical scandals of recent times: the rapacious advance of the for-profit mental-health industry. By the end of the 1980s it had managed to lay claim to about 25 percent of all money spent by U.S. employers on employee health benefits.

During the 1980s, as the Recovery Era dictated broader insurance coverage for an ever-growing range of disorders, addictions, and behavioral problems, investor-owned psychiatric hospitals expanded at a dizzying rate. Using "guerrilla marketing," co-opting the psychiatric profession, and even hiring clergymen, guidance counselors, and other trusted community figures as bounty hunters, these psychiatric hospitals sought to bring in paying customers to a plethora of "treatment programs." Most seemed to have one thing in common: Patients miraculously improved the day their insurance expired. Beyond the horror stories of patient kidnapping, fraud, and abuses of children and adolescents, Bedlam examines the unholy alliance between modern "biopsychiatry" and the hospital, pharmaceutical, and "addiction" industries. It is an alliance that has succeeded in establishing, as federal policy, the astonishing notion that in any given six-month period, more than 20 percent of Americans need professional psychiatric care - and should be covered for it with generous insurance benefits.

As new health-care reforms provide for expanded mental-health coverage - in a formula that reflects the lobbying goals of the psychiatric industry - Bedlam blows away the public-relations smoke screen and shows what happens when modern marketing strategies are applied to psychiatric care. This is a truly shocking and important book, and one that, once read, will never be forgotten.