Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Hyde Schools
Fire at Hidden Lake Academy
Ursus:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""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...
--- End quote ---
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!
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: ""Ursus"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""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 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...
--- End quote ---
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!
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: ""Ursus"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Ursus"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Ursus"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""JoeSoulBro"" ---There is a prize for naming both the arson suspects
--- End quote ---
One was named Phil...
--- End quote ---
His full name was Phil ** Smith. Am I entitled to half the prize?
--- End quote ---
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...
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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...
--- End quote ---
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!
--- End quote ---
Is Jamie the one that was really close to Joe or was that his brother?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version