Mind of a Serial Killer - SERIAL KILLER: "The Bikini Killer" Pt. 1

Episode Date: August 25, 2025

The "Bikini Killer" Charles Sobhraj was a master of disguise and a predator in plain sight. In Part 1, we follow his rise from rebellious teen to international thief, exposing how he manipulated passports, people, and systems to build a deadly web of deception. His first kill wouldn’t be his last.Killer Minds is a Crime House Original Podcast, powered by PAVE Studios. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. For ad-free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crime House+ on Apple Podcasts. Don’t miss out on all things Killer Minds! Instagram: @killerminds | @Crimehouse TikTok: @Crimehouse Facebook: @crimehousestudios X: @crimehousemedia YouTube: @crimehousestudios To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi there, it's Vanessa. If you're loving killer minds, you won't want to miss my new show, a fellow Crime House original, Conspiracy Theory, Cults, and Crimes. Every Wednesday, I'll uncover the true stories behind the world's most shocking crimes, deadly ideologies, and secret plots. From mass suicides and political assassinations to secret government experiments and UFO cults, Follow conspiracy theories, cults, and crimes now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you listen. And for ad-free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crimehouse Plus on Apple Podcasts.

by borders. These invisible lines run through our lands, forming the basis for culture, history, and identity, and were tied to these places by tokens of belonging, like passports, licenses, and travelers' visas. But there are people who don't have those documents. They slip through the cracks of this global system, not belonging to any nation, and not protected by any either. Charles Sobrage was one of those forgotten people.

A regional war contributed to the loss of Charles's citizenship, and he was forced to navigate the world without legal recognition. Some may have felt rejected by this sense of statelessness. Charles turned it into a terrifying source of power. After all, if he was invisible to the law, there wasn't much to stop him from breaking it. The human mind is powerful. It shapes how we think, feel, love, and hate.

But sometimes it drives people to commit the unthinkable. This is Killer Minds, a crimehouse original. I'm Vanessa Richardson. And I'm Dr. Tristan Engels. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest minds in history, analyzing what makes a killer. Crime House is made possible by you. Please rate, review, and follow Killer Minds. To enhance your listening experience with ad-free, early access to each two-part series and bonus content, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts.

Before we get into the story, you should know it contains descriptions of drug use and extreme violence. Listener discretion is advised. Today we begin our deep dive on Charles Sobrage, then known as French Indochina, and rejected by his biological father, Charles became a master thief and escape artist, taking on dozens of fake identities. But after years of stealing from Western tourists, he escalated to killing them using conniving tricks and methods so brutal, He earned himself the nickname, The Bikini Killer. As Vanessa takes you through the story, I'll be talking about things like a child's reaction to the abandonment of a parent, how tourists can be particularly vulnerable to scams and victimization,

and the manipulation techniques a con artist can use to convince his accomplices to both love and fear him. And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? From his first moments, Charles Sobrage was forced to live between worlds. He was born under a different name in April 1944 in Saigon, Vietnam, a city that has been passed between the hands of the French, Japanese, and Vietnamese for the past 80 years. His mother was a young Vietnamese woman and the mistress of an Indian merchant named Ho-chan Sobrage. Her name was Tran Luong Foon, but most people seemed to call her Noi.

Her partnership with Ho Chand crossed both class and color lines. Relationships between Indian expats and Saigon natives were rare, and Ho Chand was something of an elite. He was well connected, wealthy, and seemed to know everyone in town, while Noy was a poor shop girl. Still, Ho Chand liked Noi and eventually moved her into his lush apartment in the city's French quarter. When their son was born, Noy thought it was only right to give him an Indian name,

Gurmuk Sobrage. Germouk, who would eventually be called Charles, was born into chaos, both literally and figuratively. At the time, Vietnamese military groups were attempting to reclaim Saigon from Japanese forces. When Noy gave birth, the entire hospital was shaking from explosions throughout the city. The violence intensified during Charles' early years, when the the British and French got involved in the conflict. Even in their wealthy neighborhood, it wasn't uncommon to wake up to gunfire and flames. But through it all, Charles seemed to feel a sense of safety because of his father. He saw how Hochan used money and charm to glide through

Vietnamese society. There was a distinct bias against Indian merchants at the time, but he overcame that and the war, creating a glamorous life for himself and his family. To Charles, Ho-chan represented everything a man should be, powerful, refined, and above all else, adaptable. But Charles' connection to his father was short-lived. When he was three years old, Ho-chand left their family. So developmental psychologists agree that age three is a critical age. It's when children begin to figure out whether the world feels safe and whether they are worthy of care and love. Losing a parent at that age can deeply disrupt that role.

old view. And according to developmental psychologist Eric Erickson in his psychosocial stages, Charles would have been in the phase of autonomy versus shame and doubt. This is when kids are starting to assert independence, but they need consistent support to do it confidently. And according to this theory, if that support is pulled away, especially through something as significant as abandonment like this, it can lead to insecurity, shame, and confusion about one's place in the world. John Bulby's attachment theory builds on this. He argued that early relationships form the blueprint or framework for how we connect with others later on. So a sudden loss like Charles' experience could create attachment trauma, which can show up later as emotional detachment, lack of empathy, or even manipulative behavior. And according to Margaret Mahler, who studied separation and individuation, toddlers begin pulling away from caregivers to form their own identity, but only if they feel emotionally secure to do so, which is similar to Eric Erickson. Without that secure base, kids can become emotionally stuck or overly self-reliant, often showing up as a need to control

their environment and relationships later in life. So from a developmental standpoint, Charles may have learned early on that the emotional world was unpredictable and that control was safer than connection. But, and this is important, this kind of early loss doesn't cause violence. Many people experience abandonment or unstable upbringings and still grow up to live healthy, compassionate lives. Charles' case, like all cases of extreme behavior that we cover here, is shaped by a complex mix of biological traits, early environment, and ultimately choices that he has made over time. After Hochan left, Noi didn't want to live as a single mother, so in In 1948, when Charles was four, she moved on to a new partner, a French army officer named

Jacques Roussel. Soon after that, Jacques moved the family into his quarters, and he and Noy started having children of their own. Jacques was the one who likely influenced Noy to rename her son, because this was when Grimouk became Charles, after French president Charles de Gaul. His last name, Sobrage, remained. Charles didn't enjoy his new family arrangement. He hated living in the barracks and frequently demanded to live with his real father, and he didn't get used to the situation as time went on either. Four years later, when Charles was eight, he regularly ran away from his stepfather's house,

sprinting through the streets of Saigon towards Hochan's apartment. Noi had to lock him in the bathroom whenever he was alone. This didn't hold him for long, though. he quickly figured out how to pick the locks and jimmy the windows, so after several escapes, Noy started tying him to the bed. Charles's difficulties got even worse in 1953 when he was nine years old. His stepfather was transferred back to France, which would be the first of many international moves for Jacques Noy and their family.

To Charles, the relocation was destabilizing, and he clearly suffered from the stress because he began to wet the bed constantly. Noi didn't know what to do with him and responded to his bedwetting, just like she'd responded to his escape tactics, with physical restraints and punishment. For a while, she insisted on tying a piece of string around his penis before he went to bed. This likely only caused him to be more ashamed of his emotional reactions and convinced Charles that physical intervention was the only way to solve a problem. So bedwetting, which clinically is known as nocturnal and uresis, is actually fairly common in early childhood. At age three to five, it's typically considered developmentally normal, but when it persists beyond age five, especially in children who were previously dry at night, it can be concerning of regressive behavior. And that can be a sign of emotional distress or trauma, or of course, there could be underlying medical reasons as well.

But for Charles, with chronic instability already occurring, it would not be clinically surprising if this was regressive behavior. Now, his mother's response to this is both disturbing and developmentally harmful. From a clinical perspective, this introduces two major risks. First, it's a shaming response to what is often an involuntary act. That creates not just humiliation, but also confusion and fear in a child. And they may start to associate their body or even their basic. needs with danger or disgust. Second, it may contribute to long-term issues with sexual development,

bodily autonomy, and trust. For young children, early experiences involving the genitals can profoundly shape how they understand physical boundaries, consent, and control. So, in Charles's case, you have a child who's already emotionally vulnerable and whose few remaining coping mechanisms, including sleep, are now being punished in somewhat violent or violating ways. And that kind of experience can shape how someone relates to vulnerability and others. He may have learned that helplessness is intolerable, and that power is the only protection. That belief system is not uncommon in individuals

who later show signs of psychopathy or even severe personality pathology. But again, it's crucial to remember. Not every child who endures these experiences becomes violent. Many do not. What it does do is it does increase the risk, particularly if there are no protective factors or buffers in place. Well, unfortunately, Charles' life wasn't going to get any more stable from there.

Around 1954, Jacques had to go back to Vietnam. He took Noy and their children with him, but left 10-year-old Charles behind at a boarding school in France. Charles didn't speak French, though, and was put in a grade with children younger than him to make up for the language barrier. So not only was he older than everyone around him, he looked different from them too. His white classmates bullied him,

and he had a hard time making friends. He likely spent his evenings fantasizing about a better life, one that was back in Vietnam with his wealthy biological father. And when Noi came to pick him up at the end of the school year, Charles begged her to let him live with Hochan. Noi hesitated. She knew at this point that Hochan had no interest in taking care of Charles, but she didn't want to break the boy's heart,

so she told him that Hochand was dead. Charles didn't believe her, and as the family bounced between Europe and Asia throughout Charles's early teens, he maintained his faith that Hochan was alive and waiting for him. Because of this belief, Charles kept trying to get back to Vietnam and see his father. In 1957, when he was 13, Charles moved with the family to Senegal, but tried to stow away on a steamship headed for Saigon. He was caught before it set sail. After this incident, Jacques attempted to discipline Charles by sending him to another boarding school back in France.

But this didn't stop Charles, who tried to run away to Vietnam again when he was 16, this time convincing a classmate to come with him. The two of them boarded a ship by pretending to be first-class passengers. This time, it worked. The voyage gave Charles a taste of the ritzie lifestyle he wanted. Wow. This kind of chameleon behavior suggests that Charles wasn't just fantasizing about another life. He was actively learning how to inhabit it. And he was apparently good at it. At 13, most kids are awkwardly figuring out who they are. Charles was constructing alternate persona as performing them and manipulating systems to reinforce them. And he continued that until age 16. Psychologically, he was covering shame and rejection. with charm, confidence, and illusion. And this isn't just a case of a precocious or imaginative kid. When a child can convincingly pass as someone they're not,

it raises red flags for traits like juvenile psychopathy or the possibility of developing personality pathology once they reach the age of 18. It's concerning that he did not seem to feel remorse about deceiving others to get what he wanted, or even the fact that he convinced another child to come with him. that lack of regard for others, the lack of guilt, and having pride in manipulating others like that is an early behavioral marker of emotional detachment and callousness, especially when we pair that with superficial charm, calculated behavior, and risk-taking behavior. And at that age, that's more than unusual. It's really a warning sign. What does it say about Charles that for so many years he just refused to accept the circumstances he was actually in? Is this like insecurity or delusion?

or is it something darker about him? Yeah, clinically this points to something deeper than just insecurity. Charles didn't like the reality he was born into. He felt powerless, rejected, and abandoned. He was the product of early parental loss, blended family conflict, inconsistent caregiving, and socioeconomic instability. These kinds of emotional experiences can trigger the use of defense mechanisms, which are psychological strategies that we all use to manage anxiety

or discomfort or any kind of emotional pain. And in childhood, Charles tried to fix this reality. He asked to live with his biological father. He tried running away, but his efforts failed. And he began crafting an identity that felt powerful, admired, and in some ways untouchable, which is in contrast to the helpless child he believed himself to be. And to maintain that version of himself, he turned it to a pattern of compulsive and elaborate line, which you'll definitely outline, and not just what the goal to be.

to manipulate others, but to also shield himself from his own reality. And the danger, of course, is that this strategy worked. And the more convincing the lie, the more control he felt. And over time, that fantasy-based identity empowered him in really dangerous ways. Unfortunately for him, Charles' crew's home was cut short when his friend bragged about their escape to a portside shopkeeper in Vietnam. The shopkeeper called the police, and the two boys were ushered back to France on the same ship they'd come in on. After this incident, Noyce seemed to realize her lie about Ho Chand hadn't worked

and finally admitted to her son that his father was alive. Charles immediately wrote him a letter and Ho Chand actually responded. He said he'd be in Paris for a business trip in the next few months. After more than a decade, Charles was finally going to reunite with his father. But their meeting wouldn't give Charles the life he'd dreamed of. Instead, it would teach him that the only way to get what you really want is to take it by force. In January 1961, 16-year-old Charles Sobrage reunited with his father, Ho-chan, at the Paris airport. But Charles wasn't interested in an emotional reunion. All he wanted to know was if he could live, with Ho-Chand in Saigon.

Ho-Chand wasn't so sure. He'd occasionally exchanged letters with Charles' mother, Noi, and knew about their son's behavioral problems, but he could tell how much it meant to Charles and promised to send him a ticket for the journey as soon as he returned to Vietnam. The 16-year-old left the meeting elated. But Ho-chan never sent him a ticket,

and as the weeks went by, Charles started to panic. He desperately wanted to get to say. wanted to get to Saigon, but without his father's help, he couldn't afford a ticket. He had a part-time job at a restaurant, but that didn't pay nearly enough to cover it. So Charles decided if he couldn't earn the money, he'd have to steal it. In the spring of 1961, Charles bought a gun and took it with him to the Paris suburbs. Once there, he would force his way into homes by pretending to work for their gas company,

then robbed them at gunpoint. he managed to pull off two jobs before he got caught and sent a juvenile detention. That was bad enough, but there was an unforeseen penalty that was far worse. While Charles was being processed, the court analyzed his citizenship status and ended up rescinding his French passport. According to them, he didn't qualify for one, because he'd been born in contested territory in Saigon. He was technically stateless. that's a significant amount of perceived rejection first from his father possibly his mother and her treatment of him and the blended family conflict then the state and then obviously society in general when that kind of rejection compounds it can create a deep core belief related to a sense of belonging or more accurately lack of it

psychologically we all need to feel rooted rooted in family in our identity even in our sense of stability or security and this kind of trifle of rejection, wouldn't just feel like a loss of citizenship, especially to Charles. It would feel like a loss of worth. And for someone with Charles' personality structure, that's where things get dangerous. Instead of seeking connection or self-reflection, his instinct becomes rage, defiance and control, not because he wants to belong, but rather to prove to himself that he does. Well, as scary as it may have been, Charles wasn't going to let his uncertain citizenship status stop him. During his six-month stint in jail, he got back in touch with Hochan. His father eventually agreed to take him in.

And thanks to some of Charles' stepfather's connections in the French bureaucracy, he was able to get a temporary one-way visa. It didn't fix the issue with his nationality, but it allowed him to get into Vietnam. Right after Charles was released, in May, 1961, the 17-year-old boarded an ocean liner bound for Saigon. Once he arrived, he offered to work in his dad's tailoring shop and started taking business classes. He was ready to make his father proud. But after playing by the rules for a few months, Charles became restless.

He'd been trying to get back to Vietnam for years and had broken a lot of rules along the way. He realized he liked being a criminal, and Saigon had a vibrant illegal underworld. Soon, Charles started selling perfume and cigarettes on the black market, and regularly stole from his father. When Hochan found out, he put a swift end to Charles' new life and sent him back to France, but there was no stopping him now. From this point on, Charles' illegal activity progressively escalated. He spent his late teens and early 20s stealing cars all over Europe.

He was no master criminal, though. Charles was caught repeatedly and sent to jail, his sentences growing longer each time. By the time he turned 24 in 1966, Charles had spent a total of five years behind bars. Along the way, he'd learned all the wrong lessons. Instead of going on the straight and narrow, he decided to go bigger.

Over the next five years, Charles became one of the most versatile and experienced criminals in Europe and Asia. For a while, he lived in Mumbai, running a scheme to steal European sports cars and sell them to the Indian upper class. After that con, he started stealing jewelry. But he also developed a gambling habit and constantly lost any money he made from his endeavors. In order to maintain his lifestyle and image, the heists got bigger. In 1971, he made international headlines by holding a woman captive in a hotel room for three days in Delhi, attempting to drill through her floor to get to the hotel's jewelry

shop. As soon as he made bail, he fled the country. You used a key word, and that word was image. Charles had been fixated on image from a very young age, wanting to reject his image and status with his mother in favor of a more perceived flashy one that he associated with his wealthy father. His attempt to board a ship by pretending to be a first-class passenger also speaks to this. He was 16, and he could have pretended to be anyone, but he chose status in that persona. And that says a lot in and of itself. His criminal and antisocial patterns even speak to this. He starts small relative to what comes later. Every heist, every con, wasn't just about money. It was about performing that fantasy, proving to himself and everyone around him that he was, the sophisticated and powerful

man he imagined himself to be. Psychologically, it seems like Charles just refuses to be seen or to feel ordinary. And every time reality threatens to reveal the real him, he pushes that boundary even further. So yes, this is definitely an escalation in behaviors, which we see in a lot of antisocial personalities. But with Charles, it's a little bit more than that. It's also performance. So how does a thrill-seeking behavior like gambling, match up with Charles' pattern of constantly upping the ante. Yeah, that's important. So his attraction to gambling was partly due to image, like we talked about, that key word.

Gambling says to the people watching and to the gambler himself that I have money to lose. And maybe even more importantly, I expect to win. That alone helps him curate this persona of someone who's wealthy, powerful, and sophisticated. For someone who grew up feeling excluded, unwanted and invisible, wealth becomes a passport on its own. Charles likely learned early on that rich people are accepted and belong anywhere and that money speaks louder than rejection. It makes sense that gambling would attract Charles. It projected status. It offered control and it neared the high stakes life he wanted to live. But gambling is also addictive. And it works on a variable reward schedule, which is the same reinforcement pattern

behind slot machines, social media, and compulsive behavior. It keeps you chasing the next big, unpredictable win, even if losses are mounting. And Charles didn't just gamble at the tables. He gambled with everything, if we're being honest. Each con had to be riskier. It was flashier, more thrilling. I mean, keeping someone captive to drill a hole, that's pretty performative. And all of that is to maintain the illusion that he was trying to build. And that's why every time with Charles, it always had to be bigger and why gambling was also attractive. In order to get away with these flashy heists, Charles had a vast collection of stolen passports. He would lift them off wide-eyed Europeans and North Americans who were trekking through Asia and the Middle East,

then modify their documentation for his own personal use. Okay, now we're seeing that Charles is undeniably criminally versatile, and that is a trait we see in psychopathy. As we follow his story, those traits continue to surface, but this new criminal venture is particularly telling when we consider his person, immigration history and that deep wound to his ego and sense of belonging. This is about reclaiming control in a world that once told him he didn't belong. With all these passports at his disposal, Charles could then slip across borders using

false names and identities, sometimes adding a wig and fake mustache to conceal himself even further. He also likely sold some of these passports on the black market. It's unclear how big the scope of that operation was, but it was lucrative enough for him to do it regularly. No matter what country he was in, he typically used the same routine. First, he identified the bars, hotels, and hostels where Western travelers tended to gather. Then he would approach his victims and become whoever he thought they wanted him to be. If he saw a wealthy-looking Swiss couple, he flashed a gold watch, portraying himself as an international businessman. If he ran into a group of American hippies, he told them where to buy hash.

You're describing chameleon traits again, which are a hallmark of sex. It's particularly dangerous because of how it is used to manipulate and exploit people. If the mark seemed open to it, he'd even tell them about his criminal past and entertain them with stories of jewel heists and jail breaks. Once he'd gained their trust, Charles would reach into his pocket where he kept an array of ground-up pills. When his victim's backs were turned, he would slip the drugs into their drinks. Sometimes he used sleeping pills or quailudes to knock them out and steal their money and passports. Other times, he slipped laxatives into their drinks.

The latter was more of a long game, because once his victims got sick, Charles would accompany them to their hotel room and help them into bed, then start rifling through their luggage. If they noticed what was happening and put up a fight, he had a syringe full of tranquilizers that could knock them out for several hours.

They'd wake up, dazed, without their jewelry, cash, or passports, and they'd hardly believe their own memories of what had happened. People tend to be more trusting or socially open and eager to connect while traveling, especially back then when travel was more of a luxury rather than a lifestyle. There's a kind of psychological vulnerability that comes with being out of your element. And con artists like Charles thrived on that. He didn't just pick travelers at random.

He targeted people who are already unfamiliar with their surroundings and looking for someone to trust or guide them. And in the 1970s, that effect was even more pronounced because there was no internet, no GPS, and no immediate access to research in your pocket or having translation apps. Travelers relied heavily on the kindness of strangers and natives, and Charles weaponized that kindness with charm, sophistication, and manipulation. So psychologically, he wasn't just targeting people. He was identifying vulnerability, and he was exploiting it using manipulation, charm, criminal versatility, and chame, criminal versatility, and chame. What does it say about Charles that he just took advantage of these people's trust so easily? Well, he lacked empathy, for one, most of us feel some discomfort when we lie to or exploit someone who's kind to us, but with Charles, there was no evidence that guilt was part of that equation at all.

It also suggests instrumental or transactional thinking. He's viewing people not as individuals who have feelings and needs, but as tools to serve him. If they were trusting, then they were useful to him. And if they were naive, which most of the travelers seemed to be, it was even better for him. But perhaps, like, most disturbingly, that it wasn't just easy for him, it was a natural, which I think speaks to the presence of strong, antisocial, and psychopathic traits. The charm without conscience, manipulation without remorse, cunningness, and all the traits that have already outlined, chameleon, criminal versatility, even perhaps parasitic lifestyle. There are a lot of effective traits consistent with psychopathy that make him,

particularly dangerous. Well, Charles definitely didn't seem to care about what he was doing to these people. He used this strategy all over the world, robbing, drugging, and black market dealing everywhere he went. But there was one line he didn't cross until the fall of 1972. At some point during that time, 28-year-old Charles was making his way through the Middle East. He hired a car in Pakistan to get into Afghanistan, but didn't want the drug. driver to know where he was headed, so he spiked the man's tea, knocking him unconscious. Charles planned to drop him off in a remote village and make off with the car on his own,

so he stuffed the passed out driver in the trunk, injecting him with a tranquilizer for a good measure. But the journey was several hours long, and it was incredibly hot in the desert. And when Charles finally stopped the car and opened the trunk, he realized the man was dead. Charles kept the driver's body in the trunk until it was dark, then drove to a remote riverbank. He dropped him in the water, then continued on to his destination. Charles had accidentally killed a man, but he didn't seem remorseful about it, or concerned about getting caught. He had entered the country with someone else's passport under a name that couldn't be traced back to him. So for all intents and purposes, that meant he didn't officially exist.

which also meant he could get away with just about anything. In 2013, two brutal murders left the city of Davis, California, paralyzed in fear. The victims were an elderly couple. It was up close and personal. I'm 48-hour's correspondent Aaron Moriarty. This is 15, I think the word is psychotic. This is 15 inside the Daniel Marsh murders. Follow and listen to 15 inside the Daniel Marsh murders on the free Odyssey app or wherever you get your podcast. Throughout the early 1970s, Charles Sobrage continued to jump between continents, identities, and criminal schemes.

With his thick stack of passports, Charles could change his identity at will. So even when law enforcement caught onto his actions, they were chasing a ghost. But in 1975, 31-year-old Charles met someone he was willing to let in to his schemes. That year, Charles was on a flight to India when he struck up a conversation with a 29-year-old student from Quebec named Marie-Andre Leclair. As a matter of habit, he introduced himself under a fake name, Alon Gautier. Charles regaled Marie with stories of his global exploits and gem trade business, and after they landed, he convinced her to travel with him. Over the course of several weeks, he seduced Marie until she was convinced she loved him,

even though she still didn't know his real name or how he made his money. But in her mind, it was true love, and she was willing to follow Charles anywhere. The two eventually settled in Bangkok, Thailand, which had become. a reliable home base for Charles over the years. The city was at the tail end of the so-called hippie trail, a common route taken by young European tourists who wanted to experience Asian culture and travel on the cheap. It was bursting with blist-out youths, with wads of cash in their backpacks, exactly the type of people Charles prayed on. Of course, Marie had no idea that was why they were there. In her mind, he was still a businessman, vaguely involved in the

gem trade. But shortly after arriving in Bangkok, she realized that Charles wasn't being completely honest. And for once, he told her the truth. Charles admitted that his money came from illegal means. And if Marie was going to keep living with him, she had to get on board with it. Not only that, to ensure her loyalty, he made her hand over her passport and all her cash, essentially making her a prisoner. So Charles was remarkably skilled at mirroring people. He projects what they want to see to earn their trust. And that kind of manipulation isn't strategic. It's learned. And when we look at his early life, it makes a lot of sense. As a child, Charles was let down by the very people who were supposed to protect him. He was promised connection, then abandoned. He was promised belonging, but then rejected. In other words, the rug was pulled out from under him long before he was doing it to others. So it's possible that he and internalize the idea that relationships are performances. And power comes from staying one step ahead. So instead of learning to attach safely, he learned to adapt, deceive, and control to become whoever he needed to be in the moment, which is precisely what I outlined earlier when highlighting the theories of developmental psychologists. And the cruel twist is that what started as a defense against rejection eventually became a tool for exploitation. What does it say about Charles that he basically forced Maria into staying with him? So at its core, this isn't about connection. It's about a need for control. For Charles, relationships

weren't built on mutual respect or emotional reciprocity. They were about possession. People were assets. And when someone like Charles senses that control is slipping, like when a partner starts to pull away or assert autonomy, the response isn't compromise. It's coercion. That could look like emotional manipulation, isolation, guilt, or even threats. Clinically, this suggests at a core abandonment fears that are being overcompensated for by a facade of dominance and self-assurance. Instead of tolerating rejection or separation,

he's tightening his grip. It's less about love, more about not being left behind, and what that would do to his sense of self-worth or lack thereof. So Marie's continued presence wasn't proof of intimacy. It was proof that his control was working. And for Charles, that's the sense. only kind of closeness that mattered to him.

Well, it wasn't long before Marie was more than Charles's prisoner, she also became his accomplice. After a few weeks of living together, he took her on a beach vacation. But this was more than a romantic getaway. When they arrived at the resort, Charles took on another false name, Jean Belmost, and insisted she play along using the name Monique. They pretended to be a wealthy French couple and made friends with a pair of Australian tourists named Russell and Vera Laptorn. It wasn't long before their new acquaintances came

down with a nasty case of food poisoning, which of course was Charles' doing. Eventually, the couple got so sick they were taken to the hospital by the hotel staff to get their stomachs pumped. When they returned, all of their valuables were gone, along with the mysterious French couple. Russell and Vera knew they'd been drugged, but even though they filed a report with local police, and the Australian embassy, nothing came of it. Meanwhile, Charles and Marie used the money they'd just stolen to rent an apartment in Bangkok in a building called Canet House. It was right next to a discount hotel that was crawling with backpackers from the hippie

trail, easy prey for Charles. He started doing his rounds in the area's bars and restaurants, bringing travelers back to Canitt House and robbing them blind. Around this time, Charles brought in another accomplice. to expand his operation, a young Indian man named Ajay Chowdhry. It's unclear how they met, but Ajay was in his early 20s and understood youth culture in a way that 31-year-old Charles didn't. He played a crucial role in befriending travelers

and luring them back to Canet House. With Ajay's help, the apartment turned into a 24-7 party with young backpackers pouring in, enjoying refreshments and good conversations as they smoke, and talked through the night. Occasionally, someone's passport would go missing, but they usually chalked it up to forgetfulness. Most of the visitors got away completely unscathed.

Charles himself showed up only rarely because at this point he was focused on establishing a new venture, getting involved in the drug trade. In late September of 1975, Charles went to the Thai city of Chang Mai to meet with a French dealer. Charles was looking to get his hands on a drug supply. but it seems like he didn't want to pay for it. Instead, Charles dosed the dealer with Kualudes to get inside information. And it worked. According to Charles, the Frenchman gave Charles

the names of two heroin couriers who'd be moving through Bangkok in the next few weeks. The first was Vitaly Hakim, a Turkish drug runner. The second was an American girl, Teresa Knowlton, who was supposed to carry a package of heroin to Nepal sometime in October. Once Charles had this information, he didn't want anyone else to know it. Later on, he claimed that after the dealer handed over the names, he drowned the man in his bathtub and made it look like a suicide. All right, what we're seeing in this moment is a clear shift in Charles's mentality, not just in behavior, but in how he conceptualizes power, risk, and human life. Early on, he operated mostly through manipulation like theft, fraud, and impersonation. His crimes required charm and

deception in some social engineering, but not necessarily violence. Then came the accidental death of his driver in Pakistan, which, while not planned, opened a psychological door. That incident may have shown Charles two things. First, that death could serve a purpose, and we know how Charles focuses only on purpose, and second, that he could get away with it. From there, the mental threshold required to justify killing someone becomes much easier for him to cross. In psychology, we talk about moral disengagement. I've mentioned it before in other episodes, and that's when someone separates their actions from their internal moral code. For Charles, this likely evolved gradually. But what stands out is how instrumental his killing is. Charles doesn't just lash out

impulsively or emotionally. He calculates. He drugs him for information and stages his death to look like a suicide. That's not just a shift in method. It's a shift in mindset. He's no longer avoiding harm. Violence becomes a useful tool now and a strategic choice. And that's a key marker for someone crossing into psychopathic territory where there's no empathy, remorse, or guilt, and the end seems to justify the means in his mind. Charles was able to cross this boundary because every time he got away with something worse, it rewired his sense of what he could do and what he is entitled to do. And we've already talked about why he continues to go bigger each time. Well, now that Charles had crossed the and to murder, he wasn't going to stop.

After killing the French drug dealer, he set his sights on the people he'd named, starting with the American, Teresa Nolton. On the surface, Teresa didn't seem like she'd be a drug runner. She was a 21-year-old student from Seattle, traveling to a Buddhist monastery in the Nepalese capital of Kathmandu. She was planning on working there for a while, giving lessons to children. But Teresa also had a wild side to her, before discovering Buddhism. she'd struggled with substance abuse,

and she seemed to be enjoying the hippie trails party scene before heading off to the monastery, which Charles was prepared to take full advantage of. He found out she was staying at the Hotel Malaysia in Bangkok just a few blocks away from where Charles lived. In mid-October, he sent his henchman a J there to befriend Teresa and invite her back to a party at the apartment. She said yes.

When Teresa arrived at Cannot House, festivities were in full swing. Multiple backpackers were there, swigging beers and swapping travel stories. Teresa joined right in, telling them about her colorful dating history and playing with the tiny monkey Charles kept as a pet. The moment Charles arrived later that night,

he made a beeline for her. Using the charm he'd learned to weaponize over the years, they had an immediate rapport. Within moments of being introduced, Charles invited Teresa to join him and Marie for a weekend at the beach. She was eager to join them. A few days later, Charles picked Teresa up from her hotel. He told her there was a change of plans and Marie wouldn't be joining them. Instead, a J would be coming along. Teresa didn't seem to think much of it and they all drove together

to a resort in Pataya, a beach about 100 miles away. When they arrived, Charles brought them to a picturesque bar overlooking the Gulf of Thailand, while Teresa took in the view, he spiked her drink. Once the drugs kicked in, Charles and Ajay drove Teresa to a remote stretch of coastline and interrogated her about where she was keeping the drugs she was supposed to take to Nepal. According to Charles, Teresa eventually admitted that she did smuggle drugs sometimes to make some extra money, but she never told him where her stash was. However, Charles, Charles didn't seem to think that was an issue. He forced Teresa to take more sleeping pills until she was completely unconscious.

He and Ajay took off her clothes and jewelry, leaving her only in a bikini. Then Charles told Ajay to take her into the water and leave her there to drown. After killing Teresa, Charles and Ajay drove back to Bangkok and returned to business as usual. A few weeks later, Charles opened his copy of the Bangkok post and saw a photo of a deceased female body. The article said it had been found floating in the water near Pataya on October 18th and was too deformed to be officially identified. But for Charles, the swimsuit was unmistakable. For a moment, he may have wondered if he'd crossed a new line. Teresa's death had made headlines, and if the authorities started sniffing around

his entire operation would be ruined. He could lay low for a while, hoping that the storm would pass, or he could have faith in his chameleon-like superpower to blend into the background. He chose the latter. Charles had chosen this path. He wasn't about to turn back now, and the farther he traveled on it, more death would follow. Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time for the conclusion of our deep dive on Charles Sobrage. Killer Minds is a crimehouse original powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support.

If you like what you heard today, reach out on Instagram at Killer Minds. And don't forget to rate, review, and follow Killer Minds. Minds wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference. And to enhance your listening experience, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode of Killer Minds ad-free, along with early access to each thrilling two-part series and exciting crime house bonus content. Killer Minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, and Dr. Tristan Engels, and is a crime house original powered by Pave Studios. This episode was brought to life by the Killer Minds team.

Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benadon, Lori Marinelli, Natalie Pertzowski, Sarah Camp, Kate Murdoch, Kylie Harrington, Sarah Tardiff, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening. If you love Killer Mind, tune in to the Crimehouse original conspiracy theories, cults, and crimes for the world's darkest truths. Follow conspiracy theories, cults, and crimes now, wherever you get your podcasts. And for ad-free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crimehouse Plus on Apple Podcasts.