Monday, April 3, 2017

Letter from Joanne to Sandy Good

One of the main tasks I set myself during the writing of "Coming Down Fast", was to determine any possible connection Joel Pugh may have had with the Manson collective prior to his death in London on December 1st 1969. Of particular interest, I wanted to get to the root of the letter that contained the ominous passage, "I would not want to happen to Joel happen to me" (sic). First reported in Vincent Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter", the extract gave the impression that Joel's death was suspicious, and in some way connected to the sensational "murder" toll attributed to members of the Family.

Ultimately, Bugliosi's brief and pat summary of Joel's death stripped him of any personality, rendering him as nothing more than an anonymous "victim". This set me a task in building a personality around Joel, something I felt was vital to assemble some sort of reality.

To be honest, I never thought that despite my well-honed research skills I would be able to find the letter that kick-started the investigation into the circumstances of Joel's death. Remarkably, following a long trail of tip-offs, emails and phone calls, I was led to a library where a file of paperwork left by a detective had been archived. Within the reams of reports and other pieces of ephemera was the letter that ultimately fell on Bugliosi's desk which in turn, went on to imprint Joel's name in the Manson phenomena.

It didn't take more than one read of the letter from Joanne to Sandy Good to see how detectives had twisted an otherwise innocuous part of the letter to turn it into a possible link to a Manson related "murder" - the echoes of which have rattled on over the years. As you will read, the letter's most contentious line was (a) rewritten and (b) taken wholly out of context, allowing spectacular conclusions to be hastily drawn. As I am at pains to point out to fellow students of the case, despite activity at the highest level of officialdom, no attempt was made to contact the Pugh family to check on Joel's mental health status at the time of his death. Indeed, the first they would read of the investigation by police was in "Helter Skelter" in 1974.

This is the full letter from Joanne to Sandy Good.


68 comments:

Matt said...

If you aren't familiar with Simon Wells' 2010 research piece on Joel Pugh you can read it here.


grimtraveller said...

What Joanne actually says in the letter is "yet I can't let happen to me what happened to Joel...."

It sounds to me like she had taken acid and was slightly alarmed at where it had taken her and didn't want to mentally implode like it seemed Joel had, hence the line in the letter. The line is taken out of context in "Helter Skelter" because the tenor of the whole letter is one of having been through a shocking experience and reflecting on it. It reminds me of Lennon's line when commenting on his first trip, "I was pretty stunned for a month or two...."

grimtraveller said...

First reported in Vincent Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter", the extract gave the impression that Joel's death was suspicious, and in some way connected to the sensational "murder" toll attributed to members of the Family

When I read "Coming down fast" last summer, I got the impression that Bruce was being shaped and fitted as having something to do with Joel's death. For example, the author is definite about him being in England twice in '69 and mentions the dates Bruce leaves the USA to go to England a second time, well before the actual death of Joel Pugh. But there are no records of Bruce leaving the USA, entering the UK, leaving the UK and re~entering the USA in November/December '69, whereas when he was actually in the UK, there are records and records of his leaving for the USA. It seems to me to be highly odd that one can be sure of dates of Bruce's supposed second sojourn when no such records have been located by anyone in 47 years. There should be 4 loggings of Bruce regarding a supposed 2nd trip to England; there are none at all. Whether the English Police said they believed he was in the country is really neither here nor there ~ lots of things were believed such as the number of actual murders committed by the Family.

cielodrivecom said...

Always appreciate seeing things in proper context. Thanks Simon

Suze said...

k I'll bite. Who's Joanne?

DebS said...

Joel's death, allegedly at the hands of another, is one of those myths that still persists to this day. In 2012 his death was cited as being a possible Manson related murder when the Tex tapes surfaced. Funny, because the LA DA would have absolutely no jurisdiction in the event that it were true. Joel's death as well as others not in LA's jurisdiction are still being used as a reason not to release the tapes.

Thanks, Simon for sharing the letter with us. Context is everything!!

DebS said...

Suze, Joanne was a friend of both Sandy and Joel. She is mentioned a few times in Simon's piece that Matt linked to in the first comment.

ColScott said...

Those tapes are another Tom O'Neill horseshit special. He speaks out randomly as if through a fog. It turns out that most of the "Retaliation Murders" are not even murders at all. And don't get me started on Habe etc.

DebS said...

Col, O'Neil aside, why won't LA release those tapes? The reason cited is that they might contain information about a murder or murders in an ongoing investigation. The Stubbs, Tennerelli and Pugh deaths, which have been given as possibles, per the LA Times, are not in LAs jurisdiction. What gives?

ColScott said...

truly the answer is extremely simple. They don't have to.

cielodrivecom said...

They never should've been given the tapes in the first place

ColScott said...

be clearer- who should not have? LAPD? LA DA? all of them?

cielodrivecom said...

All of the above. Authorities in Los Angeles couldn't provide a single case in their jurisdiction that they suspected the family's involvement. The story in the times about them looking into 12 cases was told spin. The AP caught them when they failed to circumvent the court and the LAPD needed an excuse why they tried to take them via a search warrant. So they came up with that story about the 12 cases. It was total bullshit. They weren't investigating shit. But one thing is for sure, they don't want anyone to hear them. So they are on the same page as Tex because he tried to file a motion to prevent the public from ever hearing them

St Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

Seems to me that if the tapes had no info regarding other crimes they'd just release them. To me it feels political, like someone doing someone else a favor.


St Circumstance said...

I remember reading this post when it first came out back in the day. This was first time I learned not to believe every Word Bugs said in HS literally. This shows how a true sentence can be used to lead readers in a false direction. I fell for it too.

As far as the tapes. I am not sure if they contain more valuable information or are as useless as Al Capones secret vault.

But I do wonder who or what they would feel is worth protecting to the cost of withholding answers to concerned family regarding crimes of long ago. I also think it is in Tex's best interest to keep as low a profile as possible. Bringing any news back in public eye is bad for him no?

But many questions could be answered by releasing them even if the answers are boring. One does wonder why they refuse to do so...

St Circumstance said...

And a word of two about Mrs. Good.

Really the hardest girl of all for me to understand. I think you can sort of see where almost all of the other girls had the moment in their life when they just decided anything was better than what they had going on.

Sandy seemed to really come from decent people and she also seemed to have a good head on her shoulder. She was smart enough to have her child in a hospital not let other kids deliver it. She stayed out of the serious trouble and I believe there is a reason Charlie didn't try to send her - I think he knew she wouldn't go. I feel like she really was the one girl in that group to strong minded to be anyone's dupe.

Yet there she was out front in the Documentary and on the TV shows carrying on with the message. Long after it became apparent to the world how wrong it was- she was one of the last to hold on and in fact may still hold on.

Like most of it- hard for me to understand. I am quite vexed with Sandy Good.

St Circumstance said...

PS. I am aware she was in clink during TLB. I just meant it seems like Charlie never picked her for any of the serious crime stuff and it seems to me he understood she was the one girl with a strong mind of her own who might not obey in front of others...

I just get that impression. But what I know about Their personal dynamic is pure speculation. I understand that. :)

Robert C said...

I never had a problem connecting dots between Good's biologic family, her behaviors and seemingly continued adoration of CM.

Sitting along a street with a swastika carved in her forehead. Enjoying an extended adolescence. Embarrassingly band-wagonning on the environmental movement like they started it. Continuing to affiliate with known murderers. The list goes on. Not a sign of a healthy brain.

No offense meant to you, St. C. Just saying I see her case quite differently, more clearly.

St Circumstance said...

I agree with all those things you point out about her. It just seems harder for me to see how she wound up being that person than it does the others as she seemed to have learned and known better. I'm not so sure some of the others did...

But maybe I'm giving her props she doesn't deserve ?

In Mr. H documentary she looked like a zombie robot in opening sequence. Very scary. I am not a fan by any means.

But I just get the impression she was a bright self reliant person and I think Charlie got that. He didn't push certain ones as hard as the others. He did not really abuse Sandy.

Was it money or because she just wasnt the type to take it?

I don't know

St Circumstance said...

By the way no offense taken lol. :)

bucpaul2812 said...

St Circumstance said...

"And a word of two about Mrs. Good.

Really the hardest girl of all for me to understand. I think you can sort of see where almost all of the other girls had the moment in their life when they just decided anything was better than what they had going on.

Sandy seemed to really come from decent people and she also seemed to have a good head on her shoulder. She was smart enough to have her child in a hospital not let other kids deliver it. She stayed out of the serious trouble and I believe there is a reason Charlie didn't try to send her - I think he knew she wouldn't go. I feel like she really was the one girl in that group to strong minded to be anyone's dupe.

Yet there she was out front in the Documentary and on the TV shows carrying on with the message. Long after it became apparent to the world how wrong it was- she was one of the last to hold on and in fact may still hold on.

Like most of it- hard for me to understand. I am quite vexed with Sandy Good."

Yes, I concur, out of all the people who followed Charlie, Sandy Good is indeed the most intriguing. I can't recall exactly where I read this account (and, let's face it, with most of us here who have more than a passing interest in all things Manson, it's hard to remember every source, but I digress...) but prior to meeting Manson, she was still leading quite the bourgeoisie/dilletante lifestyle. Apparently, she flew down to LA with someone who wanted to buy (or sell?) some art and this person wanted to turn her on to Charlie; and evidently Sandy said she had no interest in some "guru", the only reason she went on that trip was to go surfing.

She may have been disdainful of her parents' "keeping up with the Joneses" lives but, aside from dipping in and out of college, like St. indicated, it clearly wasn't a case of Sandy choosing Charlie because her life at the time was blighted by adversity, so it's intriguing how she was in no frame of mind to meet "some guru" and yet something with Charlie CLEARLY resonated.

"He didn't push certain ones as hard as the others. He did not really abuse Sandy.

Was it money or because she just wasnt the type to take it?"

Very good question. I'm thinking, I've never heard accounts of Nancy or Cappy being at the brunt of any abuse and I'm wondering if this had to do with Nancy coming from money as well and Cappy's grandmother owning that ranch - I kind of wonder if Charlie was a bit more "benevolent" to those who he thought would be useful to him materially.

St Circumstance said...

Plus lol

That George Stimson is a charming and intelligent type of guy.

He is a little misguided if you ask me - but - he is kind, smart and somewhat handsome in a hippy kind of way...

Sandy must be alright in some ways to land a dude like that

;)

penny lane said...

Plus ...she has crazy eyes !..obviously she isnt a full packet of Tim Tams :)

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

I am aware she was in clink during TLB

She was also as pregnant as Sharon Tate was, give or take a week.

Really the hardest girl of all for me to understand. I think you can sort of see where almost all of the other girls had the moment in their life when they just decided anything was better than what they had going on

Need is need. Disillusionment is disillusionment. Juanita Wildebush came to the Family with $10,000. When people are bored with their current lives, then money, class and status are of little concern. They may even be the very things that are driving the disillusionment. Remember, much of the 60s trip for many of the younglings was an inner revolution, which included the war against materialism.

She stayed out of the serious trouble

Arguably she was one of the ones that showed that she was ready to go pretty far in that dept, if the rest of the 70s are anything to go by.

I feel like she really was the one girl in that group to strong minded to be anyone's dupe

There are many that, looking at her actions and some of her comments both before and after her incarceration, might grapple with you on that one, St.

St Circumstance said...

He did not really abuse Sandy

I guess that depends on one's view of abuse. She's on record as saying that he dragged her around by her hair. She did add though, that she probably deserved it. And Brooks Poston certainly thought she was abused when he said "and he had convinced several girls, and he’s got them tied up in this manner. And also by fear, because he’s beaten up several girls, that I know of. Uh one, Mary Brunner. Uh, and another girl he beat up was Dianne Bluestein. I’ve seen him jerk her around by her hair and slap her, make her cry, and, hit her, and do all kinds of things with her. And make her, suck guy’s dicks. And other girls, the ones that uh, don’t like to be there, but don’t know what else to do. Such as Sandy Good, she’s been more or less, cajoled, or talked into it, or threaten into getting money from her dad, from San Francisco, on several occasions, in order to finance the group. And he’s made her do all kinds of acts that she didn’t want to do. But he’d grab her by the head, and shove her head down. And while he was making love to her at the same time." I guess the significance of Poston's words were that they occurred a week before the Barker arrests, long before any infamy or trial. But they may mean nothing. Or they may be indications of something.

But maybe I'm giving her props she doesn't deserve ?

In his long book from 2011, Shreck reported that Sandy had made the break from Charlie and his words regarding her {and words that Charlie supposedly came out with} were none too complimentary.

Robert C said...

I never had a problem connecting dots between Good's biologic family, her behaviors and seemingly continued adoration of CM

I agree with Robert on this. I have no problems seeing how any of the Family ended up being impressed by, staying with, being dominated by and eventually leaving Charlie. And as the Stones made us well aware during the period, there were lots of wealthy, classy good girls {no pun intended} that liked "a bit of rough."

grimtraveller said...

bucpaul2812 said...

something with Charlie CLEARLY resonated

Absolutely.
In a period where many of the younger folk in the land were throwing off the restraints of their parents' values, particularly if they'd experimented with drugs and seen, transcendentally, a different path, then someone with real life experience, someone who, against the odds of abandonment and jailtime, was still around and bright with it, someone who could understand where the young were at ~ seemingly unlike many of the older generation, someone who had tripped and told them things they could get with {whether it turned out to be cool or horseshit in the end}, and possessing humour, such a person would either bore you to tears, scare you to death, make no sense whatsoever.......or resonate strongly.

St Circumstance said...

But not with everyone. You are focused on a core group of people who stayed. Many didn't. Plenty of people saw through the BS and got the hell away from the dirty troublemakers they saw the family for.

But my point is about the core lol

Of the troublemakers who did stay. Sandy is the one who it is most confusing for me to grasp why?

Someone like Diane or Ruth didn't know better and had nowhere better to go. Susan Leslie Pat all running away from something or somewhere.

It seems to me Sandy came from better and had better options. That was my point.

It seems Charlie was at least mildly aware and respectful of that to some small degree. That was my point.

Of course. It could be my point is oscar Mayer Bologna. But it seems that way to me

:)

leary7 said...

Damn it I hate when the self-absorbed saint hijacks a thread.
I thought for a moment there we were going to have a gold-medal debate between Deb and the Col and Cielo on the tapes.
Damn.

Matt said...

Saint has earned the right to do whatever he likes around here. You on the other hand leary are lucky we don't delete you on sight like Vera.


Panamint Patty said...

Patty loves Leary but that remark was definitely snarky and uncalled for.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

But my point is about the core lol

Mais oui, Monsieur. It's the core that I generally am talking about too. And even members of the core eventually left and/or were in different states of being. I don't see Sandy as being any more unique or impervious to being moved than the Susans, Leslies, Pats and Ellas. Actually, I wouldn't say any of the women were uneducated trollops. And when it comes down to it, when you're looking for that presently indefinable something, a person won't know what it is ~ until they find it. That people with a fairly wide age range from Ouisch to Gypsy, as well as the differing social situations they all came from, thought that Charles Manson was Jesus tells you something. Even someone like Linda who was only around for 5 weeks thought it. Brooks Poston thought it after a very short time. If some of what she says in the interviews recorded in "Death to pigs" are anything to go by, Sandy thought it too.
Human beings are still, underneath all the paraphernalia, human beings.....

leary7 said...

Damn it I hate when the self-absorbed saint hijacks a thread

I wouldn't say he hijacked it. St often initiates a thread moving in a different direction with an interesting comment that pulls out other thoughts from various contributors.

I thought for a moment there we were going to have a gold-medal debate between Deb and the Col and Cielo on the tapes

Scotty kind of put the kibosh on that when he said "truly the answer is extremely simple. They don't have to." And they don't have to. We're obviously curious because we have an abiding interest in what Tex could possibly have said in 1969. But there's no reason the Police should have to release the tapes.
Chaplain Ray must have heard them back in the 70s in order to "co~write" Tex's autobiography. I'm wondering if he would have agreed to be part of the whole shebang if there was further incriminating stuff on them for which Tex has not been brought to justice. It would make Ray Hoekstra a serious fraud and liar. People could say that Tex's involvement in Shorty's death runs that risk anyway but I'd bet Tex was very quiet on those tapes about it and I've never yet come across him talking about Shorty and his death yet and I've never come across anyone saying they've seen such either.
I wish someone would leak the damn tapes or a good transcript though !

grimtraveller said...

Matt said...

Saint

Panamint Patty said...

Leary

Two thoughtful and interesting contributors. Very different but I like both styles.

David said...

I don't think Saint hijacks anything.

I did, upon returning from the beaches of Maui, notice, however, that Grim has taken to commenting on his own comments:

"grimtraveller has left a new comment on the post "Krenwinkel Parole Decision Postponed":

grimtraveller said...
As for it being the worst of the books connected with this case, for me that award is split between "The killing of Sharon Tate" and Greg King's "Sharon Tate and the Manson murders."

Actually, the Greg King one has its moments....."

;-)

orwhut said...

OT:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/helter-skelter-revisited-inside-the-manson-family-murders/ar-BBzqU77?li=BBnbfcL

Unknown said...

First time commenting: long-time lurker. I've appreciated all research & insights. This is a very important piece of information & I value it very much.

However, I want to question an above allegation: it's my understanding that Sandy's pregnancy with Ivan was high-risk. Hence her delivery in hospital, as opposed to that reknowned Family tale of the birth of Pooh Bear, with Charlie biting off the umbilical cord. (yarite: that so happened).


I do hope I'm not hijacking the thread: just asking?

tinkse7en ! said...

I only bring this up as a rebuttal of Sandy's seeming independence from Family influence.
It's clear, however, that with all her gifts of intelligence, money, & personality, that but for the grace of God, she would have been another murderous tool those nights.

Gloopine said...

St...Charlie did/has no respect for anyone. His trip is degredation of the human spirit.

Gloopine said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gloopine said...

Please pardon the redux. Just trying to figure out this blogging business.

Matt said...

A warm welcome to the new people here in the comments. We like it when lurkers step out into the conversation.


St Circumstance said...

Hello Gloop. I don't think Charlie's total trip was degradation. I think that was part of it with certain people.

I also think he calculated and used trust and charm with others.

In my mind Sandy fell into the latter group. Is wonder - IF I'm right - for what reason ?

StillGrooving said...

bucpaul2812 said
Very good question. I'm thinking, I've never heard accounts of Nancy or Cappy being at the brunt of any abuse and I'm wondering if this had to do with Nancy coming from money as well and Cappy's grandmother owning that ranch - I kind of wonder if Charlie was a bit more "benevolent" to those who he thought would be useful to him materially.

This is my opinion of why Charlie treated some family members better than others. It is a logical conclusion that Charlie wanted folks who had access to money to stick around, and the easiest way to keep them hanging around was to pamper and coddle them. It also makes sense that he pushed certain family members hard. If they stayed on, he knew he had people who could do his dirty work for him, willingly, perhaps in the hopes they would become more accepted if they proved their loyalty to Charlie.

Rob King said...

Delete away Matt. I honestly couldn't care less.
But reality is that your pal Saint can be both long-winded and self-absorbed and he has hijacked many a thread with his pontifications.
And reality is that a Deb/Cielo?Col debate would have be a rare treasure on this site. I was just plain pissed when the thread took a left turn to your pal's ruminations on Sandy - a subject that has been bled to death.
But Patty, you are right, I do get snarky when frustrated so I do apologize if you were offended.
But I do sense it is time for me to exit Matt's proper little tea room on mass murder.
Better places to be. That's for sure.

grimtraveller said...

Rob King said...

Saint can be both long-winded and self-absorbed and he has hijacked many a thread with his pontifications

I guess the proof of the pudding is in whether long windedness and self absorption actually detracts from what a person has to say.
Personally I think having a range of different characters with different writing styles makes for a wonderful collision of diversity and from that, one can take or leave particular persons. There are some contributors that I can't really get with because they say so little, but that's me. Almost everyone has things of interest and value to say at some point, even if it feels like one is having to mine it out of the ground at times.
For me a forum is like a conversation {or a living book} and I don't know about anyone else, but conversations I have rarely stick on the initial topic exclusively. They jump all over the gaff.

reality is that a Deb/Cielo?Col debate would have be a rare treasure on this site

Of course, that's a matter of opinion but the reality is that St didn't prevent that from happening. There's little to prevent Deb S, Scotty and Cielo {and for that matter anyone else} entering a prolonged debate ~ if that's what they want to do. As yet, they haven't really wanted to.

I was just plain pissed when the thread took a left turn to your pal's ruminations on Sandy - a subject that has been bled to death

One thing I've noticed is that many points that I make don't get commented on. What that tells me is that if someone is interested in a particular thing, they'll comment on it and if they're not, they won't. You can't really blame the pontifficator if a few contributors happen to have thoughts on something they've said. Some of the really good long debates on this and other sites down the ages have come from the most surprising of starts.
And while Sandy as a subject may have been bled to death for some, for others she just might be an angle that they've never paid much attention to before.

But I do sense it is time for me to exit Matt's proper little tea room on mass murder

You come from a different angle much of the time and as a result, your thoughts and observations are generally worth reading and provide good food for thought.

St Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grimtraveller said...

DebS said...

Joel's death, allegedly at the hands of another, is one of those myths that still persists to this day

I guess that unless Bruce comes out and admits he did it, it will remain a myth.
I know the hotel that Joel died in and the surrounding area has barely changed since the time of his demise. There are just too many things that militate against Bruce having done it, not least the glaring absence of any evidence that Bruce even knew Joel Pugh, let alone knowledge that he'd be in Europe, then London then the exact hotel then the exact room. The room Joel died in is at the back parallel to the train tracks and for Bruce to get in, he'd have to know the room and he'd have to rely on the windows being open ~ unlikely on a December's day in London. Even with global warming, it's bleedin' cold !

Sime's world said...

Letter from Joanne to Sandy Good

@George....
Does Sandy remember who Joanne was ? For all we know that may have been the last ever contact between them. How many of us would leave a letter in a hotel when checking out except by mistake ?

Sime's World said...

Grim: I agree - only two people really know what happened - and Bruce won't discuss it. He declined my offer to put the record straight once and for all. Sad that he did that. Maybe I will try again one day. From what is known, there is no evidence to suggest a hit on Joel by a Manson associate. Pugh had long since moved on from Sandy, and despite keeping up on her movements through mutual friends and word of mouth, he only had contact with her (AFAIK) once following her defection to M. There was no marriage, no child (despite the name), no possible claim on Sandy’s allowance - which was in no way in the region quoted by Stephen Kay, no visits to Spahn's or any other "Family" dwelling. He also had several other girlfriends following Sandy - Joanne "possibly" one of them. Joel's best friend James Balfour certainly remembered her.

To me it would appear that several greedy personalities were eager to join the tenuous dots together for their own careers.




Sime's World said...

And furthermore, any serious investigation would have surely taken into account the state of Joel's mental health at the time of his death. Again, no approach was made to family and/or physician(s) to determine this - despite the coroner's belief that his mind was unbalanced.

Matt said...

rRob King (Leary) said....

...time for me to exit Matt's proper little tea room on mass murder.Better places to be. That's for sure.


Don't let the door hit you on the way out


brownrice said...

Sime's Word said: "To me it would appear that several greedy personalities were eager to join the tenuous dots together for their own careers."

Yep. Bugliosi seemed to think there was some kinda direct correlation between the number of murders claimed and the number of zeros tacked on the end of his publishing advance.

Suze said...

In the seventh grade our English teacher gave us newspaper assignments. Mine was to read the local sports pages of our paper that covered my high school sports teams as well as the paper of our rival a few counties away. As a kid it was enlightening how the other paper's headlines were big and on the back page if they won. If they lost it would be a small article inside the paper.

The same thing occurs just on a more sophisticated level in the national media. With the Manson case it seems no interviews with Manson were conducted without baiting and agitating him because it made for good TV. Ron Reagan was the only one who just interviewed him and let him answer the questions. The differences were astounding.

Joanne's letter to Sandra seems to me to be light hearted girl talk. For his own enrichment Bugliosi turns it into a sinister reference to an unsolved murder.

Thank you Simon for being the Pugh family's Ron Reagan.

grimtraveller said...

This comment has been removed by the author

One thing that does get annoying about St though, is the amount of stuff he deletes ! The comment that was deleted was a spirited defence of his position and I agreed with it and it should have remained.

Suze said...

Joanne's letter to Sandra seems to me to be lighthearted girl talk. For his own enrichment Bugliosi turns it into a sinister reference to an unsolved murder

There is perhaps some overview and context to the Pugh situation and a good deal of overcompensating going on. It all goes back to Jess Buckles.
When Detectives Whiteley and Guenther came to speak to him on Aug 10th to share about the Hinman murder, he was very quick to brush them off and declare that it was a big drug heist. One can be sympathetic to him and say that he didn't take it seriously because LASO already had a suspect that had been in custody during Cielo ~ but that wasn't the 2 Detectives' point. Their point was that others may have been involved and this similar murder meant it was a lead that should be checked.
When Steve Zabriske walked into a Police station and told the cops that a 'Charlie' and a 'Clem' had committed the TLB murders, the cops were not at all impressed and did not follow it up. They didn't try to find Vern Plumlee who supposedly told Zabriske this.
It turns out that Whiteley, Guenther and Zabriske were bang on. And once it sank in that these seemingly ridiculous wild cards had in fact been right, I think it completely changed the way LE approached the Family and murder, especially when Susan Atkins' tales of killings out in the desert and her celebrity hit list became known. Whether they were the exaggerations of a drugged out attention seeker were secondary to the fact that one of the Tate murderers provided corroboration that only someone present could have. When you put these together with examples of police incompetence {having the murder gun for so long, for instance} the cops and LE in general seemed determined to be seen to be on the ball and after that, any death of anyone connected with the Family was looked at suspiciously, even if the connection was tenuous. When Randy Starr died, Bugliosi had his death looked into but it turned out to be an ear infection that caused it. When Ron Hughes died, Bugliosi believed that Sandy admitted that it was a retaliation murder but it was an off camera remark supposedly heard by a cameraman who, as far as I'm aware, has never verified this. George says Sandy says she never made such a remark. When Paul Watkins camper caught fire and he nearly died, that he fell asleep while smoking was overlooked in favour of the more juicy Family attempt to kill him because of rumours that were circulating to that effect {Watkins said Clem later boasted of starting the fire though Watkins didn't believe it}. And Joel we all know about. The Family didn't exactly help itself with the Barbara Hoyt incident, the Hawthorne gun robbery, the connection with the murders of James and Lauren Willet {however tenuous} and later, Squeaky and the POTUS.
From a starting position of not taking findings connected with them seriously, subsequent events led LE to basically seeing the Family as being responsible for the death of pretty much anything that moved and it's in this atmosphere and context that Bugliosi's ill founded comments fall into. Perhaps.

grimtraveller said...

Sime's World said...

And furthermore, any serious investigation would have surely taken into account the state of Joel's mental health at the time of his death

One would think so but I'm wondering whether or not we're seeing it through today's eyes where mental health is so high on the agenda. The London scene obviously took his mental health into account because that is almost standard when a suicide is ruled as the cause of death. But the LA troupe were batting on a different wicket. They were dealing with a situation where a man was accused of ordering brutal murders while being nowhere near the scene when they took place and not having issued direct instructions to most of the participants so they were already looking at someone that possibly had some serious reach. By the time they learned of Joel's death and the connection to Sandy, the fact that Bruce had been in England that year and the rumours of his drug misuse and his disappearance and proximity to Zero's death, all this outweighed any rational thinking about where a guy had to be within himself to end it all.
But a similar thing happened in England with the death of Brian Epstein, the Beatles' manager, during the summer of love. It wasn't until some years later that the details of his unravelling became public knowledge sufficient to cause people to ask if he had indeed deliberately overdosed.

St Circumstance said...

Grim I don't need to defend my position.

This is a blog for people to comment on the subject of the post and that's what I will continue to do as long as it amuses me.

What I will no longer do is take the bait and lower myself to the level of going back and forth with jealous losers.

It gets me nowhere, takes the fun out of it for me, and really does highjack the post. Nobody wants to read those petty back and forths

Despite what anyone says- that is never my attention. I thought Sandy was a subject of this post.

Simon if I drew away from your efforts in any manner- I apologize.

When a published author on the subject is kind enough to contribute I think we are lucky and that so many have and do is why I love to read and participate here.

If my comments about Sandy were too off track I am sorry. I will try to keep my ideas shorter and more on point

:)

MHN said...

Saint C is long-winded and self-absorbed? Saint C hijacks every thread? Saint C?!

Is this a friggin joke?

Of all the posters here, St C is the one getting that thrown at him?

This is some very dark comedy.



Suze said...

I always look forward to St's comments and especially his posts because he speaks from the heart rather from any self-absorbed, self-righteous attitude of thinking he knows more than someone else.

St Circumstance said...

Much love both of you ;)

And I don't think Bruce killed Joel - just to keep it on topic

Sime's World said...

Much love to you all - it's nice to read all the comments and gratifying to witness how many share in my desire to present Joel as a person, not just some grizzly statistic tagged onto the end of a chapter.

I hope to post on another angle of the case soon.

All best,

Si x

Marlene Ful said...

Amazed at all you can find.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

Grim I don't need to defend my position

Yeah, I know that. But you did defend it and it was damned good to read. Primarily because you very eloquently pointed out that what you had been saying was not in fact off topic. Sandra Good is part of the topic so anything said regarding her is in fact on topic. It may be oblique or somewhat left field but it's on topic.
Furthermore, there's nothing wrong in being long winded or even self absorbed, especially if it is contributing to what is being written. Much great art could be described that way. Some of the greatest pieces of music ever could easily be described that way.
I agree with MHN here though. The description doesn't fit you. Suze's does, however.

Sime's World said...

it's nice to read all the comments and gratifying to witness how many share in my desire to present Joel as a person, not just some grizzly statistic tagged onto the end of a chapter

Paradoxically though, he has absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand, other than the fact that he used to go out with one of the minor characters in it and another character had been in the same city that he died in 7 months before. Yes, he is a person in his own right but none of us would have heard of him if he hadn't once known Sandy. There's loads of people we don't have the slightest clue about ~ because they didn't die ~ that had once known someone that ended up knowing Charles Manson.

Matt said...

I'm in agreement with Grim. Saint, stop deleting your comments :)


St Circumstance said...

Thanks again guys :)

grimtraveller said...

DebS said...

why won't LA release those tapes? The reason cited is that they might contain information about a murder or murders in an ongoing investigation. The Stubbs, Tennerelli and Pugh deaths, which have been given as possibles, per the LA Times, are not in LAs jurisdiction

I suppose that if Tex had given information back in '69 relating to some other murders that were not in LA jurisdiction and Police forces from those jurisdictions were investigating, then letting those tapes out for public consumption would be a crazy move. Other than leaks, which nearly always cause some kind of bother, things like tapes or transcripts of old interviews don't see the light of day until well after they have any bearing on anything.
I think Tex in a way has thrown a cat among the pigeons by trying to block use of the tapes, especially given that he waived any rights to any say as far back as the mid 70s when he signed away such rights of privilege in letting Chaplain Ray hear them.
It all comes back to that perception that the "Manson Family" were responsible for more murders than they ever got done for ~ and you can't blame people for that, when you have a situation where Bruce and Clem {and earlier, Kitty and DeCarlo} implicate Tex in Shorty's murder and Susan Atkins boasts of lots of other murders and Sandy & Squeaky make comments threatening to deal with snitches or justifying murder. It does make people wonder. Even when Darwin Scott gets murdered in Kentucky, people {Vincent T !} start to wonder if there was a Family connection. And because there has been a 45 year history of half truths, outright lies and story changes connected with so many of the Family or former members, but especially the convicted, it's natural that folk will connect certain dots even though they may well be way off base. What Bugliosi and Gentry articulated in print is, in truth, only what many thought before....and have continued to do so.

ColScott said...

It turns out that most of the "Retaliation Murders" are not even murders at all

Good point. The one retaliation murder was that of Shorty and that's rarely seen in that light.

St Circumstance said...

I learned not to believe every Word Bugs said in HS literally. This shows how a true sentence can be used to lead readers in a false direction. I fell for it too

There are a number of assertions and suppositions to be wary of in HS. It's brilliantly imperfect. But there are certain aspects of it that even detractors of the book and prosecutor mirror/parrot, such as the theories trying to tie people to deaths they weren't responsible for.

Sime's World said...

It didn't take more than one read of the letter from Joanne to Sandy Good to see how detectives had twisted an otherwise innocuous part of the letter to turn it into a possible link to a Manson related "murder"

For me it's interesting that Joanne was able to locate Sandy in an Independence motel. Sandy must have been in some sort of contact which indicates that maybe Sandy hadn't fully cut ties with people in her pre~Charlie life. Bugliosi says that the letter was from an unidentified ex~Family member but I've long wondered how he could know that the person was an ex~Family member if the person was unidentified !




Matt said...

Shorty was the only one killed for an understandable reason: They hated him...


HellzBellz said...

@ Matt: I do know that your comment is meant a little sarcastic, But In that particulair Mindset you can count Gary Hinman as an ,,Understandable Reason,, too, In Mansons warped mind Hinman had money. So in a way Shorty was not the only one. And with that in mind; More people are killed for $$$ Money than killed for just being Hated....

HellzBellz said...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/helter-skelter-revisited-inside-the-manson-family-murders/ar-BBzqU77?li=BBnbfcL

This was the link/URL that Orwut posted on April 5th.
If you go to that Video and pause from 01:17 till aprox 01:19 you see CrimeScene Photos of a living room,(No Victims) Two photos are next to eachother shown. One with a White Towel on the couches, and in the other one the same room, only then, without the White Towel, and a Painting on the wall removed... My question: Wich living room in wich house is that ??

DebS said...

HellzBellz, the case number at the bottom of the pictures is the case number for the Cielo Drive murders. Since we know that the pictures cannot be the main house the only option left is that they are pictures of the guest house.

Here's a picture of the guest house posted at Cielodrive.com . Same room, just a little to the left.

http://www.cielodrive.com/photo-archive/guest-house-interior-01.php

HellzBellz said...

Thankz DebS , I guess I wouldnt have found out easily that it must be the GuestHouse.... I Guess