I suppose the balance is between showing that Manson had met Pugh (possible in theory) and that he hadn't (impossible). I think the onus probandi can only be on the first of these. That said, I have a query for Simon. In his excellent blog he quotes Daniel Pugh as saying: ‘When she started hanging around with Manson, Joel was extremely embarrassed about it. He regarded Manson as a phoney, who was very full of himself and a sort of embarrassing character. He didn’t want Sandy to have anything to do with a guy like that; sort of uncool by association…. Manson was what Joel, in his own words, would have called “a Gnarl.”’ For Joel to have formed an opinion like this would normally imply having met him, would it not? Further down the blog Simon writes: Furthermore, it is evidently clear that despite his embarrassment over Sandy's involvement with Manson, Joel never met Charlie or any other Family members. Simon: I was also under the understanding that Joel had never met Manson, but for obvious reasons such things can not be 'proved'. Are the two views above consistent? Why is it so evidently clear? Jem
People regularly form opinions on people they have never met. I have opinions on people like the President of the United States, but have never met the individual in my life. Have you never formed opinions of people acting a fool in a pub or restaurant? It's not impossible Joel Pugh had heard Good (and/or others) describe Manson and had formed opinions on those descriptions. Since Manson was taking away a love interest, it's not hard to imagine how Pugh developed a dim estimation of Manson. If there was no apparent evidence to suggest otherwise, why can it not be evidently clear they had never met?
Yeah, thats certainly a plausible scenario. We all know how Sandra goes on and on (and on) when the subject of Charlie comes up.
Dear Jem, It's a fair point and one that I have pondered over many times. Daniel Pugh's quote regarding Joel's observations on CM would suggest that he had met Manson; calling someone a "Gnarl" and a "phony" would suggest a meeting had occurred. The quote was an interesting one from Daniel, although during our conversations he would insist that as far as he knew - Joel had never met with Manson. At a later date (and following much research) I got in touch with Jim Balfour - Joel's closest confidant and around him for many of his adventures up until his death. Needing confirmation of whether Joel met Manson- he told me he wasn't aware he had. However, given Sandy's dramatic conversion, everyone in their circle were aware of her new direction. This was confirmed by a visit Good made to San Francisco in mid-69, informing everyone that a "lot of shit was going to come down." With Sandy's conversion a major talking point in Joel's circle of friends, a mental image of what Manson was like/about was obviously in circulation. It is also possible that Daniel Pugh has morphed the popular imagery of Manson to what Joel would have made of him. During my last conversation with Jim Balfour - just days before deadline - I asked him if he would ask around anyone else in his and Joel's circle to check and see if he had met Manson. This was his reply. "No one I spoke with had knowledge of Joel meeting Manson or visiting any of his various redoubts." Given the blog is still "live", I am open to any new information - although no one as yet has sought to contradict it. As you may know, Sandy did break ranks to say this about Joel in the 1990s. “Pugh is usually described as the husband of Sandra Good. In fact they were never married. Although Pugh is also described as a "former Manson Family member" in (Bugliosi’s) Helter Skelter, he never met Manson or any of the other so-called Family members. After Joel Pugh's death his parents journeyed toLondonto satisfy themselves with the official verdict of suicide. After checking all the medical records and the files at Scotland Yard they were satisfied that the death was, indeed, a suicide.” I still have issues with the fact Sandy's child carried the Pugh surname and equally, her use of Pugh surname for a few years. Jim Balfour gave me a reason, but I am still curious to know why the connection was maintain for so long (and why Joel was singled out). One day I hope that it will be fully answered. Thanks again for taking the time out to comment. As always, My best, Simon
Si, Do you know if Sandy received any life insurance money or SSI survivor benefits as a result of being a widow? Similarly, with the son keeping Joel's last name, he should have be eligible for SSI. Always looking for an easy buck, it would not surprise me that Sandy would find a way to milk the system.
Good point Dil, I imagine anything is possible (is this verifiable?). The birth certificate states Pugh as the father - but I am told that it was issued on Sandy's word and without Joel being present. Nonetheless, there would have been benefits payable, though whether Joel's name on the certificate would make any difference.... It may be of interest to note that there is no marriage record between Joel and Sandy. It does not exist and therefore I discount any marriage ever taking place. Officially then, there would be no widow's payment. Jim Balfour gave an account of why she used the Pugh name, but I would prefer a more comprehensive account. Given that the child's birth pre-dated any crimes and that it's likely that Ivan is not Manson's, I feel there is still some other element that hasn't been explained. Nonetheless, he was there when the exchange took place and no one has updated this. Jim Balfour: “She was visiting, and she was pregnant, and she wanted Joel to either marry her or say they were married, because she was going to use his name as the father, and that’s what she did… My understanding of it is that she probably thought that with the things that Manson’s people were being charged with, that it would look better if Manson weren’t the father of the child, and that she would use Joel as a respectable person… However, Joel’s response toSandy’s request was clear; “no way.” As always, if anyone has any other information- please let me know. Si x
Thanks, Simon. It's always a pleasure talking with you, and yes there will probably always be grey areas. Mike, you ask: If there was no apparent evidence to suggest otherwise, why can it not be evidently clear they had never met? My understanding is that something can not be proved to be true by showing that its 'opposite' is untrue. But, more importantly, I had underlined the word evidently in the original posting. I had meant 'clear in the sense of supported by evidence'. It is a far from trivial matter in research to prove that something did not take place. It is possible to prove that something could not have taken place, such as that I was not present at the Last Supper, when the impossibility can be demonstrated, but not possible to prove I did not do something I had the opportunity to do, or was not at a place when I had the opportunity to be there. For example, last night I was celebrating in the Briton's Protection (a well known pub in Manchester). It would be easy to prove that I went to the Ladies (US rest room) during the evening; a CCTV installed in the pub or testimony from fellow guests would quickly confirm this. But without these (without a camera trained on the door all night, or a steward in attendance) how can anyone prove I didn't go to the toilet. Absence of evidence in this case is not evidence of my absenting myself from the festivities. Thus with Manson and Joel Pugh. We may never know whether they met, but I think it is agreed there was occasion. A snapshot or witness account would provide supporting evidence of such a meeting taking place, but the absence of these can not provide evidence that they did not meet. This is my take, but please do feel free to differ. Jem
Jem, opportunity is evidence of what, exactly? You had opportunity to enter the men's room in that pub. And the absence of evidence you did not does not provide evidence you did not do just that. This comes down to a preponderance of evidence. No one, not even Simon, has suggested there was never an opportunity for Manson and Pugh to have met. However, people who knew Pugh have provided evidentiary accounts, stating the two never met. Please do not think I am saying an absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence. What I am saying is based on the evidence supplied in the currently available evidentiary accounts, I have to accept Manson and Pugh evidently never met one another. It's not a situation of liking it, or not liking it. It's not a situation of agreeing with it, or not agreeing with it. It is a situation of simply accepting those evidentiary accounts do exist, and they do provide evidence Pugh evidently never met Manson. Do you, on the other hand, have evidence Manson and Pugh did meet? Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. I would be interested in hearing any evidence you have that will suggest Pugh did meet Manson. But that doesn't mean I will automatically dismiss evidence already in hand. Unless there has been a memo I somehow missed, stating testimonial evidence is no longer valid. Which will really raise the bar on your presentation of the case for Pugh and Manson having met.
Well, Mike, to take the last point first, it has always been my understanding that CM and JP did not ever meet, though I would be hard pressed to justify that view. I can't even tell you what it is based on, but I certainly have never stated or thought that the two had met. I think you hve a false impression here. I think we may be coming at this from different directions, insofar as 'evidence' can be seen as either supporting or confirming, and I'm not sure it's worth developing the argument a great deal. The crux of our disagreement is in your sentence: However, people who knew Pugh have provided evidentiary accounts, stating the two never met. To you this is clearly a fine thing to say, to me (as a researcher) it is problematic. To show why it is problematic would involve pushing me beyond my comfort zone, as my days of logic and philosophy are long past. Those interested can read Karl Popper, and wrestle with the intricacies of falsifiability and logical positivism (and swans both white and black), which I do not recommend unless you have the head for it. Suffice it to say that research methodology today leans heavily on the work of Popper and his followers. I suggest we leave it here, and as so often, agree to differ. Jem
Once again, never the twain shall meet. Fair enough. I'm just trying to decide if having you sitting on a jury panel would be a good or a bad thing, since you clearly distrust testimonial evidence.
-Barrel of gun handled by Bruce Davis see here:http://truthontatelabianca.com/threads/police-report-on-the-death-on-john-phillip-haught.3913/ *I looked at the police reports and could not find anything supporting your statement about Bruce Davis' prints being on the gun. From books I have read the gun used in John Phillip Haught's "suicide"/ murder was wiped clean of prints. Perhaps the bit about Bruce Davis handling the gun came from law enforcement's interviews at the scene as this is listed in the report listed.
We don't have to agree. Mike. I still respect your views and admire your tenacity. Wth regard to the idea of having a duck on the jury panel, I think Lewis Carroll got there first. But to be less flippant, there is a huge body of evidence (if I dare use the word) showing how unreliable witness statements can be. I think what you have to do is not rely on one testimony, rather try to triangulate it with that of others (and hope there is no conspiracy of witnesses). Corroboration is always good, and mounting evidence pointing in the same direction is usually a good indicator. Courts around the world differ, but the general idea seems to be that a jury should be convinced 'beyond reasonable doubt', and the word 'reasonable' may be open to interpretation. If I were on a jury panel (and I never have been) I think I would be very wary of relying on the testimony of a single person. I know too all how easily mistaken people can be, even when they have the best of intentions. I think like anyone else I would form my judgment based on the weight of supporting evidence, but my judgment may not be the same as my fellow jurors. Jem
12 Angry Ducks? But seriously, one of the points in 12 Angry Men was that even direct eye witnesses can be very very wrong, yet juries find them persuasive.
Take this case to its simpliest facts, Does a perrson commiting suicide complete their actions right at the door? Or is it more reasonable a person being murdered and trying to evade his killer runs to the door. Does a person commiting suicide, make as many apprehensive cuts as were on JP body? Well there is a first time for everything, but knowing how painful it would be I discount this idea. This was not a suicide, but maybe it had nothing to do with the Mansonites. Maybe JPs family was at peace beleiving it was a suicide than a homicide, but I don't buy it
