|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mike Cano
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 5:07 pm: | 
|
I found this online and thought this was cool... one of the multiple screenplays about the Black Dahlia murder making its rounds in Hollywood.
The screenwriter has made a logline trailer. Check it out...
http://www.bretthowardnelson.com/logline_trailers.htm
|
Gavin Turbett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 9:46 pm: |
|
I'm curious if anyone has ever heard of a possible connection between Cleveland's Kingsbury Run murders and the Black Dahlia murder.
During the investigation into the Kingsbury Run murders, a woman pointed to a man named Jack Wilson as a possible suspect. Actually, she said that she knew that Wilson was the murderer. She identified Wilson as a butcher and "sodomist."
During the Black Dahlia investigation, one of the chief suspects was a man named Jack Anderson Wilson. Wilson offered up a fictional character named Morrison to the police, indicating that Morrison was a sexual deviant, who had committed the murders. Police investigators were fairly certain that Wilson was actually talking about himself.
Wilson was a drifter and, as such, his movements would be fairly difficult to trace. If he could be connected to Cleveland during the 30's, however, that would go a long way toward generating interest in his possible involvement in both the Dahlia and Kingsbury Run murders. |
Eliza
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Hi, Gavin, I would be interested to know where you got your information that a "Jack Wilson" was a suspect in the Torso murders.
I don't think the Jack Anderson Wilson of "Severed" was ever in the Cleveland area as an adult (although he was born in North Carolina). Mary Pacios, in her book "Childhood Shadows," tracked Wilson's movements as accurately as she could, and found that for most of his adult life he lived with his mother in Los Angeles. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Some of you might be interested in a documentary that's going to air in about a month on Showtime. Dramatically named "James Ellroy's Feast of Death," it's a look at the murder of the verb-slashing novelist's mother and what looked to be a discussion of the Black Dahlia case with a panel of detectives, writers and Nick Nolte.
Nick Nolte?
Dave
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 8:01 am: |
|
Hi, Dave:
Thanks for this information. You queried why actor Nick Nolte would be part of the panel to discuss the Black Dahlia case. I'm guessing that Nolte stars in one of the movie versions of Ellroy's crime novels or else is the narrator of the upcoming documentary, "James Ellroy's Feast of Death." I was not aware that he otherwise took an interest in the case, but I am open to be persuaded otherwise. 
All the best
Chris |
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 10:05 am: |
|
Why Nick Nolte is involved with "James Ellroy's Feast of Death"?
"The film does explore some fascinating, important new ground in the final third, in which Ellroy presides over a casual "feast" at his favorite spot, The Pacific Dining Car (Raymond Chandler's hangout). With true-blue LA detectives in attendance (one of whom has been worked with Ellroy to reopen his mother's case) and Nick Nolte of all people (who is reportedly spearheading an adaptation of "White Jazz"), a guest writer proposes a new theory for the Dahlia case that James Ellroy (and I) found to be completely plausible (a book detailing these findings will be published later this year). Punctuated with graphic crime scene stills and morgue photos of Elizabeth Short that are as sorrowful as they are grisly, this documentary captures the horror and cosmic cruelty of unsolved savage killings and puts the cliched slasher shocks of hollow confections like the Hughes' "From Hell" to shame."
http://www.movieforum.com/features/festivals/tiff01/reviews/ellroyfeastofdeath.shtml
Take care,
Kevin
|
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 10:08 am: |
|
Double post, sorry. |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 6:32 pm: |
|
Another article I read about this film (sorry I can't cite it) gave the impression that Nolte simply stopped in to chat with Ellroy, not that he took any serious part in a discussion of the case.
The "guest writer" referred is probably Larry Harnisch of the LA Times. If so, the part about a new book being published later this year is probably a little over-optimistic. Harnisch is working on a book, but the year is almost over and his website doesn't mention anything about imminent publication.
The article doesn't have a date, so it's hard to say when it was written. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 3:36 am: |
|
I saw a piece about the Hodel theory on Court TV's The System last night. I believe it was a rerun of a Dateline NBC production. I can't say that I was impressed.
I agree with ERay's comments that there are striking parallels with Cornwell's Sickert theory about Jack the Ripper.
Both theories seem to involve wild, unsupported leaps of logic and base character assasination in place of evidence. Just listening to the author hop around from bit to bit was astounding.
And I definitely agree with everyone else -- the brunette in those photos did not look at all like Beth Short. Beth had a very, very distinctive face, almost deformed even in a way that I can't quite put a finger on. The one in his father's two tiny pictures had pretty much nothing in common but hair color.
It looks to me like it went down like this... daughter accuses daddy Hodel of a particularly brazen act of alleged incest (true or not I have no opinion on, having not read much on it). People start making rumors about him. He goes to trial, daughter is declared pathological liar, and he is found not guilty. The rumors don't die. Beth Short is killed. Police make list of all rumored sexual deviants. Hodel is investigated. Nothing comes of it. Hodel doesn't treat his son the way he wanted to be treated, takes off. The son grows up bitter and believing the rumors. Investigates on flimsy evidence and half-baked assumptions. Assumes that the police finding no evidence that his father commited the crime means there was a massive conspiracy. Soon his dad was supposedly seen by some supposed witness at the Book Despository firing shots at JFK or whatever else he wants to dream up (no, as far as I know that's not in the book, but may as well be).
And another emotionally unstable author appears on a TV news show and hypes an implausible theory to sell a book claiming to solve a famous unsolved crime. I wonder if he uses the same PR agency as Cornwell... |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 2:14 pm: |
|
The story of how George Hodel came to be a suspect in the Dahlia case is a little different, and to my mind even more specious, than what you postulate, Dan.
Tamar Hodel's molestation accusations came almost three years AFTER the Black Dahlia murder, when the girl was picked up by police as a runaway. While being questioned by police about running away and about her claim that her father molested her, she told police that her father had killed the Black Dahlia. As you allude to yourself, in LA at the time, this was probably the equivalent of accusing him of being the second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas. You might recall that in the great 1950 movie "Sunset Boulevard", one character jokingly introduces another at a party as "a Black Dahlia murder suspect" –- that should give us some idea.
Nevertheless, police dutifully followed up this lead, probably because the case was so cold that they'd follow up any lead at that point. The official opinion of record of the investigating officer was that the evidence "tended to exonerate" Dr. Hodel.
I have no opinion on the truth of the molestation charges. (A person can be both a molestation victim and pathological liar.) But it is interesting to note that among the 19 other men and boys Tamar Hodel accused of molesting her was the Hodel's tenet Joe Barrett, who Steve Hodel uses as a major source for his book. Somehow the bit about Barrett being accused of molesting Tamar didn't make the book.
I don't know whether Steve Hodel grew up believing the stories about his father and the Black Dahlia murder, but it would take a mighty leap of faith -– or gullibility -- to think that he didn't know about them all along. Sort of like expecting readers to believe that photos of two different dark-haired women are both of Elizabeth Short.
|
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 111
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 5:08 am: |
|
Gavin, I have heard of a connection between the BD murder and those committed by the so-called "Axeman of New Orleans," who murdered several Italian grocers in their homes, but not to the Butcher of Kingsbury Run. If you haven't already, consider reading the book Torso, which deals with the KR case. I'm not sure if there's a book out about the Axeman, though.  |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 412
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 8:32 am: |
|
Hi Erin and Gavin
The 'Axeman of New Orleans' killings took place just after the end of WWI. They seem too remote in time to be connected with the 'Dahlia' murder in 1947.
I believe there is a book out called THE AXEMAN COMETH, but I am unsure if it is fact or fiction.
I have heard speculation about the Cleveland Torso killings being related to the 'Dahlia' killing and this speculation makes sense in light of the fact that both of the cases involved a sadistic, torture murderer.
I am inclined to believe there is not a connection in that a pretty good argument can be made against a suspect in the 'Torso' murders in the form of a Dr, Sweeney. He does not have any connection, as far as we know, with the L.A. area in the mid-forties as he was safely warehoused in a mental institution.
Since no-one has been able to prove that this doctor was the killer it is worth speculating that a connection existed between the 'Dahlia' and 'Torso' killings. There was a letter claiming to be from the 'Torso' killer that was mailed from Los Angeles. The letter was not taken seriously: But interestingly, it mentioned disposing of a victims head near Western and Crenshaw Streets on Century Blvd. This is close to the site where Beth Short's body was found.
All The Best
Gary |
Eliza Cline
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 12:35 pm: |
|
I think Hodel's theory is more credible than some posters here have described it. If you get on Larry Harnish's site you can find transcripts police made when they bugged Hodel's apartment. At one point Hodel is heard going into his basement with another man, and Hodel says to this man, "Supposing I did kill the Black Dahlia--they couldn't prove it now." Hodel also says, "maybe I did kill my secretary." This is not conclusive but it raises the question, why would an innocent man make these kinds of statements. It is a good piece of evidence, because it is confessional.
Hodel is also heard discussing how to infiltrate the D.A.'s office, and if anyone working for the D.A. could be bribed. Hodel had already been acquitted of incest charges, he should have been out of legal danger, so why was he discussing this?
There is also the fact that the sketch of the killer in the Gladys Kearn case (another sex murder committed in 1949) closely matches Hodel.
I think Hodel was a shady character up to no good, and that the investigation should continue as to whether he was in fact a murderer.
|
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 9:50 am: |
|
Do we all at least agree that the photos the author put forward as being those of Elizabeth Short are not of her, and in fact bear no resemblance whatsoever to her? This fact alone leads me to doubt his entire story.
Regards, Vincent |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 3:26 am: |
|
ERey,
I wasn't aware from my viewing of the documentary that the incest allegations came so late, or that she accused so many other people. I don't know if that's because it purposefully neglected those facts or if I wasn't paying enough attention. From my limited experience with molestation victims it wouldn't surprise me if they were more likely to be pathological liars, but then being a liar wouldn't necessarily indicate having been abused, and certainly wouldn't make murder accusations any more reliable either.
Eliza,
Lots of innocent people make all sorts of statements that might be construed as suspicious. I can see the statement about the Black Dahlia being a bad joke, an exasperated comment related to why he had to put up with another ridiculous investigation brought about by his crazy daughter (can't they leave me alone, even if I did do it they're just wasting their time), or many other scenarios. I don't consider it confessional at all. Tone and context is crucial. If the police didn't consider it incriminating, knowing the tone and context and desperately wanting to solve the case, I tend to think it wasn't incriminating. you'd think that if it sounded credible to them they'd have reacted differently.
The other aspects I'll have to plead ignorance of, as I don't have the book. |
Brad McGinnis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 64
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:28 am: |
|
Dan, Im shooting from the hip here as I havent checked this case for a good year or so. I think the killer was the guy who died in the fire. Jack Wilson maybe? It all fits, the car, the limp, the type of person. Sorry Im not more up on this.
Regards, Brad.
|
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:22 pm: |
|
The Court TV show was certainly no model of journalistic integrity. I don't think they made it clear when the incest trial was, and I'm sure they didn't mention that Tamar Hodel accused 19 other people, including Joe Barrett, who appeared on the show.
Barrett, incidentally, strikes me as an even bigger storyteller than Tamar Hodel. In Hodel's book, Barrett "remembers" how he personally spoke to Man Ray at the end of 1949, just as the artist was fleeing the country to escape justice for his (unspecified) involvement in Dr. Hodel's crimes -- complete and totally disprovable hogwash, of course. I don't remember the story about the woman showing up at the house to shoot Dr. Hodel "for what he did to Elizabeth Short" being in the book. I think Barrett made that one up special for the TV show.
I thought it was particularly unethical of the makers of the show to keep showing the photo from the book in which Dr. Hodel's mustache is airbrushed out to make him look more like the suspect in the 1949 Gladys Kearn case, without ever acknowledging that it was a doctored photo. Apparently, there's no evidence that Dr. Hodel was ever clean-shaven around this time. He has a mustache in his 1949 mug shot and seemingly all other photographs except those of him as a very young man.
As for the supposedly incriminating surveillance transcripts: For what it's worth, I exchanged email with Larry Harnisch and he told me that Dr. Hodel did indeed have a secretary who died of an overdose of sleeping pills -- in May 1945. (Harnisch told me he plans to post this information on his website when he has a chance to scan in the appropriate documentation.) So much for the idea of Dr. Hodel bumping off his secretary because she knew too much about the Black Dahlia case, unless somebody had a time machine.
Even if you can get around that, it gets awfully hard to explain why the police didn't even take what they were hearing seriously enough to check out an apparent "murder" in progress as they listened. And why there is no indication that Dr. Hodel really called any taxi or that anyone was rushed to "Georgia Street Receiving Hospital" that night. Clearly, Dr. Hodel was doing a fair amount of chain-pulling the evening he made those supposedly incriminating remarks, and the investigators knew they were getting yanked.
One more thing, although maybe I'm over-reading it here: The officer transcribing the surveillance made a point of indicating Dr. Hodel dropped his G when he said, "Supposin' I did kill the Black Dahlia" -– not his normal way of speaking. Maybe he was doing his Edward G. Robinson impression.
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 2:44 am: |
|
Brad,
Thanks for popping in with that based upon the comment that we are 90% certain of a suspect in the Black Dahlia case that you made. That was my first assumption on who you might mean, but with the two doctors having their supporters I wasn't sure.
Dan |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 1:30 am: |
|
ERey,
Airbrushed photos and everything else sounds pretty bad. I never get these news shows letting authors get away with presenting their evidence in the best possible light with only minor attempts at balance. Same thing happened with Cornwell's book and the Davinci Code book (which at least shows up in the fiction section, unlike these others).
|
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 12:42 pm: |
|
John Gilmore's "Severed" seems to be regarded as the standard reference on the Black Dahlia case by a lot of people, but a contributor here, Eliza Cline, has argued against both Gilmore’s credibility as an author and the viability of his suspect Jack Wilson. Eliza is probably typing up her own posting even now, so I won’t presume to speaker for her.
I would only add a couple of things:
On his website, Larry Harnisch makes a persuasive claim that some of Gilmore's key interview sources are actually fictional characters made up by Gilmore.
For whatever credence you want to give anything Steve Hodel has to say, if I recall correctly, in his book he claims to quote reports that say police interviewed a several men who said they had sexual relations with Elizabeth Short. If true, that would negate the whole business about Short having a genital deformity, which is apparently central to Gilmore's story.
|
Eliza Cline
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Eliza here, weighing in. Yes, Harnisch is correct that many of Gilmore's sources are suspect. Harnisch and another reporter attempted to track down some of Gilmore's interviewees, only to find that they either didn't exist or didn't make the quotes attributed to them. Also, throughout "Severed," Gilmore quotes a mystery policeman whose name cannot be found in official LAPD records. (The name escapes me, I will get it later.)
However Gilmore may have been right about one thing--Beth Short may well have had some kind of genital deformity. This is borne out by medical records from a doctor in Chicago. Apparently Beth visited this doctor in late 1946. The medical report makes reference to a "hered.-gyn" problem--a little mysterious, but it seems to indicate some kind of inherited gynecological condition. However, this is a very vague and broad diagnosis, and would NOT necessarily mean that Beth was incapable of having sex. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 433
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 8:36 pm: |
|
Hi All
I believe there is reasonable evidence to conclude that Beth had a congenital deformity of the vagina which would have made normal sexual intercourse impossible. The autopsy reveals a foreshortened vagina. Eva Braun had the same sort of deformity, which she had corrected surgically. I believe the popular term for this condition is a blind vagina.
I don't think it really matters as to what Mr. Hodel had to say about her sexual history. Part of his theory hinged on the fact that she was promiscuous. The description of Beth that a couple of men gave was that she was a tease who refused to deliver intercourse. Beth Short may have engaged in oral sexual relations with some partners. Nevertheless, she was not in a financial position to have the blind vagina corrected.
All The Best
Gary |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Hi, Gary. Can I ask where you are getting your information about Elizabeth Short’s autopsy?
If you going from Gilmore’s book, or sources based on it, you’ll have to forgive me for remaining unconvinced. I’m with Eliza in believing Gilmore in not credible. It should not be hard to prove that his key sources really existed, especially the LAPD officer he relies on so heavily, but to my knowledge nobody has.
I have no problem believing Short’s medical records show she had some kind of hereditary gynecological problem, but it’s a long leap form there to concluding that she had grossly malformed vagina due to a very rare condition. Besides, the idea of Short as some kind of perma-virgin (disguised as a harlot!) just has the ring of a literary device to me. Remember, Gilmore is mainly a novelist.
Far be it from me to defend Steve Hodel, but it is irrelevant to his theory whether Short had many sexual partners, a few, or none. And what he actually said was that police interviewed many men who said they had been on dates with Short (“teased”, if you want), and a few who claim to have had intercourse with her. For whatever it’s worth.
All that said, I take it all back if your information about Short’s autopsy comes from a reliable source.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 445
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 11:06 am: |
|
Hi ERay
I can recall getting a good deal of the information on Beth's autopsy from THE CRIME LIBRARY- internet site. I believe Marilyn Bardsley wrote the section on the Dahlia.
John Gilmore also mentions the autopsy, although I can't find the autopsy details offhand because the book has no index. I think failing to provide an index is inexcusable and I recall that Steve Hodel's book had the same flaw.
I could be wrong here, but I want to say that Kenneth Anger's book, Hollywood Babylon was the oldest source I can find which provided certain autopsy details.
I did not mean to imply that Beth had anything more than a congenital gynecological problem. If you agree with this conclusion then we are not really saying anything disputatious about the vaginal condition and are, in point of fact, in agreement. I never intended to imply that Beth had a 'grossly malformed vagina.' My purpose in pointing out that Eva Braun had the same problem which was corrected by surgery, was to show that the problem was not drastic. Although, it may have seemed so to Beth.
All The Best
Gary |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Thanks, Gary. I checked out the Bardsley article at www.crimelibrary.com. In the bibliography sections, Bardsley acknowledges Gilmore’s “Severed” as the article’s major source. The bit about Short’s autopsy revealing that she had an “incomplete vaginal canal” is a direct quote from “Severed”. So, if you believe Gilmore… but I don’t.
As to Short’s medical condition, I’m just saying that even if her medical records indicate that she had a hereditary gynecological condition (I’m curious know the source of that info, too), there’s no reason to conclude that it was of the unusual nature that Gilmore claims. As Eliza said, that diagnosis could refer to a wide variety of problems, many of which would not impede sexual function or even involve the vagina (as opposed to the uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, etc.).
|
Eliza
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 1:29 pm: |
|
The Beth Short autopsy has never been released. Gilmore claims to have obtained it but never says how he did so. Gilmore quotes from this alleged "autopsy" but we have only his word that it is genuine.
The only reliable information we do have about the condition of the body comes from the INQUEST testimony of Dr. Frederick Newbarr, held on Jan. 22, 1947. Newbarr's testimony goes into some detail about injuries inflicted and so forth, says absolutely nothing about whether Beth had a congenital deformity. The only hard evidence of that comes from the Chicago doctor mentioned in my previous post. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 448
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 8:20 am: |
|
Hi All
I will have to look it up but I was under the impression that Newbarr alluded to 'an abnormality of the genitals'.
All The Best
Gary
(Through Trevor Weatherhead) |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 462
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Hello All
I came upon a book recently that I had forgotten I owned, the book is called L.A.P.D.'s Rogue Cops and is published by Desertview Press (1993). It was written by Vincent Carter who served for 25 years on the L.A.P.D. The book is very scarce and when I noticed that it came up through a library query under the search words Black Dahlia, I went straight to my local bookstore to order a copy. After having trouble locating the book we finally found that we could order it on something called a print-upon-order basis. This means that the publisher would only run off a copy when an order was paid for up-front and forwarded to the publisher. This was about twelve years ago and I have no idea if the book is still available.
Carter served from 1942 until 1967 so he was on the force when the 'Dahlia' murder took place.
As for the title concerning rogue cops in the L.A.P.D., it has always been known that there was an element of corruption in that particular police department. From the murder of William Desmond Taylor, to the murder of William Ince, who may have been killed by William Randolf Hearst, through the Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle fiasco right on up to the death of Marilyn Monroe, numerous cases within that jurisdiction have remained unsolved or have gone down with a great deal of suspicion.
Carter took an active interest in the case and worked alongside the Detectives who handled the investigation and did his own investigation into the murder as well. He states that the Dahlia murder was a covered up to protect someone with connections leading to the chief of police.
The story goes that according to those heavily involved in the investigation Beth Short would be destitute at times and at other times she would go off for a few days and come back flush with money to pay off her debts. The police believed she was blackmailing a man who may have been the father of a baby she had aborted. Obviously those individuals who were investigating the case were not under the impression that she had anything other than a normal reproductive system. If Carter's conclusions are correct then the blind vagina theory goes up in smoke. The people he was in contact with would have known the actual details of the autopsy.
Anyway, Carter spoke with two officers who told him that they noticed the car which may have been used to drop off the body, driving irregularly. They followed it and stopped the driver and took him into his house to question him. The house, especially the bathtub was a bloody mess. At this point the man called a prominent friend who quickly arrived along with two other men. This gentleman gave the officers a courtesy card with the name of the chief of police on it. A call was made and the investigation was immediately called off.
As the confused officers related it they were ordered to leave while the gentleman mentioned above began organizing a clean-up operation.
Well, there you have it; the conclusions of a personal investigation by a man who was 'in the know' and active on the force at the time of the killing.
Irrespective of whether or not you believe the story it makes for a fascinating read.
All The Best
Gary |
James Jeffrey Paul
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:43 am: |
|
Why do so many people keep blaming their late fathers for the Black Dahlia murder? First that woman who wrote the book with Michael Newton, now this artist.
Any thoughts on this? |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 645
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Hi James
The method for retrieving lost childhood memories, is very much flawed.
All The Best
Gary |
T. Reed
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 1:11 pm: |
|
JACK THE RIPPER will never die because he was never caught or known, despite the conspiracy buffs and armchair sleuths. I still return to come back to the COMPLETE JACK THE RIPPER by Donald Rumbelow to touch that eerie essence that emanates from the still-unsolved case. Same with the Black Dahlia, always to be an unsolved case despite the various theories and Daddy-Did-It books that pop up from time to time. Gilmore’s SEVERED, a classic, will be long-remembered, as it too offers the eerie essence that unsolved, dark crimes produce. It is interesting to note that Gilmore does not claim he has “Solved” the murder. The media hypes that idea. Gilmore claims that after many years involved in his search, he came upon Jack Anderson Wilson who knew more than he should. In an interview I had with Gilmore last February in Sitton's Diner on Magnolia in North Hollywood, Gilmore said since he was offered information about an unsolved homicide, his obligation was to go to the police. Which he did. The rest is history. He has written two novels and about right non-fiction books (hardly “primarily a novelist”). Ellroy’s take on the Black Dahlia is 100% fiction, except for the use of Beth Short’s name and her mother’s. All the rest is a gory concoction for entertainment, which is what Ellroy does—entertains. Gilmore enlightens or instructs.
Larry Harnish has done all possible to discredit Gilmore’s work. Clearly, Harnish had his own take (an old doctor with Alzheimer’s disease kills the Black Dahlia) for which e found no takers. In true sour grapes style, Harnish has blasted Gilmore’s work and Gilmore’s credibility. He calls Gilmore’s book, “Untrue crime” and internationally claims that the insignias on Gilmore’s father’s LAPD police uniform are those of a “motorcycle cop”, and states, “it is unlikely that Robert Gilmore ever set foot in the black-and-white he’s leaning on…” meaning that Gilmore’s father had no importance in LAPD. Harnish claims he has done research on these insignias, but in fact, Harnish is dead wrong. The insignias on Gilmore’s father’s uniform are NOT those of a “motorcycle cop.” Gilmore’s father (who has never ridden a motorcycle in his 95 years of life), was in a radio car for years in the 1940’s before entering other fields in LAPD. In an attempt to discredit Gilmore’s credibility, Harnish offers “Untrue” information to sway potential readers of SEVERED. A dumb, irresponsible move. What does this say for Harnish’s credibility? A writer for the LA Times who doesn’t know anything about the uniforms of LAPD? Claims he knows all about it! He should have called LAPD (almost across the street from the LA TIMES and got his facts straight before offering them internationally on line. Fortunately, Amazon got wise to the sour-grapes attacks and removed Harnish's error-laced blasts at Gilmore’s book. But the inaccurate one about the police insignias and the blast at Gilmore’s father, a highly respected figure in LAPD (to date), and highly honored board of director of the LA Police Credit union the past 56 years. But you can still catch the Harnish’s attack on Amazon in the UK, for SEVERED. Check it out. See where Harnish’s head is at.
During my chat with Gilmore I asked about Harnish’s attacks on Gilmore’s credibility to do with some sources, and Gilmore simply stated that he changed a few names in his book at the request of his subjects; they did not want to be public figures. As for the autopsy report, Gilmore says it is in a safe depot box and it will not be disclose in his lifetime. He says discoveries he made through years of long, hard work has been pirated by other writers without crediting Gilmore. The report, basically a public document, would be exploited internationally, as Harnish has done (deliberately trying to mislead). Gilmore says he doesn’t care about the opinions of Harnish, nor what Ellroy thinks, and has own to do and will continue regardless of the petty, deliberate jabs. He smiled and said, “You can’t please them all.”
|
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 2:14 pm: |
|
If Gilmore used pseudonyms for some of his sources, wouldn’t minimum standards of journalistic integrity require him to disclose this to the reader?
When an author includes even minor elements in his story that he knows are at variance with the facts, he is sliding rapidly toward the category of discourse known as “fiction”.
|
Tom Reed
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 11:43 am: |
|
Dear ERey: perhaps you have not actually read the book you say you "don't believe..." Behind the title page, Gilmore clearly states: "To those who have survived to see this book published, and have requested their names be changed--the author has obliged accordingly." To me this seems a disclosure to the reader...is it not? |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 6:09 pm: |
|
You're right, I have not yet read "Severed". But when an author's key sources cannot even be verified as having existed, that puts me off.
If Gilmore was playing square, he should have said which sources were not indicated by their real names. All it takes is an asterisk. |
Eliza
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 12:16 am: |
|
Tom, I think if Gilmore actually has access to the Beth Short autopsy he should produce it. Why wait until "after his lifetime?" How would it be "exploited" anyway? Does Gilmore think the autopsy report would be "exploited" now but not after he is dead? This is an important document that may shed light on a heinous unsolved crime. There is no reason to withhold it--that is, if Gilmore reallly does have it,which I doubt. |
BJBruther
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 6:26 am: |
|
Ah, the struggle over the Gilmore book--he does acknowledge that he has used pseudonyms for certain individuals in his book--I refer you to Edward Keyes, The Michigan Murders in which virtually all real names of the witnesses etc. are replaced in the book, including the killer's real name! I actually went to school with the daughter of one of the witnesses (the "guy" walking his dog)-- even biographers get tripped up in this type of writing--remember the fictitious narrator/witness in the biography Dutch, about Ronald Reagan. I tend to read my true crime work with a wary and skeptical eye--I try to verify the facts whenever possible--Gilmore does provide us with ample photos of the crime scene, the body of Elizabeth Short from all views, so you can draw your own conclusions. As for James Ellroy, remember he writes fiction--his particular warped vision of the world of noir LA, and his book on the Black Dahlia is a classic pot-boiler/melodrama (it would make a fun movie), but makes up the events surrounding the murder. All we can say about Elizabeth Short: she was a pretty young woman who went to Hollywood and crossed paths with a particularly dangerous person who tortured and murdered her,then discarded her severed body in an open field where it could be seen by all passersby. After that we can start to apply "what we know about killers" to the case. As for the famous autopsy report, it would be a public record, so I would try to obtain a copy based on the Freedom of Information Act--Gilmore might have a copy, but the Medical Examiner should have the original and a copy might be available to serious researchers -- the only people who might be concerned with report (and privacy issues) are Short's sisters (if alive) or their grandchildren--they might prevent issuance of the autopsy report. As for the police records, it has been 57 years since the murders so an assumption could be made that most of the individuals named as suspects in the documents could be assumed to be deceased . . . it's a tough call the most stringent rules call for 100 years to lapse, but many public records are released long before the expiration date (so to speak) BJ Bruther |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Hello BJ
Do you have any opinion on the recent theory put forward by Mary Pacios in her book Childhood Shadows: The Hidden Story of the Black Dahlia Murder, that Orson Welles might have been the Black Dahlia killer? Or do you view her theory as being in a similar category as Richard Wallace's theory about Lewis Carroll as Jack? That is, a lot of wishful thinking and no real evidence? 
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by chrisg on June 23, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 8:31 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I have heard of the Welles candidature for the Black Dahlia's killer. I haven't read the book suggesting it. It sounds to me like another,
"shock 'em with a celebrity suspect" book, like Cornwell's on Sickert, or the suggestions about Lewis Carroll, George Gissing, Francis Thompson, the Duke of Clarence (and Sir William Gull)...on a reopened thread on this board I saw Bram Stoker suggested (though somewhat as a goof on us). IN 1947 I think Welles had other matters on his mind to consider more important than killing Beth Short.
On the other hand, maybe it was Harry Lime, or Charles Foster Kane, or Gregory Arkadin (or Falstaff?). Hank Quinlan might have solved it....
Best wishes,
Jeff |
bjbruther
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 6:09 am: |
|
Chris, the search for Elizabeth's killer should focus on "the nobody" on the fringes of her life; theories based on this or that celebrity sink based on one fact--the life of a celebrity is documented in so many ways--personal appearances, ambush photogs, gossipmongers, and that was true during the 40's, Orson Welles had a high profile in that particular decade--movie after movie,
Rita Hayworth etc. Most people do not realize how time consuming the life of film actor/directorwriter/producer was/is. . . long hours of filming, rewriting scripts, checking the daily rushes, and editing, a 24/7 job, poor Orson Welles was too tired to hack a young woman apart, another case of mistaking a "role in movie" for real life. At least that is my opinion . . .BJ |
Eliza
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:46 pm: |
|
I'm not aware of anything in Welles' life to indicate he was capable of that level of violence. The Dahlia killer appears to have had a staggering number of fetishes and perversions; surely if Welles had these kinds of problems they would have come to light. The extreme brutality and depravity of this crime indicates to me a hardened, jaded killer, surely someone who has killed at least once before. And his perversions would drive him to kill again. If one believes Pacios' theory Welles did this one unspeakable crime and then lived to a ripe old age, making movies, writing essays, starring in wine commercials, without committing any further acts of violence. It's not likely. |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 2:47 pm: |
|
The Mary Pacios book is a really odd one. About three-fourths of it appears to me to be a measured and substantially accurate exploration of Elizabeth Short’s life, her murder, and the investigation of the murder. And then the author jumps off the deep end into this goofy Orson Welles business.
At least Pacios has one up on Cornwell: Welles is known to have been in Los Angeles at the time of the murder. But that’s about it. Her case against Welles is the usual mish-mash of highly selective biography, rumor, innuendo, coincidence, speculation. Pacios even anticipates Steve Hodel by throwing is some art (or at least art-direction) interpretation and photograph comparison (in this case, an actress the young Welles had a crush on is compared to Short) in which the salient visual points were much more evident to the author than they were to this reader.
Which brings us to the point I think BJBurther was getting at: How should one approach a nonfiction crime book when it clearly contains some very dubious reasoning (Pacios), ambiguous fictional elements (Gilmore), or flat-out lying (Hodel)? How do you determine if there is any “baby” in there with the bathwater?
(Incidentally, having read the Pacios book, I take back what I said about Gilmore making up the stuff about Short having malformed gentiles. Pacios says that while she was doing her research, well before the publication of the Gilmore book, she found this bit or information or misinformation was widely circulated among those familiar with the Dahlia case. For what it’s worth, according to Pacios, Short’s surviving family regards this as nonsense.)
|
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 9:35 am: |
|
I can't believe I mispelled "genitals" as "gentiles" in my last post. What an idiot!  |
Morticia Addams
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 10:47 pm: |
|
ERey
Wow - talk about a Freudian slip! ;-)
/M |
BJ Bruther
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 4:31 am: |
|
Being a historian by profession and a medieval/military historian at that, I am used to dealing with a variety of source materials--documents produced at the time, interpretations, etc., and apply the same standards to my "true crime" research--I look for "public records", 1st hand accounts (memoirs, autobiographies, etc., such as the Joseph Vacher study by the French psychiatric consultant), then I review my serial murder theories (Holmes, the FBI group), and read all the relevant interpretations of a particular case. And finally, I decide which book is the "best summary" of the case, and it joins my collection. My particular interests are Gilles de Rais and Elizabeth Bathory, and so I possess most of the published materials--Bataille, Thorne etc. In the case of Gilles de Rais, Bataille and Hyatte published the canonical and civil trial documents of 1440 in their entirety. Unfortunately for Elizabeth Bathory we do not have a complete record of her associate's trial (1611) in a published form. Other valuable case studies of modern killers that I would recommend: Badal, In the Wake of the Butcher; Dillon, The Shankill Butchers; Masters, Killing for Company; Schechter's books, and Tithecott, Of Men and Monsters. My personal collection contains approximately 150 books about serial murder, case studies, and fictional works. BJ |
Mark Jacobs
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:15 am: |
|
The person who murdered Elizabeth Short most likely indeed had killed before. I believe this person was a mentally ill individual (who was acting out a rage from within). I believe this person was a sadist who enjoyed watching other people suffer. I also believe this person was incapable of having a relationship with a person of the opposite sex which discredits Steve Hodel's theory that is was his father, George Hodel. His father had many long and lasting relationships with women. I also noticed a newspaper article from the Los Angeles Examiner that Elizabeth Short was seen just prior to her death with 2 women, a blonde around 30 and a brunette around 27. Who are these women ? Is it possible these 2 women, or a women working with a man may have done this. In 1947 it was inconceivable a woman could have done such a heinous crime. Any thoughts on this ? |
BJ Bruther
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:22 am: |
|
You have made a good point here--we should not neglect the "fair sex" in all this theory about the killer of Elizabeth Short--James Ellroy has taken a page from the Moors Murderers and builds his own scenario. It is possible that "Mommy was the Black Dahlia Killer" -- women do tend to use poison and kill their families, but one should remember Elizabeth Bathory, the "Bloody Benders", Myra Hindley, Karla Homolka, Carol Bundy (no relation to Ted, involved in the Sunset Strip slayings), Belle Gunness, and good old Lizzie Borden. Some of these women used bludgeoning, strangling, and dismemberment in their crimes, so a female Black Dahlia killer or killers is possible. BJ |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 679
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hello
Does anyone know if the host of the Black Dahlia Website is going to update it anytime soon. Or-conversely, will we have to wait another five years for new information.
All THe Best
Gary |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 991
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 11:17 am: |
|
Hi Gary
When I checked on the Black Dahlia site some time back it looked as if it had not been updated. It looks though as if from a note on the site by the owner, Pamela Hazelton, she is going to get it back up and running. Let's see what happens.
E Rey wrote: "Incidentally, having read the Pacios book, I take back what I said about Gilmore making up the stuff about Short having malformed gentiles. Pacios says that while she was doing her research, well before the publication of the Gilmore book, she found this bit or information or misinformation was widely circulated among those familiar with the Dahlia case. For what it’s worth, according to Pacios, Short’s surviving family regards this as nonsense."
This doesn't really count as separate verification of Gilmore's contention that Beth Short had undeveloped genitals, since as I understand it, Mary Pacios was Gilmore's researcher, so if Pacios is saying the same thing as Gilmore it's the same information.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 681
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
We can only hope that the Dahlia site will come alive again.
Pacios was supposed to be a childhood friend of Beth Short. As I understand it she was a good deal younger than Beth. She doesn't appear to be someone whom Beth would have confided in concerning a genital abnormality.
It is interesting to see that the rumour about the underdeveloped genitals was making the rounds long before Gilmore happened upon the scene. There is something in the autopsy report that the LAPD does not want to make public. If the information pertains to a blind or underdeveloped vagina, I'm afraid that cat is already out of the bag. The only people who might know the truth would be Beth's surviving family. They would know if Beth suffered from amenorrhea or the absence of menses. The family has always refused to discuss the whole subject of Beth's death.
It amazes me that the LAPD says the file will be kept closed for the remainder of our lives. Either there is something in the file which; could conclusively implicate the real killer; disclose the identity of someone they are trying to protect(and I am talking here about someone with political connections not the preposterous suggestion that Orson Welles was the killer)or; evidence the police botched the case. I would tend to go with the latter suggestion.
I wonder if the file could be obtained through the Freedom Of Information Act. (FOI)
All The Best
Gary |
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Christopher (and Gary),
That note from Pamela Hazelton is more than a year old. Hazelton made a few updates to the site last year, posted that note promising more, and wasn't heard from again. For a while, she even let the domain name lapse. It's kind of a shame that people still regard that site as "the" Black Dahlia site, since it has basically been derelict for years.
Regard Pacios vs Gilmore: I didn't mean to imply the Pacios provided independent verification of Gilmore's claim about Short's supposed anatomical abnormalities. I only meant that, apparently, Gilmore and Pacios encountered the same claim. While Gilmore presents it as a fact that only the killer could know (circa 1982, when Wilson "confessed" to him), Pacios says she heard it many times in the course of her research and treats it much more skeptically.
I should say that, having (finally) read "Severed", I believe that book as a whole to be highly fictionalized. Much moreso than I would have guessed. I'll elaborate, if anyone is interested. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
