|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 12 June 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Beyond Whitechapel - Other Crimes: The Black Dahlia Case, 1947:
Archive through 12 June 2002
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 04:16 pm |        | To the Black Dahlia
Elizabeth Short (1924-1947), R.I.P.
Beth, found cut in half by the roadside in Hollywood,
you, the bar girl, the small-time actress,
smoky nights in Forties bars, cocktail chatter,
mysterious stranger, sudden hardness inside the soft:
"Do you mean me harm or will you love me tonight?"
Your afternoon disappearance like smoke drifting from a Lucky Strike,
circulating in the Biltmore chandeliers,
nicotine dreams, noir Art Deco nightmares,
clues on Sunset, boulevard of soiled desire,
rumors among Manhattans, matchcover clues,
men with secret agendas and shoulder holsters.
Cutout letters of newspaper headlines spell "BLACK DAHLIA":
some said you were a floozy,
some that you weren't fully formed.
Your eyes stare out, reveal nothing.
Beth Short, who severed you from tomorrow?
Christopher T. George
It is rumored that as in the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, the Los Angeles police tried to photograph the victim's eyes to see if they would reveal an image of her murderer. See Pamela Hazelton's site on the Black Dahlia. Be warned, the photographs are graphic and not for the squeamish. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 10:00 pm | | Hey Chris:
I never really understand the long history of interest in this particular murder, but here's a book I've coming from Amazon.com. It was written by a childhood friend of Elizabeth Short, "Childhood Shadows : The Hidden Story of the Black Dahlia Murder" by Mary Pacios.
I suspect, as this book's advertising claims, that Short was far more ordinary than mysterious or "lost" or sexually-adventurous. A floozy? I vote, No.
She was most likely a young woman on her own, trying to start a career in an unfriendly industry, at a time and in an age where women who worked for a living got confused with "working" women.
Sexually malformed or dysfunctional? Probably another stigma for Short to try to hide from 1940 eyes. But very nice play on early death and this physical feature, at least it is touching to me of the tragedy murderers' leave in their wake, in the phrase "weren't fully formed." What life, snuffed out by a killer, is ever fully-formed...that's my take.
Another thing I like from your poem is you end on her eyes. Short's eyes stare from some of her pictures like stars in a photograph of the heart of a distant galaxy...another place, another time; familiar and alien; newly born but already dead perhaps in the interval it takes for that special light to travel from her source to our eyes. Yet another young woman, remembered for what was done to her rather than for who she was or might have been.
One thing makes me squirm, though I understand why you use it...that's the verb "severed." It fits the shocking abruptness of a killing, but may "play" too much on what actually happened to Short. But, maybe we are meant to be left uncomfortable by murders and all the lost tomorrows.
Anywhozits, your poem is a very nice tribute, Chris.
"Not fully formed...Your eyes stare out...nothing...who severed you from tomorrow?"
In memory of Elizabeth Short.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 10:38 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
Thanks for your kind words on my poem.
Some reports appear to indicate that Beth Short did not have a vagina and so could not perform intercourse. John Gilmore in his book Severed, certainly one of the best books on the case, talks about this aspect of the case, and he conferred with Hopkins expert John Money, an authority of hermaphrodism and other genital abnormalities. Gilmore's suspect, an alcoholic drifter and small-time crook named Jack Anderson Wilson aka Arnold Smith, is a bit iffy and also Gilmore's approach to the story of the suspect is strange. He begins the book talking about an unnamed source who knew Wilson, then later in the book you find the source is Gilmore himself! Strangely too Wilson talks about another man, not himself, doing the murder.
The Mary Pacios book, Childhood Shadows fingers Orson Welles as the murderer. She cites Welles interest in stage magic and sawing a woman in half and she shows images of Welles on the set of The Lady from Shanghai with shapes that she associates with the Black Dahlia murder. Her approach here is a bit like Paul Feldman's approach to Maybrick family photographs, and Welles as the murderer I should say is about as likely as Lewis Carroll being the Ripper.
Another even less creditable book is the one by Janice Knowlton in which she supposedly, through regression therapy, discovered that her father was Beth's murderer. Knowlton castigates Short as a prostitute who molested her as a child.
A more promising theory on the case appears to be one developed by LA Times reporter Larry Harnisch, who names as the murderer a mentally unbalanced doctor who lived in the vicinity of Norton and 39th Street where the empty lot was located where Beth Short's remains were found. I don't think Harnisch's book has seen print yet.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 12:07 am | | Hey Chris:
I don't recommend, and didn't purchase, Mary Pacios' book because of her insights into Short's death or the murderer. I am expecting a more balanced and reasoned representation of Short as a woman alone and trying to earn a living when both were highly suspect behaviorial traits in a woman of that era.
I am tired of these victims who are given memorials in endless reproductions of crime scene photos; whose eulogies are written in numberless autopsy reports.
In lives lived normally, we would take no notice of the billions who pass through this world. The sudden spectre of atrocity, death, and the interjection -- by murderer or those left to sort out the events leading to and ending in death -- of normal or abnormal sexualities help imprint these victims onto our consciousness. The only ones who seem to have lived out their lives in the normal, sacred, anonymous fashion -- that is the right of us all -- are the murderers who are never caught.
One last word on Short as an "object" (she's even objectified as a flower, the Black Dahlia...but I grow petulant and tiresome), a victim we can discover lying exposed and vulnerable in morgue photographs in almost any book on Short: her death and how she was left strike me as being the work of a "classic" disorganized personality (per the famous or infamous FBI profiling system).
Whether alcohol, mental disease, perhaps even syphilis (if I interject one aspect of one potential candidate for JtR) fueled the murderer...what does that get us? There is too much alcohol, mental disease, and (though doubtful to the point of non-existence as a trait of Short's murderer) horrible STDs that were on the boundary between cure-by-antiobiotics and incurable-to-the-point-of-maddness&death in any society. I wonder what studies anyone has made of a person's thought processing in a before and after situation involving alcoholism, madness, etc. I tend to think a disorganized and murderous personality is probably subtly evident in such individuals. If we had a more refined scientific history of the brain and the concept of "mind", these individuals don't need to commit gross acts of violent, disorganized thinking/behavior to attract our attention before they take a human life.
But I grow long-winded again.
Meant to be brief.
In memory of you, Elizabeth Short and all your sisters and brothers who have lost or will lose their humanity along with their "lives' to both their murderers and to the "sciences" that seek retribution in your names. I'd rather your memorials be Chris' poem and the numberless and aloof, but vibrant, stars in the heavens.
I go now.
Yaz the Melancholiac |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 05:24 am | | Hi, Yaz:
I could never associate the words "long-winded" or petulance or tiresomeness with you! ha ha
Tired and melancholy you may have been but you do make some valid points in your message. Thanks, Yaz.
To not be long-winded myself, let me merely say that I do very much appreciate your call to recognize the humanity of victims such as Elizabeth Short and Mary Jane Kelly and all their brothers and sisters. May they all rest in peace.
All the best
Chris |
Author: brad mcginnis
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 10:09 pm | | Hi Chris,
Interesting. I don't think anyone who has seen photos of Beth alive could ever doubt the beauty of the woman. The eyes are haunting. I also feel that any one who has seen the photos of what was done to her will ever forget it. With Miss Kelly we dont have a feel for the woman as a person, only the ravaged wreck of the after math. The Black Dahlia gained the fame she had hoped for, but what a cost. |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 08:17 am | | Anyone seen "Muholland Dr." yet? Does anybody else think the central Hollywood crime (secret/scandal...a focus point in the many layers of this film) is the "Black Dahlia" murder?
I don't know if I should be angry at the exploitation of Short's murder-mystery or admire Lynch for using Short as part of his warning fable about the evils of Hollywood dreams/reality.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 11:34 am | | Hi, Yaz:
I have not seen David Lynch's Mulholland Drive yet and had not known that it may have been partly based on the Black Dahlia murder. Knowing that, I will keep an eye out for it on cable or rent the video. Thanks for the tip.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 12:20 pm | | You're always welcome, Chris. If you can, try to get a copy of the DVD. There are same strange "technical" issues at several (one in particular) key moments in the film. You'd need a very good VCR with frame-by-frame clarity or the DVD to see what I saw.
And to clarify, since the movie is so strange, Mulholland Dr. isn't based on the Dahlia case but if alludes to it and several other Hollywood scandals.
Be interested to hear what you think when you see it.
Yaz |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 05:56 pm | | Whats fascinating about the Dahlia case is , pretty obviously , the fact that she was cut in half : this seems to be pretty odd to me and I wonder if John Douglas or Ressler have ever looked at the case and done an FBI profile for the killer.
I should think a profile would be pretty accurate here as its closer in time to the data compiled to create the profiles , and in the same country ie the US. |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 06:51 pm | | Hey Simon:
Yes, Elizabeth Short was cut in half but she was badly mutilated on her face, especially the mouth (looks like an evil grin in autopsy photos), and abdomen. She had been killed almost instantly by a blunt object blow to the head then she had been kept for days and finally dumped. All pretty fascinating pathology in the killer.
I suppose if you believe Gilmore, at least some in the police pretty much felt the case was solved by Gilmore's suspect -- who died an untimely death by burning alive in his bed when drinking, smoking, and sleeping all had a fatal intersection. (It is also interesting in "Mulholland Dr."that the lesbian form of the Bettie/Diane character-combo shoots herself in her bed and Lynch has smoke pouring from and around the bed afterwards...artistic imagery or a reference to Gilmore's suspect?)
Yaz |
Author: Paul Boothby
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 08:00 am | | Simon, the Black Dahlia gets 10 pages in Douglas' 'The Cases That Haunt Us' in the chapter 'American Dreams/American Nightmares'.
Paul |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 08:40 am | | And, Simon, the key sentences from Douglas are,
"The homicide falls under the heading of lust murder, as is clearly indicated by the torture to which the victim was subjected antemortem, but I would be hesitant to characterize this UNSUB as being in the same sort of crazed frenzy as we saw in Jack the Ripper's mutilations. The combination of the sawing in half - as opposed to frantic disembowelment - and the washing of the body indicates to me someone who knows he's got to get rid of his evidence. The washing is to eliminate forensic clues, and the severing of the body is for easier and less apparent transport. These are the cvharacteristics of an organized offender, which combine with the more disorganized elements of the case for a mixed presentation....
Of course, if it could be shown forensically that the sawing of the body had taken place before death, I would have to re-evaluate its meaning. I would still say this was a lust murder, but then the offender becomes more of the disorganized type, more obviously mentally aberrational."
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Paul Boothby
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 10:00 am | | Dear Mr. Fido (Martin), sorry to break the thread here but I just have to say that the 'summit' of my interest in JtR was to once meet you on a JtR walk in London, many many years ago, whence I was but a young whippersnapper. I had just read your book (in hardback) so it must have been just after publication. I was in London on a training course well away from ny native North East and I happened on the walk purely by chance (heading back to Tower Hill tube station after imbibing at the Dickens Inn) where I spotted a small crowd of people hanging around. When I discovered what it was I coughed up the relevant pennies and tagged merrily along. The walk was led by a young man who described himself as a 'jobbing actor' and Walking Tour Guide who did a very able job and kept his audience well entertained. However lurking (and I use the word advisedly) in the background was a dark stranger who seemed to be there in some quasi-official capacity and would chat to the guide during the long walking segments. Being of outgoing personality (nosey) I managed to interject myself into the conversation and expressed great interest in a photocopy of a death certificate, stated by the stranger to be that of David Cohen !!! 'Is that the David Cohen that Martin Fido has just written about in his book ?' pipes up Boothers 'Oh have you read that?' qouth the stranger 'What did you think of it?'. 'Best book about JtR I've ever read!' speaketh the aforementioned Boothers (all unsuspecting - there was no authors photo in the copy of the book I had). 'Bloody good job you said that - I'm Martin Fido' (or words to that effect, I was a bit gobsmacked at the time) said the now smiling stranger no longer. Anyway, to cut what is already a long story a bit shorter, you continued to give me the benefit of your knowledge for the remainder of the time that you stayed with the walk (we went to the City Darts/Princess Alice for the drink stop that night but you had an appointment at the Ten Bells) and you never once made me feel out of place or responded to what must have been silly questions with anything other than good grace (apart from the sneaky introduction). I remember having a pint in the Darts and saying to two American ladies also on the walk 'Didn't you know who that was?' all disbelievingly. My wife got a late phone call that night 'You'll never guess who I've been talking to tonight?', 'Who?', 'Martin Fido', 'Who the bloody hells Martin Fido?' sayeth my good lady. 'Ive been on a JtR walk' 'Aah ! Enough said'. Since that time I'm afraid that whenever you've been seen on various programs, new books etc I'm afraid you get lumbered with the sobriquet (is that the right word ?) 'Your Mate' Martin, as in ''Your Mate' Martin's on the tele again' , 'I see you've got another book by 'Your Mate' Martin' etc.
I apologise for the familiarity and I'll bet none of this means anything to you, but it meant a lot to me at the time to have been treat in such a manner (and indeed still does) and helped maintain my interest to this day. Thanks very much and all the best Martin.
Paul |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 11:25 am | | Not to stir JtR "political" rancor, but I'm always a little skeptical of the whole organized/disorganized generalization in profiling...to say nothing about the rest of profiling except its usefulness in determining "signature" characteristics.
Is an obsessive/compulsive who washes his hands every 15 minutes "organized" or "disorganized?"
Is it absolutely clear in Short's postmortem that her body was "washed?" And I've read and seen some other police officials (current and es-employees, Wambaugh, for one) claim the sawing in half also served the purpose of draining the body of blood.
But to what purpose all that madness? Unless the perp. is caught and can supply his reasons (and even then he could still be lying about something), any speculation that excludes all other more or less equally-weighted speculations are hazardous to finding a solution.
JMHO.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 11:44 am | | Hi, Yaz, Martin, and Boothers:
Boothers, fantastic anecdote about your meeting with the affable Mr. Fido and thanks to Martin for being so approachable. Having met Messrs Skinner, Begg, and Rumbelow, I can report that they similarly are friendly and open chaps too.
In the matter of the Black Dahlia murder, the cutting up of the body, the possible washing of it and the draining of blood would seem to indicate an organized killer wishing to expunge clues. On the other hand, the open display of the body on the empty lot speaks I think to the lust murder nature of the crime alluded to by Martin, and that the killer probably got a thrill from the public display of his victim. This brings about a real parallel with the Ripper and his display of his victims on the streets of the East End.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 12:58 pm | | Postscript
Another factor to consider in profiling cases that occured before profiling is what was the extent of scientific knowledge and capabilities at the time, and how commonly known these investigatory practices were known.
In the Dahlia case, what evidence could have been gathered to implicate anyone to warrant washing the body? The structure of DNA was a discovery still several years away -- beyond fingerprinting and blood-typing, I don't know what police could have meaningfully gathered from the unwashed remains.
A corollary complication is the continued existence of superstitions that instigated a particular act. The case of Citizen X in the former Soviet Union is a good example, where Yevtu...whatever his name was...still believed that his image was imprinted in the eyes of his dead victims causing his to destroy their eyes postmortem. It is possible that science may have even reinforced the superstituion: where the vocabulary and mechanism of photography (lens, camera, film) could have "stuck" with the perp. as a reinforcement of the action of biological sight (lens, retina, image).
And Chris raises a very good point about the display of victims in JtR's case: was he disorganized, killing on the spot regardless of the peril of being caught? Or did he want his victims found in more or less conspicuous spots and "organized" his killings to achieve greater and greater "exposure" of what he did -- thus being more of an "organized" killer than "disorganized?"
It's the assigning of motive to determine the categorization that is, as all things human, is open to different, equally compelling interpretations that only the capture and questioning of the killer can somewhat satisfy.
Yaz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 03:15 pm | | Hi all,
I am familiar with this case because I authored an extensive college paper for my criminology course.
The murderer in the Black Dahlia case was particularly vicious. Indeed, the post mortem indicated that murderer forced her to eat feces, tied her up and sawed her in half while she was still alive.
Ms Short lived a vagabond life - an aspiring actress who was more a barfly relying on men to support her meager existence.
It is rumored, though not proven, that a physical condition prevented her from having sexual intercourse and that many men, aroused by her charms, were frustrated and hated her for this fact.
This is one instance when the murderer did contact the police. He sent items that belonged to Ms. Short to the authorities - even promising to turn himself in. However, he later wrote that upon reflection Ms. Short had deserved her fate.
Throughout the years, there have been many theories about the identity of her killer.
One suspect made arrangements to meet with a journalist to discuss the case - presumably to confess. However, he died in an accident before the meeting took place.
A provocative theory is also that Ms Short's father was the killer.
At the time of the killings, some believed that the murderer was the so-called Cleveland Torso Killer from the 1930s.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 03:29 pm | | Hi Boothers,
I guess the walk you refer to ust have been one where I accompanied a colleague only as far as The Ten Bells because I was so appalled at the amount of error he was introducing I was keeping my mouth shut with difficulty! That's the only time I remember accompanying some one else's walk and stopping halfway. (I should add that the colleague was no one who would be known to Ripper aficionadoes).
I'm not contributing further to the Back Dahlia discussion in its present state, because although certain attitudes have inadvertently been ascribed to me, what is going on is really a debate about the validity of John Douglas's theoretical and analytical approach, with a hidden implication that he is pleading ignorance of a fact which is known. And I can't answer for him: I've pointed to the relevant sentences from his book, and beyond saying that the 'organized/disorganized' model is really Robert Ressler's invention/obsession, which as a matter of courtesy everyone else has to make reference to, I'd rather not get involved further just at this point.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 04:04 pm | | Sorry, Martin. I really meant no harm. I was already thinking that any further discussion on profiling certainly belongs on one of its own threads, places where I also will not tread.
Hi, Rich. When did you write your paper? Had you also heard about the doctor who lived in the area, going insane for some reason I forget, who is also suspected by some of being Short's killer? Did you draw any conclusions about the murderer or the known suspects?
Yaz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 08:21 pm | | Hi Yazoo,
I authored a paper on the case in 1989 - I have heard stories about the mad physician but never considered him a likely suspect.
For what it is worth, I believe the killer was probably a man named Jack Wilson. He was an alcoholic with a history of brutalizing women.
An informant advised the police he had been told by a man that he had killed Short. The informant relayed to police in graphic detail how the man said he carried out the crime - laying boards across a bathtub while he sawed her in half - allowing the blood to flow down the drain.
The informant gave the name of the killer and the cafe he frequented. The alias was one that Jack Wilson used and later police found out Wilson frequented that cafe.
However, before the police could apprehend Wilson he died in a fire in his hotel. Wilson frequently smoked and fell asleep drunk.
He appeared to be to the police a likely suspect although the case against him is definitely not proven.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 10:33 pm | | Hey Rich:
From what little I know "Wilson" sounds like the probable suspect; he's the same guy Gilmore believes to be Short's killer.
By the way, did you investigate the autopsy, and the coroner? I'm troubled by the open possibility that Short was cut in half while still alive -- and then reconciling the evidence for that gruesome possibility -- a leaking abdominal artery? -- with the other thoughts that Short was cut in half to (a) drain the blood; (b) make the body easy to transport; or (c) both. A fourth option would be neither/reason unknown -- perhaps not even consciously known by the perpetrator. Is it/was it indisputable she was made to swallow feces or is the green granular matter in her stomach mentioned as "consistent with" fecal material?
Was the coroner well-respected? What was his trial record?
I know it's an off-the-wall line of questioning but I thought you might know. No big deal if you don't.
Thanks,
Yaz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 11:40 pm | | Hi Yaz,
Sorry, I never explored the quality of work of the coroner or his reputation. The question of the feces I cannot answer for you based on memory.
There have been those who have disputed his findings since the autopsy did not describe a sexual physical abnormality that Short was alleged to have had.
The autopsy did suggest that she was sawed in half while alive. This is consistent with the informant's recounting that the killer claimed he had struck her in the head several times and believed he'd killed her - only to discover while sawing her in the bathroom she was still alive.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 07:12 am | | Hi Yazoo,
Sorry if I sounded testy. I really wasn't feeling any indignation with anyone: just opting out of detailed defence of JD's position on the Black Dahlia and pointing out that an assertion that it is definitely known that Ms Short was bisected before she dies challenges Douglas on fact, since he evidently thnks it is not known.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 07:55 am | | Thanks, Rich. Is there any chance of you publishing your paper? As far as I know there's only one "serious" non-fiction work on the Dahlia case on the market.
Hey, Martin. No problem. I've caught pieces of a few of your battles here and have no desire to add fuel to some of the auto-da-fes held in your honor. You and Paul Begg and Caz (among others...Ally, etc.) are a few of the nicest people I've met on the Casebook. It just amazes me at some of the thunder and lightning called down upon your individual and, at times, collective heads. As for JD, I too think the details of Short's murder are not completely known, even with a "confession" from a man I also think did the murder. These murdering bastards are tricky.
I go now.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 08:16 am | | Thunder and lightning is an inevitable and not really unjustifiable response, Yaz, from people who have strong views of their own; differ from us; and feel they are being put down unfairly by other people citing the standing of the A-Z. There is also the fair enough thunder and lightning from people who just don't like our personalities - this is a natural consequence of human differences and simply unavoidable. Thus (eg) most readers find Laurence Sterne, the author of 'Tristram Shandy,' a writer whose personal charm shines through his writing and is consciously exploited. yet F.R (or more probably Q.D.) Leavis called this 'irresponsible (and nasty) trifling!' When lecturing I always assume that up to 30% of my audience may be put off by my personality and mannerisms (or uninterest in the subject under discussion) and I only need worry about failing to communicate if I can see I'm holding less than 70%. Thunder and lightning can become annoying when it emerges from people who appear to be sparking in electric arcs because they simply can't understand the points we are making. (There is, however, also some occasional thunder and lightning which sometimes seems to me to have baser motives).
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 10:05 am | | Hi there Yaz,
It's great to see you posting again. And thanks for including me in your very kind words. In case you weren't aware of it, you, together with many others (including Joseph, Scott, Paul, and of course Keith, who sees all the diary posts), are frequently in my thoughts as I write, on the basis that one or more of you may be reading and thinking to yourselves, "Oh no, Caz. Don’t put that", or "Oh no Caz, just leave it alone. It'll never get better if you pick it".  God knows what I’d be like if I didn’t think of you people as my silent mentors.
I love thunder and lightning but, like most people, much prefer it when safe indoors and it's all going on outside.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 11:59 am | | Hi, Rich:
I think, if you will excuse me, you are being a bit misled by the convoluted quality of the narrative in John Gilmore's book, Severed. As I recall, the book throughout is mostly written as if Gilmore had an informant who knew the suspect Jack Wilson. However, toward the end of the book the reader finds out that the informant was in fact Gilmore. What is even stranger is that Wilson talks about another man committing the murder when he was in fact, Gilmore believes, talking about himself.
As a caveat, I believe the later edition of the book makes clear that when Gilmore was talking about an informant, that informant was John Gilmore. Perhaps you only read the early edition?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 12:34 pm | | I come back...briefly.
Hey Caz! I always try to look in on what you're up to though sometimes I cringe at the backlash, and especially if the exchange is with a person I think would have more in common with you than not. But Martin's words are pearls for the wise and pebbles to the unwise. I hope I'm wise enough to learn from his post and stand-up against the things that make me cringe. Now if only I could learn to distinguish indoors (private) and outdoors (public) in the world of JtR studies...I'm not sure I'd be a better person for the knowledge, but definitely that much wiser. Be safe but always be you. (And if you need me you know how to reach me.)
Hey Chris! Unless I'm mistaken, Rich's paper predates the first publication of Gilmore's book by 5 years or so (Rich=1989; Gilmore=1994, from the "Severed" PB version's copyright page). I don't know where Rich got the information but it seems to be independent of Gilmore's book, at least. Maybe Gilmore's revelation just closes the circle on Rich's theory.
Yaz
P.S., Just in case they peek in: Hey Alex and CM and all the old skulkers in the Chatroom and from Down-Under. Hope all is well in your worlds. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 02:42 pm | | Hi Yaz,
Actually there are several books and links on the case - the most famous being Gilmore and Knowlton's. My paper was based on published works and I did not do much original research so I would not have had no new facts to add to the case - but thank you for your compliment.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 02:56 pm | | Hi Chris,
I agree that Gilmore's book is structured more as melodrama than a traditional historical account of the crime - yet it is one of the more detailed and important works of the case.
Actually, Gilmore never claimed to be the informant. Gilmore's informant was Arnold Smith who said that a man he knew named Morrison was the killer. It turned out that Morrison was an alias used by Jack Wilson. And, later, Gilmore came to the conclusion that Smith was actually Wilson.
Wilson died in a hotel fire - the police never interviewing him. Admittedly, this is a convenient scenario for an author to structure a resolution to an infamous whodunit.
Yet it is important to consider that the investigating officer assigned to the case, Det. St. John, believed that Wilson was their man. Wilson had a record of violent crime - including sexual assaults.
I would submit that Wilson must be considered a leading suspect - although definitely not proven.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 02:59 pm | | Hi Yaz,
What have you been up to?
Joseph |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 03:01 pm | | Hi Chris,
When you call Gilmore "the informant" I believe that refers to his interaction with the police. Gilmore passed along his information to the authorities.
Admittedly, I have not read Gilmore's latest edition. But it is my understanding that he stands by his initial story that a man claiming to be Arnold Smith was his informant.
Regards,
Rich |
|
|
|
|
