Ana səhifə

Mabel normand


Yüklə 3.35 Mb.
səhifə97/97
tarix25.06.2016
ölçüsü3.35 Mb.
1   ...   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97


In 1922, the police made no statement regarding the nightgown. Reporter Frank Bartholomew was the one who said he saw it, with initials, and he broke the story. Cline later stated that the nightgown had no initials. Peavey said the nightgown had been there long before the day of the murder. I think the nightgown probably had no initials. Taylor certainly had several of Minter‘s handkerchiefs, and its logical that those handkerchiefs would have been in the same part of dresser as the nightgown. Perhaps Bartholomew just had a quick glance inside that drawer, saw the initialed handkerchiefs on top of the nightgown, and mentally transposed the initials onto the nightgown.

233 It is not necessary that the person have been Lasky who contacted the police. Someone from (most likely) Paramount studio, who had much clout in the city, would perhaps have temporarily served in this role just as well.

234 It’s interesting that Mabel and Taylor are identified by inference and not specific recognition. Might it possibly have been two other persons that Lawrence heard?

235 See the 1941 police report of Detective Lieutenant Sanderson; found in William Desmond Taylor: a dossier.

236 James Quirk, Photoplay, May 1930. The “someone else” to whom Quirk is referring is probably Mary Miles Minter.

237 For further articles on District Attorney Thomas Woolowine, and his sometime outrageous character and administration, see Los Angeles Examiner, June 24, 1915, Los Angeles Record, August 17, 1916, Los Angeles Times, September 27, 1916, Los Angeles Times, April 28, 1918, Los Angeles Evening Herald, March 16, 1921, Los Angles Times, May 20, 1922, Los Angeles Times, January 6, 1923, Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1923, Los Angeles Times, March 21, 1925, Los Angeles Times, July 9, 1925.

238 Peavey is talking about a quarrel between Mabel and Taylor. Whether true or no, his remarks clearly indicate there was a cover-up going on at the time of the Coroner’s Inquest.

239 Bruce Long: “Contrary to what has been extensively written and rumored, the Memorandum [‘Re. James Kirkwood and Mary Miles Minter‘ and written by Detective Lieutenant Leroy Sandersons] states that Faith MacLean said the person she saw ‘could not have been a woman dressed in man’s clothing.’“ Taylorology, issue 97 (2007). In addition and with respect to Det. Cahill’s hypothesis, if Shelby was disguised as a man would she have presented herself that way to Taylor when she allegedly embraced and shot him?

240 i.e., Deputy District Attorney Jim Smith

241 Los Angeles Times, Feb. 9, 1922.

242 Later Note, April 22, 2012: In years now since I wrote the above, there have been copious opportunities for reflection on the Taylor case, and one thing omitted from my earlier review of it is to more explicitly posit the likelihood of Taylor’s murder being, after all, a premeditated political assassination of sorts; including perhaps as well a scenario where a “kook” is put up and incited to the deed; in order that a third person could reap it benefits. What might be the “benefits,” if we assume purely criminal motives some that can be suggested are:

1) Induce fear, chaos and mistrust in Hollywood and toppling some of its de facto leaders; while in the midst of which assailing bastions of financial power in order to gain control of it. If such speculation were sufficiently plausible, then it might be a good idea to find out where control of Hollywood went to or tended to move to from 1922 to 1929; and this may provide a lead.

2) If, for the sake of discussion, the culprit(s) was involved in the occult, we can expand the possible motive further by including following orders from, placating, making offering to, and or what we might denote “scoring points” with forces and persons of an authentically sinister character. If so, this also permits us to include jealousy and the desired demise of others than just Taylor, such as Normand and Minter, to play a role in what actuated the crime.

In support of such conjecture, we can point to the seeming elaborate efforts of some person or persons to create distractions and red herrings for investigators. That in some such instances, as in the yellow journalistic reporting and editorials (assuming a connection), this necessarily involved people tied into big money; and who had both the means and wherewithal to wage such a long, drawn out, and years ongoing campaign of smear tactics, outrageous distortion, and misinformation.



But this is as far at the moment as I am, owing to practical and personal considerations, prepared to go just here.


243 “Avery, Charles; b. Chicago 1873; educ. Boston: stage career, covering 12 yrs., supporting W. H. Crane, William Faversham, starred in ‘Charlie’s Aunt,’ original company “The Clansman’; screen career, member of original Biograph, with original Bison, with Keystone since its organization in Cal.; dir. Arbuckle 31 pictures, played in cast 19 pictures with Charles Murray, all ‘Hogan’ series, ‘Submarine Pirate,’ ‘The Last Scent,’ an others with Sid [sic] Chaplin, dir. Ford Sterling, L-KO Comedies. Hght., 5, 4 1/2; dark complexion, gray hair, eyes. Ad., home, 2023 Sunset Blvd., Hollywood, cal.; Wil. 6099.” --- from “Motion Picture Studio Directory and Trade Annual 1920.” The mustached Avery, by the way, was a quite funny film comedian as evinced in “Mabel’s New Hero” (1913) and “A Muddy Romance” (1913.)

244 This film has “Mabel” being strapped to a buzz-saw track by villainous Ford Sterling; a gag commonly used in countless comedy films afterward.


245 The copy of this film is said to have been found in New Zealand is, this is writer’s opinion, a hoax film. Reasons for my believing this to be the case are 1) the only recognizable Keystone players are Normand and Davenport; while none of the rest of the reported cast are present, 2) Although film preservation.org (which hosts the film online) speaks of Charles Avery as Mabel’s beau, Charles Avery also is no where to be found here; in addition to being not listed in the original cast; 3) “Won in a Closet” is reported a 1 reel film. The “discovered” short is a 2 reeler; 4) Except for the interior at the police station (and possibly also the interior of the home), none of the interior sets or exteriors matches anything I have seen in a Keystone film; 5) Again, based on other Keystone films, the cast is much too large for such a trivial short, and it is unlikely Sennett would be spending so much extra for what is obviously not needed; 6) The film has what strikes one as a claustrophobic and, if I may say so, “dirty” feel, and Mabel is notably and uncharacteristically stiff and devoid of any real warmth; 6) It is an obvious semi-remake of “The Bangville Police” made almost a year prior; with Mabel wearing the identical clothes she wore in that film. And there are other reasons. But these I hope will in the meantime suffice. As to exactly how such a fabrication was done, I admittedly could not quite tell you; yet I can mention seeing other silent comedy hoax films; such as, for instance, the supposed “Charley Bowers” short found in “The Slapstick Encyclopedia” put out by Kino video at one time, but no longer currently available.

246 “Suzanna” was in production before and after the death of William Desmond Taylor; with the Taylor murder itself taking place during a break in filming.



1   ...   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət