***************************************************************************** * T A Y L O R O L O G Y * * A Continuing Exploration of the Life and Death of William Desmond Taylor * * * * Issue 15 -- March 1994 Editor: Bruce Long bruce@asu.edu * * All reprinted material is in the public domain * *The commentary by W. T. Sherman is Copyright 1994 by William Thomas Sherman* * TAYLOROLOGY may be freely distributed * ***************************************************************************** CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE: William T. Sherman, Guest Editor: Some Responses to a Number of Points Made in TAYLOROLOGY In Defense of Mabel Normand The Issue of Peavey's Credibility The Credibility of Howard Fellows' Testimony The Time Element Problem Evidence for a Cover-Up Summaries of the Cases against Charlotte Shelby and Carl Stockdale ***************************************************************************** What is TAYLOROLOGY? TAYLOROLOGY is a newsletter focusing on the life and death of William Desmond Taylor, a top film Paramount film director in early Hollywood who was shot to death on February 1, 1922. His unsolved murder was one of Hollywood's major scandals. This newsletter will deal with: (a) The facts of Taylor's life; (b) The facts and rumors of Taylor's murder; (c) The impact of the Taylor murder on Hollywood and the nation. Primary emphasis will be given toward reprinting, referencing and analyzing source material, and sifting it for accuracy. ***************************************************************************** William T. Sherman has asked to temporarily take over the helm of TAYLOROLOGY in order to present his views on the Taylor case, so for this issue and the next, editorship will be his. Except for the endnotes (where Bruce Long couldn't resist a few defensive comments), the rest of this issue is his doing. Take it away, Bill! ***************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** "Before we can make any accurate speculations of the causes and guilt of those involved we must know something of the community in which the victim lived and in which he died. It is my first contention that the murder itself and its consequent lack of solution had its roots deeply buried in the inner character of the community. I am convinced of this. I was there!" -- King Vidor, private papers I want to express my humble gratitude to Bruce Long for giving me this opportunity, using the forum of his TAYLOROLOGY, to express some ideas and views on the William Desmond Taylor murder case. I am an author working on a book on silent film comedienne Mabel Normand. Beginning in November 1990, a four part article I did on Mabel, entitled "Love and Courage: A Look at the Films and Career of Mabel Normand" appeared in CLASSIC IMAGES. As well, an updated filmography of her work, was published in July 1992 in that same magazine. Those with a special interest in the Taylor case owe Bruce a great debt for the absolutely excellent and invaluable research he has done on the mystery, and there can be no gainsaying that he ranks with Vidor and Kirkpatrick as one of the most preeminent modern authorities on the case (Giroux, to my mind, has contributed little but more confusion). Although, as evinced by what follows, I am not in agreement with him on all the conclusions he has reached, I would be the first to admit that without the work he has done, I would have made little headway of my own in examining and chronicling the mystery. Not a few of the articles and clippings included here originated from him. To Bruce then, a very special and respectful thanks! THOSE WITH COMMENTS OR INFORMATION ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MAY WRITE ME: WILLIAM T. SHERMAN, 3014 N. W. 75TH ST., SEATTLE, WA 98117 In the course of this my guest "stint," I would like to address the following: 1). Some Responses to a Number of the Points Bruce has made in his TAYLOROLOGY. 2). In Defense of Mabel Normand 3). The Issue of Peavey's credibility 4). The Credibility of Howard Fellows' Testimony 5). The Time Element Problem 6). Evidence for a Cover-up 7). Summaries of the Cases against Charlotte Shelby and Carl Stockdale 8). A Look at the Character of Dist.-Atty. Thomas Lee Woolwine and his Administration Note. Emphasis given in italics [changed to capitalization below] to portions of articles here is my own. Also, I would ask that readers withhold final judgment till they have been through all of the analysis or evidence presented. Finally, I do not, by any means, claim to have completely solved all of the mystery, but it is hoped that the effort made here will help towards that end. ***************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** 1). SOME RESPONSES TO A NUMBER OF POINTS BRUCE HAS MADE IN HIS TAYLOROLOGY. a) In Issue 11 of TAYLOROLOGY Bruce states that Charles Eyton did not, based on the inquest testimony of Detective Ziegler, arrive on the scene of the murder prior to the arrival of the police. According to Detective Lieutenant Sanderson in his 1941 official report, Eyton and company were on the scene prior to the arrival of the police, see WILLIAM DESMOND TAYLOR: A DOSSIER, page 321. A possible explanation for Ziegler's statement was that he was lying as part of a quite understandable cover-up -- which cover-up will be looked at later in my analysis. [1] b) While it is true that the contents of the letters exchanged between Mabel and Taylor were not (at least to my knowledge) ever published, it is not strictly true that there was never printed a specific indication as to the character of their contents. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 11, 1922 LOS ANGELES EXAMINER "There is no secret about any phase of my relations with Mr. Taylor. My letters to him--I would gladly set them before the world if the authorities care to do that. I have nothing to conceal. "I knew Mr. Taylor had letters of mine. Once several weeks before he was murdered I saw them in a drawer of his desk. I remonstrated with him. `Why do you save my letters, Billy? I asked. There's nothing in them.' He merely smiled in answer. "I have been charged with trying to recover those letters; with trying to conceal them. That is silly. If those letters are printed you will see that they are most of them casual; they express the jesting spirit that characterized our relations. We teased each other and made fun of each other a great deal. We did that continually on the night he was murdered, when I dropped in for a few minutes to see him." As for the letters, she said, he would write her: "Dear Mabel: I know you're an awfully busy woman and haven't much time to grant a poor duffer like me, but--how about dinner together next Wednesday and then the Orpheum? "Yours always, "Billy." And on one occasion she said she answered: "Dear Desperate Desmond: "Sorry I cannot dine with you tomorrow. But I have a previous engagement with a Hindoo Prince. Some other time." "Then," she said, "I would sign the letter with a little sketch of myself, or by drawing a `daffodil.' You know the daffodils, those funny little comic figures." "Or he would write to me about books. I just want to show you some of the books he gave me." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** 2). IN DEFENSE OF MABEL NORMAND The person who probably suffered the most from the Taylor murder in public eyes was Mabel Normand. More than any other connected with the case, she received most of the press' harsh criticism and crude sarcasm as a result of her involvement, and quite unfairly. a). Did Mabel lie? There can be little room for doubt that Mabel gave more interviews on her involvement in the case than anyone else. She gave numerous interviews over the years till her death in 1930, recounting the events which took place in the afternoon and early evening of February 1, 1922, and in all of them there is very little or no deviation from the story she gives. If she ever had been not telling the truth, this would have been quite a feat, especially when we take into account the many illnesses and traumas she was subject to. In Issue 6 of TAYLOROLOGY Bruce gives his speculated interpretation of the conversation that took place between Mabel and Taylor the night of the murder. Well, with all due respect to Bruce, his characterization is preposterous and without justifiable foundation. The only persons who could possibly speak to what was said were Mabel, Taylor and possibly Peavey. For my part, I see no reason to doubt Mabel's own version given her consistency. There is, not surprisingly, some honest dispute as to the nature and extent of Mabel's use of profanity and drugs. While I think few scholars would out and out deny the incidences of either, there are some who have jumped to conclusions as to the character and extent of both her use of profanity and drugs without any hard evidence to substantiate such conclusions. [2] For example, Bruce is quick to conclude that the many reported cases of Mabel's being ill were covered-up instances of problems she was having with drugs, and not real, natural illnesses at all. Again, there is no hard evidence to warrant such an assumption. [3] Some have said she did not die of tuberculosis, but instead died of drug addiction. If the illnesses Mabel was frequently reported as suffering from were genuine, they could easily be explained as early symptoms of the tuberculosis. Where did Mabel contract this illness? While we can never know with certainty, it is interesting to note a little story Samuel Goldwyn tells in his 1923 autobiography and look at Hollywood entitled BEHIND THE SCREEN: "Those interested in the personality of Mabel Normand can receive no more illuminating introduction to her than the incident just sketched. There are a hundred tales of this characteristic response to any human appeal clustering about the name of Mabel Normand. One which came directly under my observation relates to a poor girl with a dependent family. The girl was stricken with tuberculosis and, although Mabel did not know her, she became interested in her condition through a friend of hers. Immediately she went to see her, and when she left she pressed something into the sick girl's hand. It was only after she had gone that the other realized what her caller had left. It was a check for a thousand dollars. "Nor does Mabel wait for the large demand upon her sympathy. Gifts from her come unprovoked as manna. She is likely to go out and buy a hundred dollar beaded bag for a stenographer in the organization, and just as likely to invest a corresponding amount in remembering somebody whom she has met once and happened to like." Mabel was a far more talented, prominent and influential movie star at the time of the murder than some have led us to believe. Anita Garvin, now 87, who appeared with Mabel in "Raggedy Rose" told me that, at her height, Mabel was as popular in fans' love and admiration as Pickford. In terms of her relations to the press she was like someone like Marlon Brando in that she did not feel a great need to seek publicity, yet it came to her. No doubt some were jealous of this fact. She championed the under privileged, for in practically all her feature films she plays working girls. Most of all, however, due to her free spirited, uninhibited, character, she represented a threat to established money and established society. She inspired envy and resentment, both for her charm and looks, and for the incredible amount of money she made as a film star. It is little wonder then, the extremely negative myths and story telling that grew up around her after her connection with the Taylor case. The reasons for this become even more clear when we contemplate the possibility of a cover-up. ***************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** 3) THE ISSUE OF PEAVEY'S CREDIBILITY In Issue 6 of TAYLOROLOGY, Bruce examines Peavey's theory behind the murder. It is my confirmed contention that Peavey was an unabashed liar, and accomplice, willingly or no, in the cover-up of the murder. Perhaps he was even in on the murder himself. [4] To prove these claims, let's look at some of the statements Peavey made in interviews: a) In his earliest accounts of finding Taylor's body on the morning of February 2, Peavey states that he found his dead employer lying in a pool of blood. Interestingly enough, this crucial detail he gives in his first interviews, which discredits the notion that when Taylor was found it was thought he died of natural causes, is omitted entirely from all the later interviews he gave. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 2, 1922 R. W. Borough LOS ANGELES RECORD NEGRO VALET SOBS STORY OF TRAGEDY "`Good night, Henry, good night,' he said to me when I left him yesterday," said Henry Peavey, Taylor's colored valet, between sobs as he told of the tragedy that ended the life of his beloved employer last night. "`Good night, Mr. Taylor," I said to him, and that's the last I saw of him until I opened the door this morning and found his dead body, his feet stretching toward me on the floor." The negro broke into soft sobs and then declared passionately: "I wish I could get the man that did it. I'd go to jail for the rest of my life if I could get him." As Peavey talked, he was taking some white cloths clotted with blood from a wire paper basket and placing them in the court incinerator. "His blood," the negro said, pathetically. "We just used the cloths to clean up the room." "Mr. Taylor was the most wonderful man I ever worked for and I don't see how anybody would want to kill him. I have been with him six months." Peavey said that he came to Taylor's apartment early today, intending to go through the usual round of his duties. "I was going to fix his bath water for him," said the valet, "and then give him his dose of medicine. After that I was going to fix his breakfast--a couple of boiled eggs, some toast and a glass of orange juice. "WHEN I OPENED THE DOOR I SAW HIM LYING THERE STRETCHED OUT ON THE FLOOR, HIS FEET TOWARD ME AND THE FLOOR ALL BLOODY. "I turned and screamed and the landlord came rushing in.' Peavey said he lived at 127 1/2 Third Street. "I have not been staying with Taylor during the night, but have been sleeping in my room." Peavey's theory was that somebody slipped into the open door of Taylor's apartment when Taylor took Mabel Normand to her car late last night, and shot him from ambush inside the room. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 3, 1922 LOS ANGELES EXAMINER VALET TELLS OF FINDING BODY There were tears on the cheek of Henry Peavey, colored, who for six months had been employed as William Desmond Taylor's valet, as he told the story yesterday of how he discovered the murdered man's body upon entering the apartment yesterday morning. The night before, when Peavey left to go to his own home, Taylor called a cheery, "Good night, Henry." "I can hear his voice yet," said this humble mourner. "It was the kind of strong, friendly voice that made a man feel good." And then he burst out, "I'd be willing to go to jail for the rest of my life if I could get the man that did it." The valet was at his last task for the master; he was wiping up the blood from the floor, but his sobs shook him at times so that he could not proceed. "I've worked for a lot of men," he went on, "but Mr. Taylor was the most wonderful of all of them. I came here this morning intending to fix his bath and get his breakfast, which I always does. And before the bath I'd bring him a dose of medicine. It was always just the same--for breakfast two soft- boiled eggs, toast and a glass of orange juice. "And having it in my mind to make everything just as nice as I could, knowing he would be pleased and say a kind word, I opened the door. "AND THEN I FOUND HIM STRETCHED OUT ON THE FLOOR, WHICH WAS ALL BLOODY AND HIS FEET TOWARD THE DOOR. "And then I backed to the door, pretty near overcome with horror, and yelled for the landlord. The way I figure it is that somebody slipped in last night when Mr. Taylor took Miss Normand to the car and shot him from hiding. But how could any one kill such a man as he was?" Peavey lives at 127 1/2 East Third street. His habit was to reach the Taylor apartment before breakfast and leave after dinner. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * b) Peavey later clearly implied, if not stated, that he believed Mabel committed the murder. If he was lying about this what might have been his motives? 1) It was Mabel, who through giving her version of her visit with Taylor, disclosed to the public Peavey's charge for "vagrancy" in Westlake Park. 2) Mabel, in describing her visit, refers to Peavey's silly outfit in a way he might not have found particularly flattering. 3) Peavey was involved, voluntarily or no, in a cover-up * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 11, 1922 LOS ANGELES EXAMINER "I then directed William, my chauffeur, to drive to Mr. Taylor's home. I arrived, went up on the porch, and the door was opened by Mr. Taylor's valet, Henry Peavey. I saw Taylor inside talking on the phone, and when Henry asked me to step in, I refrained because I didn't want to eavesdrop on his conversation. "Then Henry went inside and told Mr. Taylor I was there. At once he said good-by, hung up the phone and came forward to greet me." "I know why you're here," he said. "You haven't come to see me at all; you've just come after that book!" "The book was `Rosmundy,' by Ethel M. Dell. It was not a copy of one of Freud's works as has been said. I read Freud and Nietzche long before I met Mr. Taylor. "For some time Mr. Taylor and I spoofed each other in our usual way, while Henry worked about the back part of the house. I looked about and said, `This place has changed since I saw it last. I see you have both a piano and Victrola now. My, you're getting all together too rich.' "Then we discussed books. We discussed `Three Soldiers,' a book that Chicago newspaper man, John Dos Passos. He had read it only recently and was much interested. And several other new books came into the discussion. "When Henry Peavey entered I stared at him in amusement. I stared at his curious attire. He wore green golf stockings, yellow knickers and a dark coat. He left by the front door, smiling broadly and saying good night to me and Mr. Taylor. The way he said it--he's a funny colored boy with lots of mannerisms--made me smile. "When Henry had gone I said, `Why don't you get him a set of golf sticks? Then he'd be all set up.' "Mr. Taylor's face grew serious then and he discussed Henry at some length, telling me how Henry had been arrested a short time before and how he had gone down to see the judge about the vagrancy charge. And how he had put up a bond of $200 to secure Henry's release. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * c) What was Mabel's attitude toward Peavey? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 7, 1922 LOS ANGELES EXAMINER "If Peavey, his colored servant, says that I had asked him about any girls that Mr. Taylor had ever been interested in, it is a venomous fabrication. Never in my life have I spoken to this man directly, and never have I talked to him in any way except in the presence of others, including Mr. Taylor. And as for the subject of girls--the question never entered my mind." [5] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * d) Peavey claimed that Mabel once came over to Taylor's bungalow and in a jealous fit of rage ripped up her pictures he possessed of her in his presence. [6] Is it possible that Peavey fabricated this incident based on something that takes place in Mabel's film "Molly-O"? Note the following excerpt from the synopsis to that film. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * from synopsis to "Molly'O" Mack Sennett papers Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences "...At this Molly'O becomes enraged, denouncing the heavy woman and all society, and storms from the house. The hero is, perhaps, just coming up the steps to pay a call and is surprised to meet Molly'O. He speaks to her pleasantly, but she, being so angry, merely sees him as one of the society clique. She denounces him and walks away, much to his surprise. It may be a good touch to show the effect of this insult on Molly'O by having her, on reaching home, take the hero's picture and the article about him and destroy them, getting over her disappointment in the treatment of the class of people she had thought were respectable." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e) Peavey and George Arto's testimony In mid February 1922, George Arto, brother in law of King Vidor, came forward with a quite interesting story which was presented to the public as follows: Note how Peavey's response changes over time. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 12, 1922 LOS ANGELES TIMES Peavey Questioned Henry Peavey, colored valet for Mr. Taylor. was summarily called to Dist.-Atty. Woolwine's office late yesterday following the discovery of new and important information regarding the murder. Peavey had previously been questioned at considerable length in Mr. Woolwine's office by Chief Deputy Doran. The valet arrived at Mr. Woolwine's office shortly after 3 p.m. yesterday and was closeted for a considerable time with the District Attorney, Mr. Doran and officers of the police department and of the Sheriff's force. The instructions for the officers to bring Peavey to the office where the investigation into the murder mystery has been centralized came shortly after a new witness had been in long conference with the officials. This witness whose name was said by Undersheriff Biscailus and Deputy Sheriff Nolan to be Henry Britt, but which was signed by the young man as Edward F. Arto, was taken to Mr. Woolwine's office from Sheriff Traeger's headquarters. He refused to give his name to newspaper men. Mr. Arto, as he signed himself. said he over heard a conversation either the night of the murder or the night before between Peavey and another man regarding Mr. Taylor's affairs. The nature of the conversation aside from that Mr. Arto declined to divulge, but he believed the information of value to the investigators. Mr. Arto was going to the home of some relatives near the Taylor apartments on South Alvarado street about 7:10 p.m. when he heard the two men talking. He gave a rather vague description of the strange man but said he was an American apparently, wore a cap and aroused Mr. Arto's suspicion. PEAVEY STRENUOUSLY DENIED THAT HE HELD ANY SUCH CONVERSATION. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 20, 1922 LOS ANGELES RECORD A search was being conducted Monday for the third man, who, according to the statement of George F. Arto, was talking with Mabel Normand's chauffeur and William Desmond Taylor's valet outside the Taylor bungalow the night of the murder. William Davis, chauffeur, insists there was no third man. Arto declares just as strongly that there was. HENRY PEAVEY, THE NEGRO VALET, SAYS HE IS NOT SURE THAT A MAN MIGHT HAVE STOPPED WHILE HE WAS TALKING TO DAVIS TO ASK FOR A MATCH OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT. Arto describes the third man as a rough looking customer. The sheriff's office attaches great importance to this point and it is believed that the mystery would be on the way to solution if this third man could be found and identified. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 20, 1922 SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER William Davis, the chauffeur of Mabel Normand is to be questioned again. He has been three times upon the grill, and each time has corroborated with unchanging relation of minute circumstances, the story told by Miss Normand of her visit to Taylor on the evening of his murder. Woolwine, however, is not yet satisfied concerning the presumed error of George F. Arto, who continues emphatically to declare that, passing the premises, he saw Henry Peavey, the colored valet, talking to a stranger in a plaid cap and muffler in front of the house, while Davis was seated in Miss Normand's car, and the actress was inside the bungalow with Taylor. DAVIS AND PEAVEY BOTH DECLARE ARTO TO BE MISTAKEN. ARTO, WITH EQUAL VEHEMENCE, DECLARES HE IS NOT. Arto, a motion picture mechanic and brother of Florence Vidor, one of the best known of screen actresses, reiterated today with a good deal of emphasis the declaration of the scene as he observed it. "There were three men," he said. "One was a chauffeur who was sitting in the car at the wheel. His cap was down over his face, and I could not make out his features. "On the sidewalk, some distance from the car and engaged in conversation were two men--Peavey, whom I recognized, having seen him a number of times, and the other a white man. "This man wore a cap and was rather rough looking. "As I passed I heard the name "Taylor" spoken two or three times. "In my original statement I was uncertain as to whether this occurred on the night of the murder or the preceding one. However, there was a circumstance which enabled me to check up on this. I was on my way to the home of a young woman, (I) was calling on her. "On comparing notes with her I established the date Feb. 1. "Although it is doubtful whether I could identify this man should I see him again, there can be no question that I saw him." It is a possibility, the police believe, that Davis may not have seen this man. BUT, ON THE STRENGTH OF ARTO'S MOST POSITIVE ASSERTION, THEY CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR PEAVEY'S FAILURE TO REMEMBER HIM. Peavey has been cross-examined some five or six times, the last by the District Attorney, but in none of the latter statements was there any substantial variations from the original. Although he was instructed not to leave town or change his residence without notifying the District Attorney, the authorities have taken it for granted that he has told all he knows. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** 4) THE CREDIBILITY OF HOWARD FELLOWS' TESTIMONY It has been taken for granted by most scholars that the testimony of Taylor's chauffeur, Howard Fellows, brother of Lasky employee Harry Fellows, is not to be doubted. Fellows' testimony is critical because it supposedly places almost exactly when the murder was to have taken place. Is it possible, however, that Fellows, as part of a cover-up, was lying? Here is Fellows' testimony: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 8, 1922 LOS ANGELES EXAMINER Declaring that he called William D. Taylor at 7:55 o'clock Wednesday night and receiving no answer, went to the apartment of the film director. arriving there at 8:15 o'clock, rang the doorbell and still met with no response, Howard Fellows, chauffeur for the murdered director, last night definitely fixed the time within which the crime must have been committed and added facts regarded as of first magnitude importance in their bearing upon the crime. Strangely enough, this young man, who had been Taylor's driver for nearly six months, had not been questioned at length until yesterday, when an Examiner representative called on him at his home, 1622 Shatto place. He is brother of Harry Fellows, who was Taylor's assistant director. Yesterday Detective Sergeant Tom Zeigler took Howard to the Taylor home, 404-B South Alvarado street. He was partially identified by a resident of the neighborhood as the person he had seen seated in a car on the night of the murder near the scene of the crime and about the time it was committed. Fellows denied this and convinced Zeigler that the man was mistaken. One of Fellows' most interesting statements, other than that relating to his movements and observations on the night of the assassination, had to do with an alleged quarrel between Taylor and Mabel Normand. "I was driving Mr. Taylor and Miss Normand from the Ambassador Hotel, where they had attended a New Year's Eve party, to her home," said Fellows. "On the way they had a quarrel. I don't know what it was about, but both were very much excited. "Mr. Taylor took Miss Normand home and then returned to his apartment. Upon arriving there he broke down and wept. "On the following morning he did up some jewelry in a package and took it to Miss Normand at her home." Henry Peavey, Taylor's colored valet, confirms this. "Mr. Taylor and Miss Normand were very affectionate," continued Fellows. Questioned independently, Peavey said Taylor often caressed her. As to these matters Fellows spoke casually, but when he entered upon the events of the night of February 1, his narrative became astounding both as to its content, and because he never told it before. "I left the house (Mr. Taylor's) about 4:30 Wednesday afternoon," Fellows began. "Mr. Taylor told me he might be going out in the evening and instructed me to be sure to telephone by 7:30. I went to the home of a young lady friend and was there until 7:55. I recall the time accurately because I had it on my mind to call Mr. Taylor and ask him if he would need the car. "I called him two or three times before that hour, but received no reply. I left the house of my girl friend at five minutes to eight and drove directly to Mr. Taylor's. "I reached there about quarter past eight. "There was a light in the living room. I was surprised that Mr. Taylor should be home and not have answered the telephone. "I rang the doorbell. Silence. I rang again. Still, no response. I must have rung three or four times. Then I concluded: `Well, he has some one there and doesn't want to answer. "So I put up the car, I was around back of the house, and it is peculiar that persons in the neighborhood should have heard me walking and not have heard me put up the car. I made a good deal of noise doing this, as the garage is difficult to get into, and I guess I must have backed the car up four or five times. "I am satisfied that I am the man Mrs. Douglas MacLean saw standing on the porch and leaving the house, I wore a cap and a raincoat. "I noticed no cars in the immediate vicinity and saw no one who aroused my suspicions. "Naturally, I am convinced that both when I phoned and when I rang the doorbell, Mr. Taylor was lying there on the floor murdered." Taking the testimony of Fellows and Miss Normand together, it is now possible to fix the time of the murder within fifteen minutes. Miss Normand said she left Taylor between 7:30 and 7:45 o'clock. Fellows called at 7:55. The murder was committed between Miss Normand's leave taking and Fellows' phoning. Hence, for the first time, the police have a picture of the murder as it relates to the time when and in which it was committed. Before Fellows' statement became available there was no conclusive evidence as to the time the bullet of the assassin struck the film director down. testimony as to the shot being heard was so vague as to be unconvincing. It could not be said with finality that the murder did not occur at midnight or at any hour of the night. The acts of the drama leading to the murder must have been brief. It would appear, indeed, that there were no preliminaries, that the intruder, concealed in the room, stepped out and fired the shot. It is therefore deduced that it was a premeditated crime and not one precipitated by a quarrel or any sort of scene more than of momentary duration. One group of police investigators and most of the deputy sheriffs working on the case are now convinced that the visit of Mabel Normand was the immediate antecedent occasion for the crime. This theory naturally takes for granted that Miss Normand had not the slightest intimation that her dear friend was to be shot to death, but officers cannot help but believe that the murderer found the way for his crime paved in some way by the visit of Miss Normand. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Some Questions: a) Fellows says that Taylor broke down and cried when he brought him home from the Ambassador Hotel outing with Mabel. Why would Taylor, a man known for his emotional reserve, invite his chauffeur inside the house and permit him (the chauffeur) to see him break down and cry? b) Why did it take almost a week (February 7-8) for Howard Fellows' testimony to come forth? Surely, he must have been aware of its weighty significance? Why did he not contact the police earlier and why hadn't the police contacted him, given his close personal business relationship to the slain director? [7] c) Did no one hear Fellow's starting his car because he wasn't there in the first place? d) Why did Fellows insist it was he whom Faith MacLean saw? Fellows merely knocked on the door, whereas Faith MacLean said she saw a man leaving the bungalow and closing the door behind him. ***************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** 5) THE TIME ELEMENT PROBLEM It has generally been assumed that Taylor's murder took place within the last quarter hour prior to 8 o'clock, but could this be wrong? The final conclusion that the murder took place within this time frame rests entirely on Fellows testimony a) To bring into question this assumption, let's return to the testimony of George Arto. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 22, 1922 LOS ANGELES EXAMINER An amplified statement secured yesterday by The Examiner from George F. Arto, motion picture writer, gives new facts which tend to change the whole theory of the crime as to its time element. Arto, it will be recalled, passed front of the Taylor house on the night of the murder and, as he states, saw Peavey standing on the sidewalk talking to a man of swarthy complexion--a rough looking character. This was at approximately 7 o'clock. HIS MEMORY REFRESHED BY CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH HIS ATTENTION HAD BEEN CALLED SINCE GIVING HIS FIRST STATEMENT, HE REMEMBERED YESTERDAY THAT HE RETURNED TO THE BUNGALOW COURT AT 7:45 O'CLOCK. HE IS POSITIVE OF THIS, HE SAID, AS HE PHONED A YOUNG WOMAN WHO LIVES NEAR THE TAYLOR BUNGALOW, ON WHOM HE WAS CALLING. HE TOLD HER IN THIS CONVERSATION THAT HE WOULD BE OVER IN FIVE MINUTES AND, LOOKING AT HIS WATCH, HE FOUND THE TIME TO BE 7:40. HE IMMEDIATELY STARTED TO WALK FROM HIS HOME AT 220 SOUTH BONNIE BRAE STREET. HE REACHED A POINT IN FRONT OF TAYLOR'S HOUSE WITHIN FIVE MINUTES. "AT THAT TIME," HE SAID, "I SAW NO ONE AROUND. MISS NORMAND'S CAR HAD GONE, AND PEAVEY WAS NOT IN SIGHT." HE WENT TO THE HOUSE OF THE YOUNG WOMAN, AND SAT IN THE FRONT ROOM NEXT TO THE WINDOW UNTIL ABOUT TEN MINUTES AFTER EIGHT. "DURING THAT TIME," HE DECLARED, "I HEARD NO SHOT AND AM POSITIVE THAT I WOULD HAVE HEARD A SHOT BEEN FIRED." Arto is familiar with firearms, having tested guns for the Savage Arms Company and would be able, he asserts, to distinguish a pistol shot from the backfire of automobiles. As close to the scene of the crime as was either Mrs. MacLean or her maid, Christina Jewett, and in a better position to hear and observe, Arto nevertheless was not attracted by any unusual noises. Hence, it is now believed possible that the murder may have been committed either before or after the time fixed by Mrs. MacLean. And District Attorney Woolwine yesterday admitted the likelihood that the man seen by Mrs. MacLean leaving Taylor's front door was Howard Fellows, the film director's chauffeur. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * b) In the MacLean's earliest version of their sitting down to dinner and hearing the shot, they state that the time was 9 O'CLOCK. Why this major discrepancy with later versions? [8] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 2, 1922 LONG BEACH DAILY TELEGRAM Shot down while writing at a desk by a mysterious assassin, William Desmond Taylor, well known motion picture producer and director, was found dead today in his bungalow in the Westlake District. Death was caused by a bullet wound in the back, just below the left shoulder, according to police. Taylor, who was 50 years old and wealthy, apparently was killed between 9 and 10 o'clock last night. The body was found today by a colored servant when he reported for duty at the house. Police detectives who first reached the scene reported that death was from natural causes and it was not until nearly an hour later when an undertaker was removing the body that the bullet wound was found. Additional officers immediately were dispatched to the house and a comprehensive investigation was begun. The bullet wound caused an internal hemorrhage and Taylor accidentally died a few minutes after being attacked. DETECTIVES QUESTIONED NEIGHBORS, WHO STATED THEY HEARD WHAT APPARENTLY WAS THE REPORT OF THE REVOLVER SHORTLY AFTER 9 P.M. BUT AT THAT TIME BELIEVED IT WAS CAUSED BY AN AUTOMOBILE. The police immediately began search for Edward F. Sands, former secretary of Taylor. Robbery was not the motive for the murder it was announced, as officers found $73 in the pocket of the slain man, as well as a large amount of jewelry in the house. Taylor's revolver was found in a drawer of the dresser in his bedroom on the second floor of the pretentious house. It had not been discharged and none of his personal effects had been disturbed. The officers reported they are confident that revenge was the motive of the mysterious slayer. The police records state that when Taylor went to England a year ago on a business and pleasure trip he left Sands, then his secretary, in charge of his personal affairs and when he returned he reported to Detective Sergeants Herman Cline and E.R. Cato that Sands had robbed him of money, jewelry, clothing and a valuable automobile. A felony warrant was issued for Sands and the police say he never was found. A second robbery at the Taylor residence was attributed to Sands by the police. Among the witnesses questioned by the police during the morning were Mabel Normand, Edna Purviance and Douglas MacLean, prominent film stars. MISS NORMAND ADMITTED HAVING VISITED TAYLOR'S BUNGALOW IN THE EARLY EVENING YESTERDAY TO DISCUSS A NEW PRODUCTION AND THAT HE HAD ESCORTED HER TO HER AUTOMOBILE AT THE CURB SHORTLY BEFORE 9 P.M. Taylor was to telephone to her later in the evening. Miss Normand said he did not do so. Miss Purviance, who lives in a house adjoining Taylor's bungalow, returned home about midnight and saw a light burning in Taylor's study. MACLEAN AND HIS WIFE, WHO LIVE IN THE SAME DISTRICT, STATED THEY HEARD THE SHOT FIRED AFTER 9 O'CLOCK. THEY THOUGHT AT THE TIME IT MIGHT BE AN AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST. THEY DESCRIBED A STRANGE MAN WHOM THEY SAW IN THE STREET. Miss Normand told detectives that while she was talking with Taylor early last evening concerning a new picture production the robberies of the Taylor home were mentioned. "He told me he feared Sands and that he had a premonition of something wrong," Miss Normand was quoted as telling officers. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 2, 1922 LOS ANGELES EXPRESS ...The police are not, however, basing their investigation now upon the theory that the thief was the slayer. Instead, they at present list it as a "murder mystery." THE SLAYER EVIDENTLY COMMITTED THE CRIME ABOUT NEAR 9 O'CLOCK LAST NIGHT. IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT DOUGLAS MACLEAN, MOTION PICTURE ACTOR, AND HIS WIFE, WHO LIVED NEXT DOOR, SAY THEY HEARD THE SOUND OF THE PISTOL SHOT. Police also believe that the slaying occurred at that time because of the opinion expressed by the deputy coroner that the man had been dead for more than ten hours when the body was found. The last person who saw Taylor alive, with the exception of the assassin, was Miss Mabel Normand, film star. She visited him at his home last night. She arrived at the home shortly before 7 o'clock, she said. Her statement to Detectives Winn and Murphy follows: "I had my chauffeur drive out to Mr. Taylor's home last evening, as we had a number of business matters to discuss. I should judge that I arrived there a little before 7 o'clock. It was while I was there that we again discussed the case of a man who had been in Mr. Taylor's employ and who stole from him. "I asked Mr. Taylor what he intended doing with the man if he was captured--and he said that he would see that the man was prosecuted. We then discussed a certain scenario that I had written and a scenario that a friend of mine had written. "While we were talking, William Peavey, Mr. Taylor's butler, was moving about in the two rooms. It was then, also, that Mr. Taylor told me that William was in some little trouble. He said that his servant had been arrested on a charge of vagrancy and that he had been forced to go down to the police station and deposit $200 bail for him. "He said that he intended appearing in police court at a o'clock [sic] this afternoon and said he would do what he could to aid his servant if he was convinced that the man was not guilty. But he said that if Peavey had been guilty of doing any wrong that he would be forced to discharge him. "After we had discussed a few other trifling matters Mr. Taylor asked me if I would remain and have dinner with him. I excused myself and told him that I must hurry to my home. He then asked me if he might visit me later that night and I told him I should be glad if he would come over to my home. He promised to call me on the telephone some time about 9 o'clock. "Mr. Taylor then accompanied me from his house to my automobile. My chauffeur, William Davis, was seated in the machine and heard Mr. Taylor bid me good-night. Mr. Taylor and I were talking when I saw Peavey leave the house. He spoke to all of us and bid us good-night. We talked for a few minutes longer and Mr. Taylor turned and walked up toward his house and my machine moved away. I have not seen him since." Davis, who lives at 1920 Las Palmas avenue, when questioned by the officers said the same story as did Miss Normand, and said that when they left there was no one moving about the yard that surrounds the house in which the tragedy occurred. It is evident, the detectives believe that Taylor after he entered the house sat down at once in front of his desk and that the assassin entered a few minutes later. The papers on the desk were mussed up and there were a large number of cancelled checks lying upon the desk. Miss Normand, in her statement to the police stated that the desk was in the same condition when she left the house, about 8 or 8:30 o'clock last night. It was at midnight that Miss Edna Purviance, who resides in the house adjoining Mr. Taylor's to the west, returned home. At that time, she said, she noticed that the lights were burning in Mr. Taylor's house. She went to the door, she said, and rang the bell and knocked upon the door. When she failed to secure a response she returned to her own home, believing Mr. Taylor probably had left the house after forgetting to turn off the electric light switch. At the time she was knocking upon the door the body of her friend was lying just behind the door and within a few feet of her. As detectives reconstruct the murder scene, they believe that the slayer opened the door a few minutes after Miss Normand had left, at the time Taylor was seated on a chair in front of the desk checking over the canceled checks. As Taylor half rose from his chair the slayer stepped into the room, and with pistol carefully aimed, pulled the trigger. The bullet entered the left breast just below the shoulder and ranged downward through the heart. Taylor fell over backward mortally wounded and probably died within a few seconds after he had been shot. But one shot was fired. The person who wielded the gun was evidently experienced in the handling of firearms and an excellent marksman. From the appearance of the wound it was evidently a .32 caliber pistol. The police believe that this was the caliber of the pistol because it made so little noise that the slayer was able to leave the house without attracting significant attention. When Peavey arrived and opened the house this morning all of the electric lights were burning just as they had been when Miss Purviance knocked at the door. Robbery was clearly not the motive of the crime. A purse containing $78 and a very valuable watch were found in the clothing on the body. There was no indication that any search had been made of the house for valuables and nothing was found to be missing when a careful check of the effects were made by Charles Eyton, manager of the Lasky studios and a close friend of the dead man. Charles Maigne, a friend of the dead man, told officers that he was positive that Taylor believed that sometime an enemy might return and do him harm. Douglas MacLean and his wife were having their supper in their home that also adjoins Taylor's house, but to the east, when they heard the sound of a shot. They place the time at about 9:30 or 9 o'clock in the statement they made to Detective Sergeants Wallis and Ziegler. Mrs. MacLean, however, told the officers that she noticed a man WALKING RAPIDLY DOWN THE WALK towards Taylor's home last evening shortly after Miss Normand left. She gave the following description of the man to officers: Height about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches, weight about 165 pounds. He had a muffler about his neck and was at the time wearing a plaid cap pulled over his eyes. She did not notice the clothing he was wearing and was unable to furnish the police with a better description because she says, she was unable to see distinctly at that hour of the night. "I had, of course, no reason to be suspicious of that man at that time," said Mrs. MacLean, when discussing the case with the two detective sergeants. "But now I am convinced that he was the slayer. It was after I had seen him that my husband and I sat down to dinner. THAT WAS ABOUT 8:30 OR 9 O'CLOCK, I GUESS. "We had just started our dinner when we heard a pistol shot. We did not investigate because we heard nothing further after that to arouse our suspicions and we thought that possibly the sound we heard then was that of an automobile backfiring in the street. Now, of course, we know that it was the shot that ended the life of Mr. Taylor." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Some Questions: 1) If Taylor was killed between 8:30 and 9, as given by the MacLean's original story, how did the killer get inside and wait to shoot him? Was he, based on this theory, killed and then left neatly in place, with his coat buttoned, the way he was found? Did someone gain entrance because they knew him? 2) Why is it stated that Mabel said he escorted her to her car shortly before 9 o'clock? Is this what she actually said in her very first interviews or was this falsely injected into reports? 3) Why are there differences in the MacLean's story, the first and later ones given? The first story says she saw a strange man walking "toward" the house (not leaving it). 4) Given Arto's testimony, was William Davis, Mabel's chauffeur, somehow in cahoots with an alleged cover-up conspiracy, perhaps even a conspiracy to commit the murder itself? It is interesting, if not in itself significant, to note that Davis was discharged from Mabel's employ not long after the murder. 5) Mabel is said to have referred to Peavey in the interview contained in the above article as "William." How could she possibly have made this mistake knowing full well that Peavey's first name was "Henry?" Was this interview with her concocted out of whole cloth or is it in fact genuine? Are the errors contained in the above piece a product of the reporter's sloppiness, or was he simply getting his report from someone else, i.e. hearsay? If the interview or interviews were purposely distorted or fabricated how might this be explained? Who might have gained by this? ***************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** 6) EVIDENCE FOR A COVER-UP The following are a number of brief points which suggest that there was a deliberate cover-up of Taylor's murder on the part of official authorities. Is it perhaps even possible that some official authorities actually participated in some way with the killing? Note. Neither this or subsequent listings presumes to be exhaustive. * In Peavey's interviews the first days after the murder (presented earlier here) he states that he found Taylor lying in a pool of blood. The bungalow court owner Jessurums made a similar statement. If so, what person in their right mind would automatically leap to the assumption that Taylor died of natural causes, as is reported to have happened when he was first found? * Woolwine's connections with Shelby prior to murder * Jim Smith, Woolwine investigator, in Shelby's apt/home night of murder (see Marjorie Berger's testimony). * Missing key evidence in police files, particularly Shelby's Grand Jury testimony which closed investigation. * Investigators let go who picked up on good leads * Neither Stockdale nor Kirkwood was brought in for testimony * Shelby wasn't brought in for questioning, despite Berger's testimony about her phone call the morning of Feb. 2, 1922 * Woolwine in 1915 accused of bribery, Asa Keyes convicted for same in 1930 * Woolwine's well known and widely reported bungling of the investigation. * Focus on drug dealers instead as the "real" problem facing the city. The absurdity of many of these drug dealer stories, such as that of Harry "the Chink" Field, speak for themselves. Obviously much of these testimonies were got out of criminals who wanted to get a deal on their sentence, and corrupt police officials, such as Keyes, took advantage of this. * The host of innumerable and ludicrous leads and "confessions" * Buron Fitts makes statement, 1930, that all evidence on the case would be saved for the record, while this is far from what actually has happened. * Mabel left in lurch, focus distracted to her, even though most investigators knew she was innocent. * Burton Fitts commits suicide with .38 revolver very similar to one used in murder. Was his message perhaps, "This is where the department went wrong?" POSSIBLE MOTIVES FOR COVER-UP: 1. Protect Shelby (and possibly Mabel as well, assuming Stockdale's involvement) 2. Bribery by Shelby. 3. Antipathy to nonconformist, womanizing, anti-censorship radical Taylor. 4. Shelby close friends with Woolwine. 5. D.A.'s thought that it was better to let Shelby go free, then to admit their mistake/corruption; or exonerate Mabel (she was after all an alleged drug user so she must be guilty of something anyway, right?). 6. Get rid of Mabel 7. Perhaps there was actual complicity by some of the police in Taylor's murder. Given the bizarre nature of the Taylor case, an explanation like this may not be as far fetched as it might at first seem. [9] The following is a rather interesting article with regard to this possible theory: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * February 4, 1922 LOS ANGELES EXAMINER Woman Tells Of Seeing Man Acting Suspiciously An excellent example of habitual observation was brought to light yesterday when Mrs. Ida Garrow, a modiste living at the Rose of Sharon Apartments, told Examiner investigators that on Wednesday night as she was walking down Ocean View avenue, at the intersection of Alvarado street, she noticed a man acting in a very peculiar manner. "It was about EIGHT THIRTY, OR POSSIBLY TWENTY MINUTES OF NINE," said Mrs. Garrow yesterday, "Wednesday evening I was hurrying to my club which meets at the corner of Grand View and Ocean View avenue. I was late for a class that was studying Hebrew which I did not want to miss, but as I have trained my observational faculties in the study of astrology. It is without voluntary effort that I perceive whatever comes within the range of vision. "As I came to Alvarado street, I saw a tall, slender, smooth shaven policeman, whose face I would instinctively recognize if I were to see him again, walking toward Ocean View avenue. Walking with him was another man, to whom I did not pay particular attention, because my curiosity was aroused by the peculiar actions of a man who was coming toward me a few feet in front of the policeman. Although the policeman was not paying the slightest attention to this man, the man was glancing back apprehensively over his shoulder, and at times looking in away from the street which would be directly in toward the court where the body of Mr. Taylor was found. "As the policeman got closer to this man, the man crossed the street, and I noticed as he crossed that he was short and stout and wore a long overcoat, but there was the shadow of a building falling at such an angle that I could not determine whether he wore a cap or a hat." Who was the policeman walking down Alvarado street at 8:30 or 8:45, and what did he see? This slight clue given by a careful observer may lead to very important developments in the mysterious murder whose points are now baffling the keenest detectives of the city. ***************************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** 7) SUMMARY OF THE CASES AGAINST CHARLOTTE SHELBY AND CARL STOCKDALE It is my belief that Shelby and or Carl Stockdale are primary suspects in the case. I am surprised the possibility of Stockdale's guilt did not occur to Bruce, as least as far as his work has made manifest. [10] Here are some reasons for believing that one or the other or both are the perpetrators of the crime. A) SUMMARY OF THE CASE AGAINST CHARLOTTE SHELBY: a) Possible Motives: 1. Wanted to protect her money 2. Wanted to protect Mary's "virginity" 3. Was in love with Taylor herself; was jealous 4. Taylor rejected Mary. Mary felt insulted. Charlotte was defending Mary's honor--possibly with Mary's help b) Evidence which suggests Shelby might have been involved: 1. Pulled revolver on James Kirkwood. 2. Was well known to be violent, possessive, manipulative. 3. Had threatened Taylor before--see Chauncey Eaton's testimony. 4. Owned a gun similar to the one used in the case. 5. Charlotte called up accountant, Marjorie Berger, the day of murder looking for Mary. 6. Mary's strange, infatuation for Taylor. 7. The mysterious nighty. 8. Taylor loved Mabel not Mary is suggested by the fact put forth that he sent only 6 flowers to Minter, 2 dozen to Mabel. That the record of this purchase did not come out in the probate papers can easily be explained by a cover-up. 9. Blonde hairs, traced to Mary Miles Minter, found on Taylor's body. 10. Mary in 1926 admitted to having seen Taylor the afternoon of the day murder took place. 11. Missing $750,000 from Shelby money--payoff? 12. Evidence missing from police files--payoff? 13. People were out to get Mabel, making a payoff of officials easier. 14. Shelby was not questioned or indicted until later, in fact left town. 15. Margaret accuses her mother of murder. 16. Inter-family litigation over money. 17. Contemporaries, including Adela Rogers St. Johns, "knew" Shelby did it. 18. Mary was known in later years to be eccentric, alternatively kind and friendly or angry, bossy and bitter--did her love for Taylor on becoming jealous perhaps turn into hate or "You always hurt the one you love." 19. Margaret Fillmore loss of the suit against her mother in the late thirty's can be explained by officialdom's bias due to their own complicity in the cover-up. Her death by "alcohol poisoning" or ingestion sounds very suspect to put it mildly. If what Margaret claimed was true who could really blame her for her strange behavior? 20. Testimony of Chauncey Eaton, Shelby employee, incriminates Shelby. 21. Testimony of Charlotte Whitney, Shelby employee, incriminates Shelby. 22. Marjorie Berger's testimony. What are we to make of this? While she was convicted of tax fraud this in no way would seem to justify why she would necessarily lie in a homicide investigation. If she did lie about Shelby's phone call what possible motive could she have had? Perhaps the subsequent efforts to smear Eaton and Berger by `trailing' or specifically targeting them so as to catch them in some wrong doing was merely another part of keeping the truth hidden. 23. Mary's suicide attempt with gun suggests a violent family temperament. 24. From the very beginning, local newspaper accounts assumed jealousy was the real motive behind the slaying. [11] B) SUMMARY OF THE CASE AGAINST STOCKDALE: 1. Fitted Faith MacLean's description very closely. There is a discrepancy of height, but this seems a trivial anomaly. 2. Had ties both with Shelby and Sennett. Indeed, he appeared in films with both Mary Miles Minter and Mabel. 3. Was not brought in for questioning, even though he was Shelby's sole alibi. 4. Man's handkerchief found in the bungalow with a monogrammed "S" (Stockdale?) 5. Stockdale's missing check stubs Possible motive: 1. May have been acting, as he believed, to protect the honor of Shelby, Minter, Sennett and Mabel. [Continued next issue] ***************************************************************************** NEXT ISSUE: William T. Sherman, Guest Editor: Some Glimpses of The Shelby Family Caught up in The Taylor Case "The Mystery of the Movie Director" by Sidney Sutherland A Look at the Character of D.A. Thomas Lee Woolwine & His Administration ***************************************************************************** NOTES by Bruce Long: [1]Nothing in Sanderson's recap states that Eyton arrived before Ziegler; Sanderson only states that Eyton and Harry Fellows were both involved in removing letters and other articles from the murder scene. According to Ed King (WDT: DOSSIER, pp. 275-6) Eyton arrived after Ziegler, and removed the items while Ziegler was there. At the inquest, the testimony of both Ziegler and Eyton indicate that Ziegler arrived first. [2]There are many examples of Mabel's common use of profanity (not just profanity under extreme stress), some of them are cited in MABEL--where Hal Roach said she was "the dirtiest talking girl you ever heard" (p. 113). I consider the comments of those who knew her and worked with her to be sufficient "hard evidence" concerning her frequent use of profanity. [3]Based on the material presented in MABEL and A DEED OF DEATH, as well as other references indicating that Samuel Goldwyn spent considerable money on Mabel's drug rehabilitation (e.g., Louella Parsons, THE GAY ILLITERATE, p. 66), I find it reasonable to assume that Mabel's stay at the Glen Springs Sanitarium in Fall 1920 was for drug rehabilitation rather than the reported "nervous breakdown"--that same expression was used elsewhere when stars were being treated for drug problems. But I don't recall ever concluding that Mabel's other reported illnesses were "covered-up instances of problems she was having with drugs"--indeed, in my criticism of A DEED OF DEATH (in WDT: DOSSIER, pp. 358-9) I argue against that line of reasoning. [4]The total cummulative press evidence leads me to accept Woolwine's characterization of Peavey, as reprinted in TAYLOROLOGY #10: "Peavey...has shown a very deep and genuine grief over the murder of Mr. Taylor, and ... has at all times given the authorities every assistance in his power in their effort to unravel the mystery of the murder." Peavey stated that he witnessed some verbal fireworks between Mabel and Taylor during her last visit, and that the District Attorney's office ordered him to keep quiet about it. With this in mind, it is interesting to look at the type of questions Peavey was asked on the witness stand at the coroner's inquest: "Were you in his house on the evening when he was found dead there?" "What time did you leave the house?" "Where was he when you left?" "In what part of the house were they?" "They were seated?" "When you went out, which way did you go out, at the front or at the back?" Etc. In view of Peavey's subsequent claim of a cover-up, it does seem strange that those questions dealt strictly with time and geography--not one question was about the psychological atmosphere. (Was Taylor in good spirits that evening? Did anything seem to be troubling him?) There is evidence that Peavey's official "for the record" questioning by Woolwine contained similar narrowly-focused questions. So that if Peavey did indeed witness an "argument," no questions came near that territory and he did not have to lie in order to obey the cover-up directive. Peavey's statements appear credible to me, as do Mabel's statements. From her honest perspective there was no argument--just a friendly and spirited discussion; but from Peavey's honest perspective there was an argument. Regarding the possibility that Peavey was the killer, there were published rumors to that effect; and those rumors will be reprinted in TAYLOROLOGY #17 or 18. [5]This is a good example of how the press was distorting interviews. A reporter from the LOS ANGELES EXPRESS was present at this same interview, and quoted Mabel as having said: "(Peavey) ought to be ashamed to say that I asked him about other girls going to Mr. Taylor's house. ...And say this, please, on my word of honor, I never spoke to Henry in my life except in Mr. Taylor's presence, and can you imagine my asking before Billy about other girls? Henry has told an awful big story." The substance of this version is similar to the EXAMINER version, but there is an enormous difference in tone between "an awful big story" and "a venomous fabrication."--in the former she seems to be gently chiding Peavey for telling a fib, in the latter she seems livid at his poisonous lie. Based on what is known about Mabel's personality and the reputation of the confrontational and sensationalizing Hearst press (EXAMINER), the EXPRESS version appears more accurate in this instance, and gives quite a different view of Mabel's attitude toward Peavey. [6]Peavey reportedly described Mabel cutting up her pictures (reprinted in TAYLOROLOGY #6) but he did NOT characterize it as "a jealous fit of rage"-- to me, her actions imply neither jealousy nor rage (perhaps just moody dissatisfaction with the way she looked in those photographs). [7]According to the LOS ANGELES TIMES (Feb. 4, 1992) the police officially questioned Howard Fellows on Friday, Feb. 3 at the detective bureau of the Central Police Station. That edition of the newspaper also reported: "Mr. Fellows visited the Taylor apartment at 8 p.m. on the night of the crime and though the house was lighted in all rooms he received no response at the door. He later called his employer on the telephone but failed to arouse anybody." So it does NOT appear that the police delayed in questioning Fellows. (Also, given the number of times the 1922 press misquoted or "spiced up" interviews, perhaps it confuses the historical material to refer to reported newspaper interviews as "testimony." I feel the only material which should be considered "testimony" is statements made to the official investigators or statements made under oath at depositions or on a witness stand.) [8]The probable reason for the time discrepancy of the MacLeans' hearing the shot (assuming they were not simply misquoted) would have been their desire not to cast unjust suspicion on Mabel Normand. Some early press accounts stated that Mabel left Taylor shortly before 9:00. Perhaps the MacLeans initially told reporters that they heard the shot after 9:00 because they wanted no one to have the impression that Mabel was still present when the shot was fired. Afterwards, when Mabel's time of departure was firmly established at 7:45, the MacLeans would have changed their time of the shot accordingly, to reflect what they actually heard. [9]In my opinion, the primary motive for a cover-up would have been to protect the movie industry, which had been undergoing considerable adverse publicity due to the Arbuckle trials. It is reasonable to assume that the movie industry wanted the Taylor murder forgotten as quickly as possible, and used its influence towards that end. [10]The possibility of Stockdale's guilt is mentioned in WDT: DOSSIER, pp. 329-330. That possibility is not mentioned in the Kirkpatrick or Giroux books. [11]Sherman's long list of "evidence which suggests Shelby might have been involved" (many points of which I disagree with) does not include the single item which I consider to be THE most concrete bit of evidence against Shelby--the unfired bullet, removed from the Shelby gun, hidden by chauffeur Chauncey Eaton, and recovered by investigators in 1937. According to Sanderson, that soft-nosed lead bullet "was the same type and weight as the fatal bullet, which was extracted from Taylor's body." Press reports at the time of the murder indicated: "The weapon used was probably a revolver, the police said, since ammunition of this type is not suitable for an automatic pistol. The soft lead point becomes battered in the magazine of an automatic frequently causing it to jam. The ammunition used was an old-style, rimmed cartrige. Automatic cartridges are rimless." According to the LOS ANGELES EXAMINER (Feb. 18-19, 1922): "It has been generally known that Captain Adams early last week called into consultation one of the best known gunsmiths in America, a man past 60 who has devoted his life to a study of firearms and explosives...This expert declared...that the bullet from the wound...was .38 caliber, short, soft-nosed, single-rim, made for a Smith & Wesson .38 short barrel revolver. ...As a matter of fact, say the firearms experts, there perhaps cannot be found one pistol in thousands in Los Angeles loaded with the ancient brand of ammunition which was taken from Taylor's body." Elsewhere it was stated that this type of bullet had not been manufactured for 12 or 15 years. The circumstantial fact that Shelby's gun was evidently loaded with the same type of old ammunition that killed Taylor, is the strongest bit of physical evidence against her. This is a much stronger point of evidence than just the fact that Shelby's gun was the same type of gun that killed Taylor. Nevertheless, "reasonable doubt" about Shelby's guilt remains. ***************************************************************************** For more information about Taylor, see WILLIAM DESMOND TAYLOR: A DOSSIER (Scarecrow Press, 1991) Back issues of Taylorology are available via Gopher or FTP at etext.archive.umich.edu in the directory pub/Zines/Taylorology *****************************************************************************