Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Taylorology Issue 15
*****************************************************************************
* 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 de
ep 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
*****************************************************************************
