Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Taylorology Issue 45
*****************************************************************************
* T A Y L O R O L O G Y *
* A Continuing Exploration of the Life and Death of William Desmond Taylor *
* *
* Issue 45 -- September 1996 Editor: Bruce Long bruce@asu.edu *
* TAYLOROLOGY may be freely distributed *
*****************************************************************************
CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE:
Interviews with Taylor's Ex-Wife
Mabel Normand on the Witness Stand:
Testimony at the William Desmond Taylor Inquest
Testimony at the Horace Greer Hearing
Testimony at the Horace Greer Trial
*****************************************************************************
What is TAYLOROLOGY?
TAYLOROLOGY is a newsletter focusing on the life and death of William Desmond
Taylor, a top 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; (d) Taylor's associates and the Hollywood
silent film industry in which Taylor worked. Primary emphasis will be given
toward reprinting, referencing and analyzing source material, and sifting it
for accuracy.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Interviews with Taylor's Ex-Wife
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 5, 1922
NEW YORK HERALD
William Desmond Taylor, the slain movie director, was well known in
this city in 1908. But he was not known as Taylor. He was William
Cunningham Deane-Tanner, expert in antiques in those days, and he moved in
good society, was well supplied with money from a mysterious source in
Ireland and eventually was married to Ethel May Harrison of one of the
Floradora Sextettes.
Without a word of explanation, according to the woman who was then his
wife, he disappeared in 1908. The first Mrs. Deane-Tanner now is the wife
of E. L. C. Robins, owner of Robins Restaurant and other hostelries. Mrs.
Robins gave out a statement yesterday explaining her marriage and the
desertion and her subsequent discovery that her former husband had popped up
in the motion picture colony at Hollywood, Cal., and became famous the world
over as William Desmond Taylor. She says his murder shocked her and the
daughter he abandoned.
"I married, in December, 1901, Mr. William Cunningham Deane-Tanner of
Dublin, Ireland," the statement said. "He disappeared in October, 1908. We
could assign no reason for his disappearance except possibly aphasia.
"In 1912 I got a decree of divorce in the State of New York and was
awarded the custody of my only child, Ethel Daisy Deane-Tanner, now 19.
"In August, 1914, I married Edward L. C. Robins. Two and a half weeks
later I discovered that William Desmond Taylor had been Mr. Deane-Tanner.
I have no further statement which possibly could be of interest.
"The news of Mr. Deane-Tanner's death was a great shock to my daughter
and me."
At her home in Orienta Point, Mamaroneck, last night, Mrs. Robins said
she held no resentment for the way Deane-Tanner treated her. She presented
excuses for him, saying he suffered lapses of memory during the time they
lived together and that not long before he vanished, in 1908, he was
stricken with facial neuralgia and frequently was in an agony of pain. She
does not believe he knew what he was doing the morning he left their home
and she supposes that a mental ailment can be held to account for his
failure to return.
Just as dramatic as were many of the chapters in Deane-Tanner, or
William Desmond Taylor's, life was Mrs. Robins's discovery in 1919 that he
was still living.
With her daughter Mrs. Robins went to a motion picture theater in this
city one night. They chose the theater without knowing what picture it was
featuring. For several hundred feet of film it was just a new picture as
far as they were concerned, but suddenly the hero appeared. Mrs. Robins
sank back in her seat too startled to speak. He daughter stood up.
For the laughing face on the screen was that of the long missing Deane-
Tanner a little changed--somewhat older looking they decided when they
finally settled back to wait for the hero's next entry. They sat through
the picture and then saw it again and learned that the man whose face they
knew was acting and directing movies under the name of William Desmond
Taylor.
Mrs. Robins said last night that her daughter would not be satisfied
until she had written to Taylor. Taylor answered her letter and the two
continued a correspondence which grew with each month until finally Taylor
of the movies came back to New York to try to make some amends for his
conduct as Deane-Tanner, the negligent father.
Taylor never explained why he had changed his name. But Mrs. Robins
said he met her and the daughter on at least one occasion and expressed a
desire to try to make good for his failure. He spent money lavishly on the
girl, giving money and other presents to her and encouraging her to study.
The love of the beautiful in art that appears to have impressed his
Hollywood friends cropped up in his talks with his daughter, and he
ultimately prevailed upon her to enter an art school in this city. She is
now studying there.
Mrs. Robins emphatically denied that her former husband ever married
after he deserted her. She said she met him last August and remembers
distinctly that he said he never had remarried and never would. His
daughter, she quoted him as saying, was the only pal he wanted.
According to Mrs. Robins, Deane-Tanner was of a family well known in
Ireland--listed among the landed gentry or the peers, she wasn't sure which.
His father was a Major in the British army, and he came of a line of men
whose names have figured in British history.
She said he was prepared for the army at one of the great British
universities--Oxford or Cambridge--and that he was about to start for the
military school when his health failed. He was sent to the United States,
he told her, so that he might recover. Mrs. Robins said she remembers that
he told her once he had two sisters and one brother, and she met soon after
their marriage a man she supposes was the brother.
The stories of drugs and drinking, Mrs. Robins thinks, are untrue,
because while Deane-Tanner was her husband he used liquor but sparingly and
always criticized those who did not know how to handle it.
Before her marriage to Taylor--or Deane-Tanner, as he called himself
then--Mrs. Robins was Miss Ethel May Harrison. No one could be found who
could explain fully Deane-Tanner's early movements in New York, but it was
established that he came from Ireland with considerable money and a habit of
spending it freely. He caused some attention in sporting circles, talked
about his yachts abroad, and eventually, it was said, became a familiar
figure on the float of the Larchmont Yacht Club. He made friends easily and
held them. Suddenly he began talking of previous visits here, and it was
said yesterday, by men who knew him but do not want their names coupled with
his in the murder mystery, that he let it be known he had played in roles
opposite Fanny Davenport.
Mrs. Robins would not say where she and her first husband made their
home or where they were living when he disappeared, but it was established
through friends that he dropped out of sight in 1908 a few weeks after the
Vanderbilt cup races.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 6, 1922
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Edward L. C. Robins, owner of Delmonico's, who married Mrs. Ethel
Hamilton Deane Tanner after she had divorced the romantic Irishman whose
murder has stirred the continent, knew Tanner well and met Mrs. Tanner--now
Mrs. Robins--through that friendship.
But Mr. Robins has not the slightest idea of how Tanner--known to
Hollywood and the movie world as William Desmond Taylor--came to be
murdered. Talking with a representative of the Daily News at his home in
Mamaroneck last night, Mr. Robins said:
"I can't see why the newspapers are paying so much attention to
Mamaroneck. It seems to me they ought to be trying to solve this mystery
out in Los Angeles, where it happened.
"I knew 'Pete,' as we called him, long before Mrs. Tanner and I were
married. Pictures of him now? Ethel, have we any pictures of Pete?"
Mrs. Robins had been listening in an alcove. When called she appeared
promptly. A tall, striking blonde, with big, wide-open eyes, she did not
impress one as the carefree girl who twenty years ago played in the
Floradora company.
"No," she answered. "I destroyed all those pictures when we got
married. There might be one or two in the old trunks upstairs, but I doubt
it. Every one I found I tore up long ago."
With just that much interest is the murder of the man who was her
husband accepted by Mrs. Robins. She divorced him ten years ago, under
curious circumstances, after he had gone out of her life four years before.
Apparently his sudden and unexpected going out from his own life has made
only the slightest impression upon Mrs. Robins.
But behind all this insouciance there looms some extraordinary mystery.
Mrs. Robins cannot imagine any reason why her former husband was shot down
in cold blood in his quiet home at Hollywood last Wednesday night. But she
is not surprised, astonished, amazed or--to be brutally frank--very much
horror-stricken.
...Mrs. Robins said last night that shortly after their marriage she
and Tanner visited his folks in Ireland. They were entertained royally and
she realized for the first time that the young blood she had married off
Broadway was a veritable sportsman in Ireland. His family entertained her
at their home in Fitzwilliam Square and afterward they paid a visit to Cork,
where the old family seat was located.
"They were the Deane Tanners," Mrs. Robins explained, "to differentiate
them from the other Tanners. The name is rather a familiar one in Ireland,
and in England I think it is rather derogatorily applied to some small coin,
a six-pence, I think. His father had been a member of Parliament; his uncle
was a justice of the peace. Altogether the family was quite to the
front."...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 13, 1922
NEW YORK HERALD
...Mrs. Robins, who married William Cunningham Deane-Tanner, or William
Desmond Taylor, as he was later known, in 1902, said her former husband had
spent some time on a pony ranch in southwestern Kansas before she met him in
New York. The only information she had ever had was that which Deane-Tanner
gave her personally.
"Mr. Deane-Tanner told me that when he arrived here from Ireland he had
gone out to this ranch," Mrs. Robins said, "and his family in Ireland had
bought for him a part interest in it. When I met him he referred to it and
told me a flaw in the title had forced several of the shareholders,
including himself, to give up their part, and he then joined the Davenport
road company. After the failure of his venture in Kansas he returned to his
home in Ireland for a visit.
"With reference to the claim of this Mr. Taylor in California that he
is the son of the murdered director, I would not like to say flatly that the
claim is or is not true, for I knew little of Mr. Deane-Tanner's life on the
ranch in Kansas and did not find it necessary to catechize him minutely, and
he never mentioned anything to me about having been married out there.
Perhaps there is some truth in the story, or it may be another of the many
persons who come forward whenever there is an estate to be settled. I have
been interested in the number of persons who claim Mr. Deane-Tanner, or
Taylor, was their father. To date he must have had at least six or seven
children besides my own daughter, if the stories are all correct. As Mr.
Deane-Tanner would only be about fifty years old now, that is rather
ridiculous, I think."
Referring to the criminal end of the case, Mrs. Robins criticized the
work of the Los Angeles detectives and prosecutors, saying they do not seem
to be particularly anxious to solve the mystery of the identity of the
murderer.
"I have bitterly resented the accounts printed in some of the
newspapers here that my daughter and myself are merely interested in the
financial part of the affair and are more interested in the Taylor estate
than in the identity of the person who killed my former husband. This is
absolutely untrue, for, as Mr. Taylor's former wife, I am deeply grieved at
this terrible affair and am anxious to see the guilty person punished."
Returning to the discussion of the claim of the man who says the movie
director was his father, Mrs. Robins said that it seemed improbable that her
first husband ever used the name of Taylor before he left New York in 1908.
She said that to old friends who knew him when he first came to this country
and had been in constant touch with him during his stay in Kansas nothing
was known of any marriage while he was in the West. After that, and until
he disappeared, Mrs. Robins said, he never used the name of Taylor, or
referred extensively to his visit to the ranch in the West.
"I never really knew Mr. Deane-Tanner's right age," Mrs. Robins said,
"and I understood that he had been in his country about eight or nine years,
when I married him at the Little Church Around the Corner in 1901. He was a
fine, lovable man, and I never had occasion to closely question him about
his 'past,' which every one seems trying to dig up."
No decision whether Mrs. Robins or her daughter, Ethel, will go to
California in connection with the settling of the estate has been reached.
Frank E. Schrenseisen of New Rochelle, attorney for Miss Tanner, said that
he was awaiting developments and instructions from the office of the Public
Administrator in Los Angeles. Another attorney for Miss Tanner has been
engaged in Los Angeles. Should the Public Administrator place credence in
the story of Taylor, it is probable that Miss Tanner will accompany her
attorney to the coast.
"Mr. Deane-Tanner told my daughter that he had made a will in her
favor," Mrs. Robins said, "and had placed it in his safe deposit box. I
understand that this is another one of the items which the police say have
strangely 'disappeared.' What he did with it I have no idea, but I feel
that the entire matter will be straightened out. Just at present I am
hoping that the murderer of Mr. Taylor will be brought to justice for this
terrible crime."
Mrs. Robins commented on the strange disappearance of Dennis Deane-
Tanner, brother of the murdered director, and said she had never heard a
word from him since he left this city in 1912, just four years after her
husband disappeared. She said the two brothers had been good friends and
business associates, and that Dennis had visited their home at Larchmont on
several occasions, and had met many of their friends. There was never any
trouble between the brothers as far as she knew, Mrs. Robins said.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 14, 1922
NEW YORK AMERICAN
To the two names suggested in the New York American yesterday--Edward
F. Sands and Dennis Gage Deane-Tanner as persons whose discovery may furnish
a clue to the identity of the slayer of William Desmond Taylor--was added
yesterday a third.
The third person is a woman, a fascinating blonde who was the companion
of Taylor (or W. C. Deane-Tanner, as he was then known) on a trip through
the Adirondacks during the Summer of 1908, three months prior to the sudden
disappearance of "Pete" Tanner in late October, 1908.
This woman, who had completely enchained the fancy of the aristocratic,
handsome Tanner, was married. Her identity is said to be known to a few of
Tanner's associates of the old days when he was a director in the A. J.
Crawford Company firm at No. 253 Fifth avenue. She was the co-respondent in
the divorce suit instituted some two years after "Pete" Tanner's
disappearance by Mrs. Ethel May Hamilton Robins, now the wife of Edward L.
C. Robins, managing proprietor of Delmonico's.
Does this hitherto hidden episode in the life of the murdered man bear
any significance upon the crime?
Was the woman's husband implacably determined to avenge himself upon
the man who had won the affections of his wife?
Was it the hand of the husband that fired the fatal bullet (from twelve
to fourteen years old, according to the testimony of experts in ballistics)
that killed William Desmond Taylor?
...At her home, Orienta Point, Mamaroneck, Mrs. Robins, former wife of
the slain director, yesterday refused to discuss this episode in the life of
her former husband. She refused to see newspaper men but told a friend:
"I would do anything in my power to solve the mystery of Mr. Tanner's
death but I do not think there can be any possible relation between this
incident and the crime. It was not until long after Mr. Tanner's
disappearance that I learned definitely there was another woman in his life.
"This information was placed in the hands of my attorney, Mr. George
Thoms, and he brought a successful suit for divorce against Mr. Tanner.
This was in the latter part of 1918 [sic]. At that time I did not know
whether Mr. Tanner was dead or alive.
"It was later, perhaps seven years ago, that I saw Mr. Tanner for the
first time on the screen. I cannot remember the name of the photoplay in
which he appeared. However, it was not until two and one-half years ago
that I learned definitely that William Desmond Taylor was my former
husband."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 14, 1922
WASHINGTON TIMES
New York, Feb. 14 -- Of the many screen stars he knew, some of whom
have been thrown squarely into the spotlight by the unrelenting inquiry into
his association with William Desmond Taylor, slain director, mentioned but
one--Mary Miles Minter--in his letters to his nineteen-year-old daughter,
Miss Ethel Daisy Deane-Tanner.
Disclosing this fact to a reporter today, Miss Tanner and her mother,
Mrs. Edward L. C. Robins, who live in Mamaroneck, both of whom were deserted
by the man of mystery in 1908, said that Miss Minter's name was used by the
director only in an impersonal way.
Her referred to her as an actress of ability, and said he had directed
her in some of her photoplays. This was one of the last letters written to
his daughter by Taylor before he was murdered in his Los Angeles bungalow.
Mrs. Robins and her daughter expressly asserted that the name of Mabel
Normand, screen comedienne, and last person to see the director alive, did
not appear in Taylor's letters to his daughter, which had been more or less
frequent during the last two years.
Curiously enough, (and one reason why Mrs. Robins is increasingly
inclined to the opinion that her husband's sudden disappearance from New
York was due to loss of memory), her former husband never mentioned her in
the letters.
Another reason for this belief, she declared, was that on the times she
and her daughter lunched here with Taylor--after it was definitely
established that Taylor was in reality Deane-Tanner--he never mentioned the
fact that he deserted his wife and daughter. On these occasions all three
felt the subject was rather delicate and it was never brought up.
Mrs. Robins said that when she and her daughter became convinced two
years ago, after seeing pictures of Taylor, that he was the girl's father,
Miss Deane-Tanner took the initiative and wrote to him. His reply came
immediately.
In it he said he was very glad to hear from her; that he had not heard
from he for so long that he thought she was dead. This is one more reason
why Mrs. Robins believes her former husband was a victim of aphasia when he
left, after attending the Vanderbilt cup races in 1908.
Taylor also, Mrs. Robins asserted, was unable to recall friends of
their married life, and when their names were mentioned, his face failed to
show the slightest signs of remembrance. He did remember, however, favorite
dishes of his former wife when he was dining with his daughter, pointing
them out to the latter on the menu during their luncheon together.
Mrs. Robins declared that these points proved that his mind, while
vague as to consequential facts about her married life with the director,
retained minor details.
The director's experiences in Alaska also were set forth in one letter.
Taylor told of how he contracted scurvy, consequently suffering from loss of
hair, headaches and neuralgia. Another letter dismissed with a few scornful
words Sands, his chauffeur, who is still being sought by police. The
director declared Sands had upset his home and said his name had been forged
to checks by his unfaithful servant.
Signatures Taylor used in his letters to his daughter, for whom he
showed deep devotion, were "Father" and "Daddy Pete." The origin of how
Taylor came to be known as "Pete" was explained by Mrs. Robins. She said
when Taylor, or as he was known then, Deane-Tanner, first came to live in
New York he took lodging with several Englishmen.
Taylor, always deliberate and calculating in his methods, was nicknamed
"P. D. Q.," by his roommates, which was quickly shortened to "Pete."
The director's promise to leave his estate to his daughter was
contained in a letter written in February, 1920. Mrs. Robins said her
former husband said in this message he thought it would be good policy to
leave them both an annuity, in addition to telling of his will bequeathing
his estate to Ethel Daisy.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 7, 1922
NEW YORK AMERICAN
[relating the testimony of Taylor's wife during the divorce hearing in
1911]...Mrs. Tanner, in her testimony, said she was married on
December 7, 1901, at the Little Church Around the Corner.
The ceremony was performed by Rev. George C. Houghton, pastor of the
church. Following the marriage the couple went to live at No. 40 Washington
Square South, and later moved to the Hotel Colonial at Columbus Avenue and
Eighty-first street, at which time her husband became associated with A. J.
Crawford & Co., at No. 251 Fifth Avenue.
Mrs. Deane-Tanner added:
"My husband left home at noon on October 23, 1908, and I have never
seen him since. The last word received from him was on October 26, 1908,
when he was stopping at the Broadway Central Hotel. He sent word to the
Crawford firm asking for a sum of money. This was sent to him by Daniel J.
Barker, of the firm. Then he disappeared."
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Mabel Normand on the Witness Stand:
Testimony at the William Desmond Taylor Inquest
Held on February 4, 1922
Q. Please state your name.
A. Mabel Normand.
Q. Where do you reside?
A. 3089 West Seventh.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Motion pictures.
Q. Miss Normand, were you acquainted with Mr. Taylor, the deceased in this
case?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see him on the evening before his death occurred?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And where did you see him?
A. Will I tell you when I went in there and when I came out?
Q. Did you see him at his home?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And you were with him about how long on that occasion?
A. I got there about 7 o'clock and left at a quarter to 8.
Q. And when you left his place, did you leave him in the house, or outside?
A. No, he came down to my car with me.
Q. Where was your car?
A. Right in front of the court.
Q. On Alvarado street?
A. Yes, on the hill.
Q. He accompanied you to your car?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he still there when you drove away?
A. Yes, as my car turned around, I waved my hand at him; he was partly up a
little stairs there.
Q. At the time you were in the house, was anybody also in the house?
A. Yes, Henry, his man.
Q. Henry Peavey?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Peavey left the house before you did or not?
A. Yes, he did; he left about, I should say about 15 or 20 minutes before I
left, but stopped outside and spoke to my chauffeur; we came out later.
Q. No one else except Henry Peavey was there?
A. That was all.
Q. What time was it you say you left him--drove away from his place?
A. I left him on the sidewalk about a quarter to eight.
Q. Did you expect to see him or hear from him later that evening?
A. Yes, he said--he had finished his dinner--he said would I go out and take
dinner with him and I said, "no;" I was tired; I had to go home and get up
very early; he said he would call me up in about an hour.
Q. Did he call you?
A. No, I went to bed; if he called me I was asleep; when I am asleep he tells
my maid not to disturb me.
Q. Was that the last time you saw him when you left him about a quarter to
eight?
A. That was the last time.
Q. Have you any questions, Gentlemen? That is all, you may be excused.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Testimony at the Horace Greer Hearing
Although there was no direct relationship between the murder of William
Desmond Taylor and the shooting of Courtland Dines, both shootings had a
strong impact on Mabel Normand's career.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
January 22, 1924
LOS ANGELES EXAMINER
Miss Normand Tells Court Own Story of Rich Clubman's Shooting
Mabel Normand was the only witness at the morning session of Justice
Handy's court yesterday when Horace Greer was arraigned in connection with
the shooting of Courtland Dines, Denver clubman, on New Year's Day.
She was called to the stand as soon as the hearing opened. Before
beginning her testimony, Justice Hanby warned the spectators that unless
there was absolute quiet he would clear the courtroom.
Here is the transcript of Miss Normand's testimony:
THE COURT: State your name, please.
THE WITNESS: May I sit down?
THE COURT: Yes. State your name, please. Just state your name in full.
A. Mabel Normand
Attorney Shelley then took up the direct examination of the film star.
Q. Where do you reside, Miss Normand?
A. 3089 West Seventh street.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Motion pictures.
Q. Do you know one Horace A. Greer, also known as Joe Kelley?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know him on the first day of January, of this year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know one Courtland Dines on that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know where Mr. Dines lived at that time--325B North Vermont street,
in this city?
A. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Q. What time did you first go there?
A. I left my house about--after 5.
Q. And what time did you arrive at Dines' apartment?
A. About--well, from the time it takes from where I live at 3089 West Seventh
to South Vermont, where Mr. Dines resides. The exact time of that I
cannot recall.
Q. And did you see Kelley or Greer at the time you first arrived at Dines'
apartments?
A. He drove me there.
Q. Now, did Greer stay there, or leave after he drove you there?
A. No. He drove me there, and he was undressing my Christmas tree at my
house, and I told him to come back and call for me, and also told him that
perhaps Miss Purviance might come back to my house with me, so he left
with the understanding that he was to come back for me in about an hour
and a half; perhaps not that long.
Q. About what time was it you next saw Greer after he drove back to your
house?
A. It was about 45 minutes.
Q. And that would make it what o'clock?
A. What?
Q. What time was it?
A. It was still daylight when Joe, Mr. Kelley, drove me over to my house--
over to Mr. Dines' apartments. Then when I again saw him, it was not with
the understanding of taking me home, only that he was to bring over a
Christmas gift that Mr. Greer insisted upon.
Q. Do you fix the time when you knew Greer--you knew Greer as Kelley at that
time, did you?
A. Yes, he was going under the name of Kelley from the Pierce Arrow people.
Q. Was it dark when Greer came back to Dines' apartments?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you remember--can you fix the time when he came back there?
A. Yes--
Q. How long was he gone as nearly as you can remember?
A. About--I was there about 45 minutes.
MR. SHELLY: I think it would be better, Your Honor, if we could draw a rough
diagram, for the purpose of clearing up the testimony.
MR. HAHN: No objection to that, clarifying the situation.
THE COURT: You will find a blackboard back there.
SHELLY: The place marked "D" is a davenport just outside of the door; the
place marked "T" is a table in the center of the room; the place marked
"B" is the breakfast table; the place marked "H" is the door into the
kitchen; the place marked "E" is the door into the bedroom; "C" is a
closet; "J" is the bathroom, "I" is the door into the bathroom. Now, when
Greer came back the second time--that is, when he came back the first time
and after he drove away from there, where did you first see Greer?
A. The bell rang and Mr. Dines asked who was there, and he said, "Joe." He
was sitting at the little breakfast table, as near as I an remember, and
Miss Purviance was in the bedroom and I got up.
Q. Where were you sitting at the time?
A. On the davenport and I got up--oh, no, I am making a mistake. Mr. Greer
came in and had this package--
Q. Wait a moment. When he said "Joe" did he then open the door or did
somebody go to it?
A. I am quite sure that Mr. Dines opened the door.
SHELLY: Tell us what was said and done from that time on.
A. Well, Mr. Greer or Mr. Kelly, as I knew him, Joe, came with this package,
which I had already telephoned for, because he was not to call for me for
an hour and a half, and you will not allow me to tell that--of course,
unfortunately, I am not allowed to tell that--
MR. HAHN: Just a moment, Miss Normand. We move that be stricken out as not
responsive that you are not allowed to explain. We will allow everything
to be explained legally.
THE COURT: It will be stricken out.
A. I see. Well, he came in with a box, which included some military brushes
that Miss Purviance had given him Christmas Day, and there was this talk
between them. I got up and went over and spoke to Miss Purviance in the
door.
Q. You mean the door "E"?
A. The door where the bedroom was and asked her for her powder puff. She was
powdering her face and all that sort of thing, and the next thing I heard
were shots. I thought they were firecrackers and I made absolutely no
objection to them because I am rather used to firecrackers and all that
sort of thing around the studio.
Q. Now, when you got up off the davenport had Joe Greer come into the room?
A. Yes, he was there, and he was speaking with Mr. Dines.
Q. How far had Joe come into the room, when you turned and walked away
towards the bedroom?
A. Well, I couldn't say just as near. He was already in conversation with
Mr. Dines.
Q. Did Dines close the door when Joe--
A. I don't remember that.
Q. Were you in the living room at the time you heard the shots?
A. No; I was in the room that goes between--in the bedroom and the living
room--between the two doors.
Q. From the time that Greer came into the room, how long was it before you
got up off the davenport and started into the bedroom?
A. Well, I remember Joe coming in, and about, I had delivered the message
over the telephone to give him, the box of brushes, to Mr. Dines. Mr.
Dines started to talk to Joe. What their conversation was, I don't know
because I got up--
THE COURT: Just a moment. You are volunteering too much, Miss Normand. Will
you read the question, Mr. Reporter?
MR. HAHN: We are not objecting to that question.
THE COURT: Well, I am, I don't want to encumber the record.
A. It was not a second.
MR. SHELLY: Then from the time until the shots were fired, you did not look
toward Greer or Dines?
A. No, sir.
Q. When you first looked toward them, what was their position; how far inside
the door was Greer?
A. Mr. Greer wasn't there. Mr. Dines was all full of blood and was like this
(indicating).
Q. Wait a minute; just go back to when Greer came in, that is what I am
asking now. When Greer first came into the room there, how far into the
room did he go when you last saw him?
A. Well, he was quite close to Mr. Dines, and handing him the package.
Q. And that was the last you saw of him?
A. That was the last I saw of him.
Q. After the shots were fired, did you look toward where Greer and Dines
were?
A. No, because I did not first--it never entered my mind to look.
MR. HAHN: Just a moment. We move that that be stricken out as not
responsive.
THE COURT: The last part will be stricken out.
MR. SHELLEY: How soon was it that you saw Greer or Dines after that?
A. I did not see Mr. Greer. I saw Mr. Dines like this (illustrating).
Q. How soon was that after you heard the shots fired?
A. Well, it must have been, just as soon as we took the thing seriously; that
is, there must have been something happened--
MR. HAHN: Just a minute. We move that that be stricken out as a conclusion.
THE COURT: Stricken out. State the time if you can.
MR. SHELLEY: Within a few seconds or minutes, or how long?
A. Seconds.
Q. Where was Dines after you saw him after the shots were fired?
A. He was sort of staggering.
Q. Where?
A. Near the window.
Q. Which window, will you illustrate.
A. The back part of his apartment. I mean by that that there is a front and
a back.
Q. Was he near the table, the dishes, the breakfast table?
A. Well, I think so.
Q. This is entrance, you know (indicating on diagram); there is the bedroom.
A. Yes, I know. He was near that.
Q. Back toward the kitchen?
A. No, because he was coming sort of toward us, and he said, I have this--
MR. HAHN: Just a minute. We object upon the ground it is hearsay, what he
said, in the absence of the defendant.
MR. SHELLEY: Greer wasn't there at that time, I take it?
A. No, he was not. I didn't see Mr. Greer.
Q. Was he close or not, do you remember, to the outside door?
A. He was close, but it was locked or half opened.
Q. During your visit, just before and up to the time that you heard the shots
fired, was there anyone else in that apartment except you and Dines?
A. Mr. Dines.
Q. When you saw Greer immediately after the shots were fired, what was his
condition?
A. I did not see Mr. Greer after the shots were fired.
Q. Mr. Dines?
A. Mr. Dines was leaning over like this (illustrating) holding himself like
this and all full of blood.
Q. And what part of his body was he holding?
A. Up here, on the top part (indicating).
Q. Had his hands up to his breast?
A. Yes.
Q. I will show you a small automatic pistol, and ask you if you ever saw that
before.
A. I have seen it, yes. I have had it for six years.
MR. SHELLEY: You recognize the pistol then, do you?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, I mean did you have one similar to that?
MR. CONLIN: Object to that as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
A. I told you I can't remember. All I am telling you--
MR. HAHN: Wait a minute, madam. Please don't volunteer an answer.
MR. SHELLEY: We ask that this be marked plaintiff's exhibit A.
MR. CONLIN: Objected to as for identification.
THE COURT: It may be marked for identification.
MR. SHELLEY: Did you have an automatic pistol similar in appearance to that,
previous to the time that your were in Dines' apartment?
A. Yes, for years--for six years.
Q. Where was it the last time you saw that automatic pistol that you had
previous to the time that you were at Dines' apartments?
A. A little stand near my bed, a little stand; a little night stand that has
a lamp, you know.
Q. Do you remember how long before you were at Dines' apartments or the last
time you saw that gun?
A. I haven't seen it or taken notice of it for months and months.
Q. Well, as far as you know it was there on that day?
MR. HAHN: Wait a minute. Objected to on the ground--wait a minute, Miss
Normand. We object to that on the ground it is leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. SHELLEY: How long previous to this time had you known Mr. Dines?
A. I have known him ever since Miss Purviance introduced me to him, which was
about, perhaps a year ago.
Q. How long had you known Miss Purviance?
MR. HAHN: We will object to that on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant
and immaterial, and nothing to do with this case as to how long she knew
Miss Purviance.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
A. I have known Miss Purviance for years.
Q. How long had you known Greer.
A. The day after my birthday, which was November 10, and on the 11th I
engaged him. That was the first time I met Mr. Greer.
Q. That was 1923?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Greer when he first drove you to the
apartment?
A. None whatsoever, except to call for me later.
Q. What was that conversation?
A. It was this, to undress my Christmas tree, which he was doing when I was
leaving, and when I left him at Mr. Dines' apartment--why "I have a long
way to walk up," I said, "perhaps I will bring Miss Purviance back with
me. I don't know what they're going to do tonight--Miss Purviance--
because I was going to be alone tonight."
Q. That was what you said to Greer, was it?
A. I think so.
Q. Now, did you say anything to him about when he was to come back?
A. No, I did not.
MR. SHELLY: I show you a box containing some brushes and a comb, and ask if
you ever saw them before, as far as you know.
A. Yes. I believe I did Christmas day but I paid no attention to it.
Q. When Greer came to the apartments what size of bundle did he have with
him?
A. A small box like that, wrapped in white paper with the name on it or
something like that.
Q. Did you look at the name?
A. I could recognize it if you would show it to me.
Q. I mean, did you at the time?
A. No, indeed it did not.
MR. HAHN: I move that answer to the last question be stricken out. If she
did not see the name on the package, it is a dead moral certainty that she
don't know that it was there.
THE COURT: Strike it out.
MR. SHELLEY: I show you a piece of white wrapping paper with some writing on
it and ask you if you are familiar with that writing?
A. Yes. That is Mrs. Burns' writing. That is paper from my house.
Q. Mrs. Edith Burns?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And she was at that time your housekeeper and companion?
A. No, not exactly. She was just one who would come over and stay at my
house. She had no other place to go and she would stay. I have my
housekeeper and my maid and everything else that are all with me.
Q. Is this piece of paper that was around the package that Greer had at the
time he came back similar in appearance to the paper I have just shown
you?
A. Yes, sir. It seems to be the same piece of paper. It seems to be the
same piece that was around that box.
Q. Previous to the time you went to Dines' apartments that afternoon had you
seen Mrs. Edith Burns?
A. Yes. She was in my house all day.
Q. She was at your house when you left, then?
A. Yes, all day. She had slept there the night previous, New Year's Eve.
Q. Between the time you first went to Dines' apartments and the time you
heard the shots fired, did you or Dines talk over the telephone from
Dines' apartments?
A. Yes, sir, we did.
Q. Who talked first?
A. I did, because when I arrived--
Q. Did you ring up some one, or did some one ring you up?
A. No, I telephoned.
Q. During that time did any one else talk over the phone from the Dines
apartment?
A. Yes, Mr. Dines did, and finished the conversation with Mrs. Burns which I
did not hear.
Attorney Hahn then took up the cross-examination of Miss Normand. His first
question was: Miss Normand, directing your attention to this map, or
diagram, rather, we understood you to testify on direct examination that
Mr. Dines was about here; indicated by the letter B; is that right?
A. What does the letter B mean? Is that the bed?
THE COURT: The breakfast room.
MR. HAHN: No, it does not mean the breakfast room.
A. There is no breakfast room in the house.
MR. SHELLEY: The letter B is the breakfast table.
MR. HAHN: The breakfast table was at the back end of the room, is that right,
going towards the kitchen?
A. Going towards the kitchen.
Q. Going towards the kitchen?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. We have here a diagram that to go to the kitchen you have to go around a
wall and come around here to the letter E, which is the entrance into the
kitchen?
MR. SHELLEY: The letter E is the bedroom.
MR. HAHN: Where is the kitchen entrance?
A. There is the breakfast table, and there is a swinging door that leads
right into the kitchen.
Q. A swinging door goes through this wall?
A. I don't know. It could not go through the wall.
Q. How do you go into the kitchen; by going around a wall?
A. Right next to it.
Q. Right next to it?
A. Yes, sir, it is right next to it.
Q. From the position you have indicated here, so far as you can remember,
could you see Greer and Dines from the position where you were standing?
A. No, I did not.
Q. That is good. You did not see them at all, what transpired between the
two parties?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You did not see what Mr. Dines had in his hands all the time, did you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You did not pay any attention?
A. I did not see it.
Q. You were busy with Mr. Dines [sic], is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was your purpose in going into the bedroom, was to go and see Mr.
Dines [sic]?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you really don't know how long they did argue there, do you?
A. No, I don't.
Q. It is your impression that it was a few seconds, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you could not, under oath, say how long it did take to argue between
them?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you could not say what Mr. Dines did say to Greer, and Mr. Greer say
to Mr. Dines?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you don't know whether Mr. Dines threw a bottle at him, or not?
A. No, sir.
MR HAHN: Thank you, that is all.
On redirect examination Mr. Shelley asked: Miss Normand, calling your
attention to exhibit C, in the center of the living room there, at the
time that you left the davenport and walked to the bedroom, when Greer had
just come in the room, did you notice what was on that table C, or had you
noticed before that time?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you notice whether or not there was a large bottle on that table?
MR. HAHN: I object to that as leading and suggestive. She said she did not
remember.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. SHELLEY: Now, if the court please, a witness may say that they did not
notice particularly what was on a table, and still they may know that it
is not a hobby horse on that table, or something that is a noticeable
object there, so I think I may ask this witness the question I asked, did
she notice whether or not there was a bottle on that table.
MR. HAHN: Miss Normand is an intelligent witness.
MR. SHELLEY: And Mr. Hahn is an intelligent attorney, and there are some
other intelligent people sitting in the court room. I insist, your Honor,
I have a right to ask her whether or not she noticed a large bottle on
that table.
MR. HAHN: We also insist that it is leading and suggestive and we are willing
to abide by the court's decision.
MR. SHELLEY: Counsel for the defense has brought out the point, you did not
notice Dines throw a bottle at Greer. Now we, the People, certainly have
the right to ask this witness whether or not there was such an object as
that in plain view on the table, before this witness.
MR. CONLIN: He may have had it in his pocket.
THE COURT: I think it would be proper for you to ask this witness if there
was a bottle of any kind in that room.
MR. HAHN: But she testified that she did not see anything on that table.
MR. SHELLEY: My question was did she notice anything particularly.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection to the question as asked.
MR. SHELLEY: As I understand, then, the ruling of your honor, refuses to let
me ask the witness whether she noticed a bottle on the table?
THE COURT: No; you can't ask her if she noticed a bottle there in that room.
I think that would be a proper question, inasmuch as the bottle has been
brought out here, but to call her attention to any particular place after
she said she didn't remember anything of that bottle, or words to that
effect, wouldn't be proper.
MR. SHELLEY: At any time after Greer came back the second time and Dines went
to the door, did you see Dines with a bottle in his hand?
A. No, sir.
MR. SHELLEY: During the time that Greer and Dines were there, and when Greer
came back the second time, did you see in the living room any bottle?
A. No; I didn't notice any bottle.
MR. SHELLEY: That is all.
MR. HAHN: Miss Normand, let me ask you one question, with your Honor's
permission. As I understood from cross examination that you didn't pay
any attention as to whether there were any bottles around there?
A. I did not.
Q. And you could not say that there were not bottles?
A. No, sir, I cannot.
Q. And as I understood you, you don't know whether Mr. Dines threw a bottle
at Greer or not?
A. No, sir; I never saw that part.
MR. HAHN: You never saw that part. Thank you very much. That is all.
MR. SHELLEY: Was there anything on the table at that time? That is, the
table in the center of the room?
A. No, the table is on the side of the room.
Q. Now, on that table in the center of the room, the table T, was there at
the time that Greer came back anything that you remember on that table?
A. No, there were a lot of little cigarette ends, which were all over the
place, but on the table I saw nothing, and then I don't remember--
Q. On the table B, in the kitchen, at the time that Greer came beck the
second time, do you remember what was on that table?
A. I do not.
MR. SHELLEY: That is all.
MR. HAHN: That is all.
THE COURT: Miss Normand, did you see Mr. Greer enter the room at all that
evening just before the shots were fired?
A. No, sir, I don't remember.
Q. Did you see him there at the door?
A. No, your honor, because the door bell rang and I heard Mr. Dines say,
"Just a minute."
Q. You didn't see Mr. Greer at all then immediately after the shots?
A. No, sir--no, sir, I didn't, your honor. I just can't recall.
Q. Did you see him?
A. After that I just can't recall, but--
Q. Did you see him?
A. Because they were all talking about everything New Year's, you know.
Q. Who do you mean by "all"?
A. Mr. Dines, Miss Purviance, just before she had entered the other room,
they were all talking about people and New Year's Eve.
Q. Mr. Dines went back to the breakfast table, and you went to him.
A. No. When the door bell rang he was standing, it seemed to me, so far as I
can recall, near the breakfast table.
Q. And you were where?
A. I was sitting on that couch. The door bell rang. Mr. Dines said, "Joe,
who is it?" and Joe answered--
MR. CONLIN: Just a minute, object to that as a conclusion of the witness and
incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial unless she is qualified to know his
voice.
THE COURT: All right. What was said by the party at the door?
A. Not a thing.
THE COURT: "Joe"?
A. Yes, Mr. Greer.
MR. CONLIN: Object to that and move that the answer be stricken as not
responsive.
THE COURT: Stricken out. Did you recognize the voice of the person who said,
"Joe"?
A. Well, I think I ought to be rather used to it.
Q. Did you recognize who was there?
A. Well, I think I did.
Q. And who was there?
A. Joe.
Q. That is the defendant here?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you didn't see him at all?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. All right. Just at what point did you leave the room, or did you leave
the room first?
A. No, Mr. Dines went to the door. Mr. Greer had a box.
Q. No, whoever it was, did you see him with the box?
A. Yes, I did. I saw him with the box. I mean--I don't know whether I saw
him with the box or not. Anyway, I got up and went over and spoke to Mr.
Dines, who was in the room.
Q. Now, we want to know did you see him, or did you not see the defendant?
That is what I want to know.
A. Yes, I did. I saw Joe in there.
Q. Where was he? That is all right. Now where was he?
A. Entering the door with the box like this (illustrating).
Q. And where, at that time, was Mr. Dines?
A. Near the table. Mr. Dines at that time was at the table.
Q. All right, take the chalk and show us now; make a mark where each one of
them was?
A. I can't draw a picture, your honor.
A. You can make a cross?
A. I can make it where it is.
Q. Where the figure A is, is the door, supposed to be the entrance to the
building?
A. Well, this place (indicating on diagram).
Q. All right, show us where Mr. Greer was when you saw him with the box?
A. He was there (indicating on diagram).
Q. All right. Now, show us where Mr. Dines was at the same time?
A. Now, what does D mean?
Q. That is where you were sitting; that is the couch.
A. All right, that is fine. T for Tommy is what?
Q. That is the table.
A. And B is the little breakfast table (indicating on diagram).
Q. Well, now let us know where you saw him?
A. Well, as near as I can recollect, I am sure he was near there, because I--
Q. All right, never mind why.
A. I got up, and I went--where is the bedroom?
Q. Where you see the D there is the door.
A. I went that way (indicating on diagram).
Q. All right. Now, about how far is it from where you saw Mr. Greer, to
where you saw him at that time?
A. From here to where that gentleman is sitting, your honor.
THE COURT: How far is that, counsel?
MR. CONLIN: About twelve feet.
MR. HAHN: About twelve or fifteen feet.
THE COURT: Is that stipulated?
MR. SHELLEY: Ten to fifteen feet.
MR. HAHN: Ten to fifteen feet, something like that.
THE COURT: Did you leave the room?
A. Yes, Joe--
Q. You went into the bedroom, then?
A. Into the bedroom.
Q. Where were you when you heard these shots?
A. Still in the doorway.
Q. Just where?
A. Where is the doorway? Because I am getting a little mixed up on that.
Q. Where E is.
A. There is the doorway (indicating on diagram). There is where I was.
Q. (Indicating.) This is the bedroom.
A. All right, that is where Miss Purviance was.
Q. Did you meet her?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And how far apart were you and Miss Purviance at that time?
A. Well, there is a closet--
Q. Just answer the question. How far apart were you?
A. Well, just like this (illustrating); because that is a long mirror--
Q. Four or five feet?
A. I can't tell the feet. Like this, (illustrating).
THE COURT: How far is that, counsel?
MR. CONLIN: About four feet.
THE COURT: Is that all right, Mr. District Attorney?
MR. HEINECKE: About four feet.
THE COURT: All right.
Q. And you and Miss Purviance were talking?
A. Yes, talking. Back here, I was this way (indicating).
Q. Which way was your back--towards Mr. Greer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time the shots were fired?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. And you went right on talking with Miss Purviance, didn't turn round, for
some seconds?
A. I thought they were firecrackers--
Q. Is that correct?
A. Absolutely correct.
Q. But when did--when you did look around, where was Dines?
A. He was near the table.
Q. Show us on the map.
A. Oh! Is that the table (indicating)?
Q. Yes, that is the table.
A. Well, it seems to me--we were so excited when we saw the blood--
Q. Never mind, now.
A. That is the only way I can explain, your Honor.
Q. Don't explain it at all. Show us.
A. It seemed as if he was coming towards us, and we both rushed towards him,
and he was all bent over like this (illustrating).
Q. All right; you have told us that. Now, where was Mr. Greer--do you know?
A. I didn't see Mr. Greer.
Q. He had gone?
A. He had already left.
THE COURT: That is all. Any further questions?
MR. CONLIN: Do you know whether Mr. Greer had left the room before these
reports like firecrackers went off?
A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. How long prior to the time of these shots did you see Mr. Greer?
A. Well, it all happened so quickly, I can't recall that, or answer it
correctly.
Q. Well, do you know whether it was one minute, or two minutes, or three
minutes or how long it was?
A. Hearing these reports like firecrackers?
Q. When you came out of the bedroom?
A. Well, I know it was--
Q. You came out of the bedroom?
A. Well, I know it was--I asked Miss Purviance, I had time to ask her for her
powder puff.
Q. In other words--did you use the powder puff?
A. No, I asked her for it. She was using it before that long mirror which
goes in the closet.
Q. You stood in the doorway until Miss Purviance got through using it?
A. I never used it, because in the meantime the shots were fired.
Q. Well, when you went into the bedroom--or when you were standing in the
door?
A. I was standing in the doorway.
Q. You couldn't see what happened in the room, could you, what happened
between Mr. Dines and Mr. Greer?
A. I couldn't see.
Q. Well, then, you don't know how long Mr. Dines and Mr. Greer were talking,
do you?
A. I do not.
Q. It may have been two or three or four minutes, may it not?
A. It was longer, perhaps.
MR. SHELLEY: Did you, after the shots were fired, when you came back in, or
at any time before you left the apartment, see an automatic revolver?
A. No, sir.
MR. HAHN: Just a minute--she has answered, "No, sir," all right. She said,
"no."
MR. SHELLEY: That is all.
MR. HEINECKE: Another question, Miss Normand. You stated when you went in
there, you saw Mr. Dines and he was standing in this position
(illustrating). Now you mean he was bent over and had both hands on his
chest?
A. I can't answer that correctly because I know he was this way
(illustrating), all full of blood.
Q. Now, you are indicating that he was stooping with his head over?
A. Yes.
Q. And with his hands on his chest?
A. And he said, "I have been plugged"--that is the only way I remember.
MR. HAHN: Wait a minute, madam, wait a minute. Objected to as hearsay, what
he said, and no proper foundation laid. It hasn't been shown that Greer
was there.
THE WITNESS: No, Mr. Greer wasn't there.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: Pardon me.
THE COURT: I think that is part of the res gestae--near enough.
Q. Will you indicate, if you can state, will you approximate about how far
you were standing from Mr. Greer, when you saw him in the doorway?
A. I wasn't standing; I was sitting, your honor, when Mr. Greer came in, and
got up because he had a box in his hands for Mr. Dines, and then I left
for the bedroom door to speak to Miss Purviance and ask for her powder
box.
Q. What I want to fix is the distance between the point where Mr. Greer
spoke, and when you went to the door to see Miss Purviance. The question
is how far it would be from the point where Mr. Greer stopped, to where
you were talking to Miss Purviance, at the door of the bedroom?
A. Here is your door (indicating on diagram), and about that man's shoes
there (indicating), about that far is where Mr. Dines was.
Q. Which man?
A. I don't know that man.
MR. SHELLEY: Eight or nine feet?
MR. HAHN: Eight or nine feet.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HEINECKE: What did you and Miss Purviance do immediately after you saw
his condition?
MR. CONLIN: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, leading
and suggestive, assuming a state of facts not in evidence.
MR. HEINECKE: If anything.
MR. CONLIN: No bearing on this defendant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HAHN: If your honor please, Miss Purviance and Miss Normand's actions,
what they did in the absence of the defendant are prejudicial to the
defendant. I don't know what she may state. It has nothing to do with
the issues in this case. The question is very broad. You might as well
ask her what she did at midnight.
THE COURT: The question is what she immediately did. I don't think it is
prejudicial at all. I shall not allow the witness to go into any detailed
statement of what happened for any extended period afterwards, but what
happened immediately, I think is material.
MR. HAHN: Whether the defendant was there or not?
THE COURT: Yes, you may answer.
Q. What did you do immediately after?
A. Why, we rushed out of the room and saw Mr. Dines in this condition. We
both, Miss Purviance and I, took his arms on each side, and took him into
the bedroom and put him on the bed.
THE COURT: I think that answers it.
MR. HAHN: Just a minute.
THE COURT: And put him on the bed?
A. On the bed.
MR. HEINECKE: That is all.
Attorney Hahn, on re-cross examination, asked: You don't remember what you
did immediately after the shooting, do you?
A. Yes. I do. I remember I turned around after I heard what I thought were
firecrackers and saw Mr. Dines in this condition.
Q. Why, you said a few minutes ago it was probably four or five minutes?
A. Well, we were talking, and I didn't pay much attention to it, but as soon
as we did see the condition that Mr. Dines was in, we both ran to him, and
Miss Purviance took him on one side and I took him on the other side and
we took him into the bedroom.
THE COURT: You heard no conversation between Dines and Greer either before or
after the shooting?
A. No, your honor.
MR. HAHN: You really don't remember whether it was four or five minutes or
four or five seconds that you walked out of that bedroom with Miss
Purviance, do you.
A. No, I don't.
MR. CONLIN: This four or five minutes that you testified having elapsed, do
you mean that it was four or five minutes between the time that Mr. Greer
came into the apartment and was talking with Mr. Dines four or five
minutes, or was it four or five minutes from the time the firecrackers
went off and you turned around and saw Mr. Dines?
MR. SHELLEY: We will object to that as immaterial.
A. I can't give you the absolute detailed time except I got up from the couch
and walked to the bedroom door and stood and talked to Miss Purviance, and
the next thing I heard was the shots; the exact time I don't know.
MR. CONLIN: That is all.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Testimony at the Horace Greer Trial
June 17, 1924
LOS ANGELES EXAMINER
Mabel Normand Clashes with Greer's Attorney
Very much like the "three firecrackers going off," to which Mabel
Normand compared the shots that figured in the shooting of Courtland Dines
at the interrupted New Year's party in his apartments was Mabel Normand's
own testimony on the witness stand in Judge Crail's court yesterday.
The difference was that Mabel's verbal firecrackers sputtered and
blazed continuously as she told the story of the shooting, for which Horace
Greer, her former chauffeur, is on trial.
Miss Normand was by no means an unwilling witness, although she
displayed a hazy memory on some points on which information was sought,
Particularly when Defense Attorney S. S. Hahn placed her under cross-
examination was she more than ready to come back with swift and emphatic
answers that kept the crowded courtroom laughing.
Once, when Hahn was working to tangle her in the meshes of "what did
you say when you testified before," the Normand temper slipped its moorings.
"You haven't any right to cross examine me like that," she said. "What
do you want to be so mean to me for? That isn't the way you were supposed
to act."
Prosecution attorneys murmured something about manner toward witnesses,
Judge Crail smiled.
"This witness seems perfectly able to take care of herself," he said.
Miss Normand began her story by telling of her visit to Dines'
apartment in response to telephone invitations from Dines and Edna
Purviance.
"The first thing I did was to pick up some cigarette butts," she said,
"then we sat and talked like anybody."
The cigarette butts re-entered the examination when Greer's attorney
made passing mention of "While you were smoking."
"I beg your pardon," interrupted Miss Normand, icicles clinging to
every word. "I was not smoking."
"I beg yours," said the attorney, with a bow that called for a camera
to record it.
Later, said Miss Normand, Dines telephoned to her home and told Greer,
her chauffeur, to bring over the Christmas gift that Dines had forgotten to
take with him. Miss Normand was sitting on the couch near the door, she
said, when Greer came in. Dines was standing near the table. Miss
Purviance was in an adjoining room.
"I heard a knock, and Greer came in," said Miss Normand. "I walked
over to the bedroom door to speak to Edna. I was just inside when I heard
three noises, like firecrackers. Edna and I ran out into the living room."
"I saw Dines all bent over. He said, 'I'm plugged.' He was all over
blood. I just saw a white shirt and vest, then the whole crowd came in,
after we had helped Dines over to the bed. I never saw so many people in my
life at once.
"I didn't see Greer there, after Dines said he was plugged. I didn't
hear Greer and Dines talking together at all. I didn't see any gun there."
Greer's counsel tur
ned to the bottle with which the defense claimed
Dines was about to strike Greer when the latter shot. A squat, brown,
hospitable looking bottle, it stood on the counsel table with a cardboard
tag tied around its plump neck.
"Is this the bottle you saw in Dines' apartment?" he demanded, after
Miss Normand had insisted that she saw only one bottle.
"It looks like it, and it doesn't look like it," answered Mabel.
"How much whisky was in it?"
Mabel carefully measured out with thumb and finger about two
perpendicular inches.
"That was all," she said. "Just enough for the three of us to have a
little drink, when somebody said, 'It's New Year's.'"
"Dines," said Mabel, "was not exactly drunk, but he had plenty."
"Isn't it a fact," demanded the defense attorney, "after he had quizzed
Miss Normand over and over again on what she told Greer about calling for
her, "isn't it a fact that you told him that you were afraid to stay at
Dines' place because you had to go to the hospital the next day, and you
knew you would get drunk if you stayed?"
Mabel's voice was full of ice again.
"Certainly not," she said. "I wouldn't talk to a driver about going to
a hospital, and anyway, I wasn't going the next day."
Miss Normand was also very hazy about the gun. She had owned a gun,
she said, but she didn't remember what it looked like, and she hadn't seen
it for months and months. The gun which was produced in court looked much
too clean and new to be hers, she said.
"Did you tell Greer to shoot Dines?" the defense counsel asked.
"What would I tell him a thing like that for?" countered Mabel.
The defense questioned both Miss Normand and Edna Purviance about the
amount of clothing that Dines had on. Both were rather vague about it, but
they decided that all that was missing was a coat, and possibly an outside
shirt...
The prosecution is in charge of Chief Trial Deputy Charles Fricke and
Deputy District Attorney Hammer, S. S. Hahn, Clarence Conlin and P. R. Simon
represent Greer; Milton Cohen is Mabel Normand and [Claire] Woolwine watches
over Miss Purviance's participation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
June 17, 1924
LOS ANGELES HERALD
...The reading of the testimony given by Dines at the preliminary
hearing in the case was scheduled to follow Mrs. Burns' appearance on the
stand. Dines, who is at the bedside of his father who is ill in Denver,
displayed a remarkable lapse of memory when he testified. He said he
couldn't remember that Greer shot him.
Dines' lapse of memory and the haziness of the testimony of Miss
Normand and Miss Purviance caused Justice Hanby [the judge at the
preliminary hearing] to charge openly that there was collusion between the
attorneys and the witnesses in the case to cause the charge against Greer to
be dropped. And in this connection a remark made by Miss Normand while she
was under cross-examination late yesterday was regarded as somewhat
significant today.
There were two versions of what Miss Normand said. Defense Attorney
Hahn was questioning her sharply when she flared up. According to one
version she said to Hahn:
"You haven't any right to cross-examine me like that. What do you want
to be so mean to me for? That isn't the way you were supposed to act."
The other version was that she snapped out
"You aren't supposed to be so hard. The idea of cross-examining me
like that! That wasn't the understanding I had with you."
But regardless of the words she used the gist of her remark was the
same in both versions. However, if Hahn had any "understanding" to be easy
in his cross-examination of Miss Normand he certainly forgot it when he
questioned her on her story of the shooting.
There was considerable speculation today as to what caused Miss Normand
to make the remark...
The cross-examination of Miss Normand was marked by lively spats
between her and Attorney Hahn and by her gesturing and the way she answered
questions. The crowd got a tremendous "kick" out of it.
Once when she was cautioned to refer to Greer as Greer and not as
"Kelly," the name he gave when she employed him, she turned to Judge Crail
and expostulated:
"I beg your pardon, you honor. You see, I don't know the law. I mean,
I don't know the defendant. How's that?"
Again, when she was asked how big a man Dines was, she turned to Judge
Crail with a sweet smile and said:
"Your honor, I think Mr. Dines was just like you, your honor. May I
say that?"
"We'd better not make the matter too personal," said the judge,
sternly.
Hahn asked her if she had told Greer to shoot Dines.
"For heaven's sake--no!" she retorted. "Why should I tell anybody to
plug anybody, anyhow?"
She said Dines had not been "exactly drunk," but that he had "had
plenty." And when she was asked to account for Greer's actions when Dines
was shot, she said, "He must have been crazy or wild--I do not know."
Substantially, her testimony as the same as she gave at the preliminary
hearing. She said her back was toward Greer and Dines when she heard three
sounds "like firecrackers popping" and when she turned around Dines was
pressing his hands to a spot of blood on his chest and gasping, "I've been
plugged." She said she had not seen Greer shot. She admitted there had
been drinking in the apartment and measured off two inches on the whisky
bottle taken from the apartment as the amount left in the bottle when she
arrived.
"Just enough for three drinks," she said...
[Note: It is possible that Mabel Normand's clash with the defense attorney
came after he had focused on a discrepancy in her testimony. For example,
at the preliminary hearing she reportedly testified that she did not notice
a bottle in the room; at the trial she remembered it very clearly and even
remembered having a drink from it.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
June 17, 1924
Edith Bristol
LOS ANGELES HERALD
Star's Testimony is Made Vivid by Gestures
In the testimony of Mabel Normand, film star witness in the trial of
Horace Greer for the shooting of Courtland Dines on New Year's day, there
are two features which will never go into the stenographic report.
One of them is Miss Normand's broad--oh, very broad--"a." It is "a" as
in "bawth," "cawn't," "rawther" and "pawdon." A real Cavendish Square
breadth of accent, so like dear old Lonnon!
The other item of testimony doomed to escape the official record is
Miss Normand's conversational hands--unless they bring a cinema into court
to reproduce her answers.
Taalk? Miss Normand's hands fairly chatter. They are voluble,
loquacious. And when she gets excited they stutter.
A running obligato of gesture accompanies her words. It began when, on
being sworn, the comedienne inquired which hand to raise in taking the oath.
After once getting her hands into gear, she threw them into high speed and
illustrated every answer with a gesture.
Attorney Hahn, cross-examining, displays a curiosity as to the bottle
on the table of Dines' apartment. Miss Normand impersonates the pouring of
the drink. She illustrates the exact size of right and proper drink, the
amount remaining is measured by her hands, and the fluttering fingers go
through the "business" of the convivial scene. Her hands point out that
delicate distinction between a man who is drunk and a man who is only
"drinking."
Her hands show the jury--which looks like a comfortable, motherly
meeting of the Ladies' Aid into which two men have strayed inadvertently--
just how the door opened into the bedroom, just how she powdered her nose,
just the way she gathered up the offending cigarette butts which marred the
order of Dines' apartment on her arrival.
Just the manner in which Dines announced that he had been "plugged" and
just the way a "plugged" man looks when he is, as Miss Normand expresses it,
"all full of blood," is acted out by the talkative hands.
An airy wave and an outspread gesture depict the sound of the "three
firecrackers going off," and another farflung gesticulation shows just how
it feels to be deprived of one's own car and forced to ride to the police
station with the officers.
Didn't someone write a play to Mary's ankle?
If anything so mute as an ankle is entitled to be made the theme of a
drama, then some aspiring playwright should compose a scenario of the Dines
New Year's celebration and title it "Mabel's Fingers."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
June 19, 1924
LOS ANGELES HERALD
Greer Case is Ready for Jurors
The case for Horace Greer, former chauffeur for Mabel Normand, tried
for shooting Courtland Dines during a party Dines staged with Miss Normand
and Edna Purviance New Year's day, was ready for the jury today...
Greer, who refused to testify in his own defense because, he said, he
would "rather go to the penitentiary than say anything that would hurt Miss
Normand" watched the jurors closely as Fricke was completing the arguments.
His decision to stay off the witness stand, which caused the attorneys
to throw up their hands in consternation, was made at the last minute, after
his attorneys had promised he would testify and "tell everything."
Without having produced one word of testimony, Greer's lawyers were
compelled to rely on what they said were flaws in the prosecution's case in
their arguments to the jury. They shouted that Dines' own testimony and
that of the other prosecution witnesses upheld Greer's story he shot in self
defense.
Defense Attorney Conlin pictured the New Year's day party at Dines'
apartment as a Roman saturnalia where Dines, Miss Normand and Miss Purviance
were defying the constitution by drinking. He characterized Greer as the
"only clean soul" of the four, who was intent upon rescuing his employer
from what was going on...
Conlin said Greer shot Dines because Dines reached for a bottle to
strike him with when he insisted that Miss Normand return home with him.
"Which was the more honorable?" he asked. "Was it Mabel, the cigarette
girl, who wants us to believe she was there as an uplifter? Was it Dines,
the Roman gladiator, posing in his undershirt and reaching for the whisky
bottle? Or was it this boy Greer, the only sober one there, who wanted to
take his employer from such a scene?"
S. S. Hahn, chief defense counsel, devoted his argument to a flaw-
picking attack on Dines' "I-don't-remember" story.
He ridiculed the testimony given by Miss Normand and Miss Purviance.
"They don't want the truth of this affair to become known," he said.
"They are afraid it will besmirch the motion picture profession. But the
stars have got their punishment and the only lesson that a jury can teach
such dark stars is by acquitting this boy."...
[Greer was indeed acquitted.]
*****************************************************************************
Thanks to John Gierland for supplying some of the above clippings.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
For more information about Taylor, see
WILLIAM DESMOND TAYLOR: A DOSSIER (Scarecrow Press, 1991)
Back issues of Taylorology are available via Gopher at
gopher.etext.org
in the directory Zines/Taylorology
or on the Web at
http://www.angelfire.com/free/Taylor.html
*****************************************************************************
