informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/TAYLOROLOGY/taylor94.txt

953 lines
60 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

*****************************************************************************
* T A Y L O R O L O G Y *
* A Continuing Exploration of the Life and Death of William Desmond Taylor *
* *
* Issue 94 -- October 2000 Editor: Bruce Long bruce@asu.edu *
* TAYLOROLOGY may be freely distributed *
*****************************************************************************
CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE:
Did Drug Gangsters Kill Taylor?
"Filming the Great Idea"
*****************************************************************************
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.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Did Drug Gangsters Kill Taylor?
An early version of the following article appeared in WILLIAM DESMOND TAYLOR:
A DOSSIER. The numbers in brackets cite sources in the endnotes.
One of the strongest critics of Sidney Kirkpatrick's A CAST OF KILLERS
(and the Shelby-as-killer theory) is Robert Giroux. After writing an article
highly critical of Kirkpatrick's book [1], Giroux followed up with his own
book on the Taylor case, A DEED OF DEATH (Knopf, 1990), "proving" Taylor was
killed by someone else--by a "hit man" for a drug gang, supposedly killing
Taylor because of Taylor's fight against the drug traffickers in Hollywood.
Giroux's book is in every way more scholarly, more compelling, and more
convincing than Kirkpatrick's, and should be read by everyone who loves
Hollywood history. Some readers who scoffed at Kirkpatrick's book eagerly
acclaimed Giroux's.
To summarize briefly the Drug Gang Theory: Taylor was known to be in love
with actress Mabel Normand, who was unquestionably addicted to narcotics at
one time. In 1920 she appealed to Taylor for help and he in turn met with
U.S. attorney Tom Green in an effort to halt the drug traffic in Hollywood.
Late in 1920, Mabel Normand underwent drug rehabilitation at an eastern
sanitarium. She returned to Hollywood cured. That much seems to be
established as fact. According to the theory, the drug gang did their best
to insure her relapse into addiction, and they succeeded. Taylor continued
to fight the drug gang as best he could. Once, supposedly, he caught a drug
pusher at Mabel Normand's home; he beat up the pusher and kicked him into the
street. Shortly before his murder, Taylor supposedly had a drug pusher
thrown off the Paramount lot. The drug gang, fed up with Taylor's continuing
interference with their business, killed him.
It all sounds plausible, but is it the true solution?
Perhaps. It's possible. But viewed impartially, the evidence seems
inclined against this "solution."
Most of Giroux's evidence in support of the Drug Gang Theory comes from
newspaper items published in the month after the murder. But it is very
misleading to examine those clippings as isolated items--they must be
examined at their respective points in the river of press material published
in the wake of Taylor's murder.
On February 1, 1922, around 7:50 p.m., William Desmond Taylor was murdered
in his home by a single gunshot wound. The body was discovered the next
morning and, as Adolphe Menjou later wrote,
Newspaper reporters from every big paper in the country swarmed
into Hollywood like ants into a jam pot, for it was by far the best
murder mystery Hollywood had ever produced.[2]
Let us briefly trace the drug rumors, as they appeared in the press.
The first drug-related rumors began appearing on Feb. 3. One Hearst wire
service report stated:
The detectives sent into Hollywood to run down the slayer of
Taylor were instructed to overlook no whisper of gossip that might
bring the answer to the riddle of death. They were told to inquire
especially, it was stated, about a recent "party" where dope, ether,
cocaine and morphine took the place of wine and whisky. The party
ended in a savage brawl, it was declared, in which two infuriated
women attacked each other and fought as men fight until their
clothes were ripped off. Both of them, the report insists, were
prominent actresses, whose names are known to the police.[3]
Other references to this incident make it virtually certain that it took
place over a year earlier, with the two fighting actresses being Lottie
Pickford and Flo Hart. The overwhelming probability is that Taylor had
nothing to do with it--a reporter decided to "spice up" the Taylor case by
dragging in the story of this fight and by hinting the fight had been over
Taylor, whereas in reality the actresses had been fighting over actor Kenneth
Harlan.[4]
On Feb. 3, other press rumors also appeared, stating:
Detectives also are investigating the report that Taylor attended
recently a number of so-called "hop" parties where drug addicts
gathered. At these parties morphine, opium and marihuana are said
to have been used freely by those present, with the exception of
Taylor. His friends say he may have attended these parties and
witnessed what was going on for information to be used in connection
with his work as a director.[5]
And the following day:
Recently, it was learned, Taylor had attended two or three "hop"
parties where all but he had either smoked opium or taken a drug in
some form. He was there, it was assumed, to get "atmosphere" for a
picture.[6]
And:
Recently, say his friends, he [Taylor] had been visiting the
queer places in Los Angeles, where guests are served with opium and
morphine, where the drugs are wheeled in on tea carts.
"It is not odd," they say. "He was looking for color. He was
always seeking the bizarre, the unbelievable, the unusual. All
phases of life interested him. All types of men and women
fascinated him. He did not indulge in 'dope' himself, but he wanted
to see what sort of men and women did indulge, and he wanted to see
how it acted, and how they reacted to it."[7]
On Feb. 6, Wallace Smith of the CHICAGO AMERICAN began reporting rumors
that Taylor had been supplying Mabel Normand with narcotics:
One of the present theories of the police is that Taylor, alias
William Deane-Tanner, the man of the double life and the friend of
many women, was receiving "dope" for one of his feminine
acquaintances. It was rather definitely reported that she was a
star whose friends had sought to keep her favorite "dope," morphine,
away from her and that she had found in Taylor a willing agent.
One of her admirers, it was theorized, learning that Taylor had
been secretly holding the young woman a slave to the drug--and
perhaps to his fancies--confronted him with the fact and killed
him.[8]
Associated Press carried this item:
...Close upon the heels of these declarations came the report
that the police were searching for a drug peddler, who, it is
pointed out, had sought through Taylor to make delivery of drugs to
an actress, who found it difficult to make her purchases direct.[9]
The next day, it was rumored that Taylor himself was an addict. One
reporter wrote, "Some movie people who visited Taylor are known to be drug
addicts and police profess to believe he was one."[10]
On Feb. 7, Smith began accusing Mabel Normand of having committed the
murder while under the influence of drugs. One of the newspapers headlined
his syndicated article: DRUG CRAZED FILM QUEEN IS MURDER SUSPECT.[11]
According to Smith's article, information "reached the police, heard from the
dens of dope peddlers" concerning "one of the most noted of the screen's
favorites--and one of the pitiful number who have become thralls of the dope
ring--the police say, led by new spectacular developments...that the film
beauty may be the assassin." Smith stated that the actress, "half crazed with
the drug she had taken," was together with Taylor at a celebration on New
Year's Eve, when they quarrelled. (On Feb. 8, Taylor's chauffeur, Howard
Fellows, was widely quoted as telling of the quarrel between Mabel and Taylor
on New Year's Eve.[12]) Smith went on to state that the night of Taylor's
murder,
...the film queen again was at a dope "party," morose and
embittered, according to the police information...The police believe
it possible that this woman, with the fumes of the drug fanning the
flame of fierce jealousy that burned within her, armed herself and
went to the home of Taylor ready to demand his love and ready to
kill him if he refused.[13]
On Feb. 8, Smith told of Mabel Normand's old romance with Mack Sennett and
their physical battle which ended in Mabel's serious injury. He also told of
her drug addiction and again implied Taylor was supplying her with narcotics.
On Feb. 9, actress Martha Mansfield was interviewed.
...She believes a dope fiend, failing to get screen work from
William Desmond Taylor, killed the noted director.
"Find the man who has been hounding Taylor for a job for the past
few weeks and you'll have his slayer," says Miss Mansfield.[14]
That same day, the lurid drug rumors reached their apex with the printed
stories of Edward Doherty and Wallace Smith, telling of a Chinese opium
smuggler who asked the District Attorney's office for immunity in exchange
for providing information about a "love cult." According to Smith,
The Chinese had supplied members of the cult, most of them
actors, with opium.
Taylor, he declared, was one of the leaders of the group. Its
chief pledge was that its members would have no association with
women. Each swore he was satisfied with the companionship of other
members of the cult and the solace of the opium pipe.
From time to time, the Chinese said, these men--some painted and
otherwise "made up"--would gather in one of the luxuriously
furnished studios at their disposal.
There, inhaling the sweet smell of the opium smoke and their eyes
glazed by its effect, they would go through the rites of the order.
...The Chinese insists that these men had taken an oath of
eternal love, and that Taylor, a member of the circle, may have
broken the oath and been doomed to death.[15]
Doherty's version of the report stated,
...He declares the men would lie in silk kimonos, smoke the essence
of the poppy flower and so commence their ritual, old as Sodom.
The Chinese asserted that the members of the cult were held
together by a bond, unthinkable, unnameable, unbelievable, and that
each had sworn an oath of undying affection for the others.[16]
The following day, reports appeared in Detroit newspapers theorizing that
Aleister Crowley's notorious Ordo-Templi-Orientis was the cult behind the
Taylor murder, citing the similarity of kimono-clad drug rituals. And they
reported that "a famous motion picture actress, whose name has been mentioned
in the Taylor investigation"[17] had ordered a copy of The Equinox, the
O.T.O. publication.
So the truth is, that in the 9 days after Taylor's murder, up to Feb. 10,
there were many rumors appearing in the press which attempted to link the
murder to drugs in some way, rumors that either:
1. Taylor attended drug parties to get "atmosphere" for a picture; or
2. Taylor was a drug addict; or
3. Taylor supplied drugs for an actress friend of his; or
4. Taylor was killed by someone who was under the influence of drugs at the
time of the killing; or
5. Taylor's killer was a fellow member of a secret homosexual cult of drug
users.
Which of those rumors were possibly true? The only one that can be given
even a moment's serious consideration is the rumor that Taylor attended drug
parties for information to be used in connection with his work as a director
--but if true, this would be directly at odds with the anti-drug crusading
image of Taylor which would later emerge.
Before February 10, NOT ONE NEWSPAPER theorized that perhaps Taylor was
killed because of his supposed anti-drug fight. And before February 10, NOT
ONE PERSON--nobody in the film community, none of Taylor's friends, none of
the authorities, none of the paid informers, none of the arrested drug
peddlers, none of the convicts--stepped forward to mention Taylor's purported
anti-drug fight. When the first mention of that theory finally appeared in
the press, it came from none of those sources, but from another direction
entirely.
Arthur B. Reeve was a well-known pulp fiction writer, author of the "Craig
Kennedy" series of detective stories. Shortly after Taylor was murdered,
Reeve was hired by Hearst to write a series of widely-syndicated newspaper
articles speculating freely about the Taylor murder case. Each of Reeve's
articles mentioned drugs, primarily to blame Prohibition for causing
increasing drug usage. Reeve wrote from New York and had no personal contact
with anyone involved in the Taylor case--he wrote his speculative articles
merely in response to the stories and rumors appearing in the press. In his
third article, published in newspapers throughout the country on Feb. 10,
1922, he wrote:
...There is one possibility which I don't think any one has
suggested...
Let us suppose he [Taylor] was interested in the cleaning up of
the dope situation in Hollywood. There had been much talk of
cleaning up. And he must have known much about the situation, known
many stars of the happy dust. Heaven knows, then, that there would
be those to fear a house cleaning and exposure. Would an addict or
a dope vendor stop at anything, noted as they are for their
diabolical cunning?[18]
In Los Angeles, Reeve's series of articles appeared in the LOS ANGELES
EXAMINER.
The next mention of this theory is in Hearst reporter Wallace Smith's
dispatch of February 11, only now Reeve's theoretical "dope vendor" has
become "blackmailing killers hired by a gang of eastern drug smugglers,"[19]
containing the tale in essentially its first complete form: Mabel Normand was
supposedly cured of her morphine addiction but in reality she had become
hooked again; during a trip to N.Y. in 1921 she went to dope parties; the
drug gang trapped her in a compromising position; at least two members of the
gang followed her to L.A. to keep track of her and keep demanding blackmail
money; Taylor defied the gang and was killed. Of particular interest is the
fact that Smith credits this tale to an actor and a director from a studio
lot in Culver City, indicating this version of the tale originated in the
film industry. (At the time of the Taylor murder, there were three film
studios located in Culver City: Ince, Goldwyn, and Roach.)
Subsequent press rumors relocated the "eastern" drug gang to Los Angeles.
Around this same time, jailed drug pushers and other criminals now began
telling stories "confirming" these rumors, hoping to gain an advantage to
their personal situation in exchange for providing "information" about the
case. (Such hopes were not entirely in vain. Later in the 1920s, a convict
named Hefner was actually able to secure his early release from Folsom prison
--he told authorities a tall tale about the murder and then said the drug
gang would soon kill him in prison because he had talked, so California
Governor Richardson granted him an early release. Hefner subsequently
admitted he made up the whole story.[20])
Even after the Drug Gang Theory began to emerge and rapidly grow, Wallace
Smith was reluctant to abandon his earlier premise that Taylor was working
for the drug gang:
Sealed and secret letters of William Desmond Taylor, slain film
director, that link him with the gangs of drug smugglers and
bootleggers who have grown rich on the depravities of Hollywood,
today were in the possession of the district attorney...
Every effort was being made by certain leaders of the film
industry to keep the epistles from the public. Enough of them was
known, however, to demonstrate that Taylor, the eccentric, shattered
Federal laws right and left at the whim of his dope-dazed high-
stepping actress friends of Hollywood...
It strengthened an earlier theory that Taylor, because of his
position in the moving picture world, had been hired by the drug
peddlers to assist them in their campaign to put all Hollywood, if
possible, in their thrall.[21]
Edward Doherty also told of the "letters that seemed to indicate Taylor had
supplied whisky and drugs for several frail white lilies of the screen."[22]
But the Drug Gang Theory, portraying Taylor as an anti-drug crusader, was
rapidly picking up steam. Comment will be limited to the main items used by
Giroux in support of the theory.
On Feb. 14, several newspapers carried statements made by Capt. Edward
Salisbury, in New York. At face value, Salisbury's statements to New York
reporters would seem to indicate Taylor was actively fighting the drug gang
at the time of his death. But there are unanswered questions. If Salisbury
felt so strongly about it, why didn't he go to the L.A. police with this
information? Did Salisbury feel the same way before the Drug Gang Theory
appeared in the press, or did he get the idea from reading the press items of
Reeve, Smith, etc.? (Salisbury's statements would carry far more weight if he
had made them a week earlier.) Were Salisbury's reported comments "spiced up"
by the New York reporters? (Only one of the newspapers carrying Salisbury's
comments said he spoke with Taylor about the drug gang "five days" before his
murder.) In any event, Salisbury is quoted as admitting his viewpoint is a
"theory."[23] One newspaper reported, "He [Salisbury] said that the general
impression around Los Angeles was that Taylor was engaged to Neva
Gerber."[24] As Neva Gerber and Taylor had broken off their engagement in
1919 and had never dated since then [25]--whereas Taylor had been seen
frequently in public with Mabel Normand over the past year--this is a strange
statement and would seem to indicate that perhaps Salisbury actually had
little contact with Taylor for years.
Also on Feb. 14, the press carried the written statement by Ralph Oyler,
director of the federal narcotic division in Washington. Because it was a
written statement, we can feel confident that it was not "spiced up" by
reporters. The portion of that statement which pertains to Taylor:
...I have had men working on these cases, which include on
circumstantial evidence, the Elwell murder, the Reid shooting in the
Bronx, the Taylor murder in Hollywood and recent cases in New
York...
Our findings so far would tend to show that the blackmail cases
are all connected and have their beginning in a criminal drug
element directed by one master mind, already named in the
newspapers. We are not mentioning this criminal individual and will
not until we have evidence sufficient to convict.[26]
Note the key phrase "on circumstantial evidence," which was cut from the
quote when Giroux reprinted it in his book. The statement implies that
"Dapper Don" Collins was behind the Elwell, Reid and Taylor shootings, yet
when Collins was finally arrested in 1924 he was charged with none of those
crimes and was evidently not even questioned by Los Angeles detectives.
Whatever the "circumstantial evidence" was, it obviously was not substantial.
The press item giving most support to the Drug Gang Theory is the
interview with U.S. attorney Tom Green. Unfortunately, his statement was
made only to Hearst reporters; the Los Angeles Times did not interview him.
The original interview was published in three forms on February 24, 1922--all
subsequent references to Green's statements came from those original three
items. Two of the items were published in the LOS ANGELES EXAMINER, and one
in the NEW YORK AMERICAN (from their L.A. correspondent, Lee Ettelson).
Unfortunately, the three accounts contain a wide number of discrepancies
concerning the number of conversations between Green and Taylor, the location
of those meetings, the amount Mabel Normand was paying for drugs, etc.
Because of those discrepancies all that can be stated for certain is that
Taylor met with Green to discuss the drug situation in Hollywood, and the
meeting took place in 1920, prior to Mabel's drug rehabilitation at Watkins
Glen. The fact that Taylor was helping a federal agent investigate the drug
traffic in Hollywood at that time does not necessarily have any bearing on
Taylor's murder, which took place nearly two years later.
There were two reported incidents of Taylor's supposed direct
confrontations with drug peddlers. In Tale #1 he was reported to have
confronted a drug peddler outside Mabel Normand's home; in Tale #2 he was
reported to have thrown a drug peddler off the Paramount lot.
This is the original version of Tale #1, dealing with the confrontation at
Normand's home:
Meanwhile, yesterday, the police received information of a rather
positive nature, which revived investigation along the "dope" lines,
work on which has been done ever since the murder by a number of the
detectives.
This was a statement made that Taylor had once caught a dope
peddler selling some poison to a friend of his.
He is said to have been very indignant at this sale and not only
forcibly ejected the peddler from the house in which the transaction
took place, but threatened to do him bodily harm if he ever again
attempted to sell dope to the friend.
As a consequence, the peddler is said to have threatened Taylor's
life.
"I'll get you sometime," he is alleged to have said. "You can't
butt into my trade every time you see me and get away with it."[27]
A few days later the rumor was expanded in the articles containing the
interview with Tom Green:
He [Taylor] told Green that the had given the chief of the
peddlers a terrific beating...and literally kicked the trafficker
into the street, after a resounding blow to the chin.[28]
As Taylor's visit with Green was in 1920, this would date the purported
incident as having happened before that meeting. Soon a new element entered
the tale. Harry Fields, a prisoner in Detroit, had fabricated a long tale
about Taylor's killing which provided newspaper headlines for a week before
it was totally discredited. Included in his tale were the names Jessie and
Maudie Cooper, two sisters who supposedly knew all the details concerning
Taylor's killing. Subsequently,
Telegraphic requests were sent broadcast today by the sheriff's
office asking the detention of Jessie and Maudie Cooper, sisters,
wanted for questioning in connection with the William Desmond Taylor
murder mystery.
The young women were acquainted with certain members of the
Chinese dope ring with which Taylor had trouble before his death,
Undersheriff Biscailuz said.[29]
And the next day a prisoner at the county jail reportedly told a long version
of Tale #1, merging in the story of the Cooper sisters:
Deputy Sheriff Harvey Bell, who has been working on the "dope
angle" of the case for several days, with important discoveries,
yesterday followed a clew which led him to the county jail. He
found there among the prisoners an addict who knew all the details
of the interesting episode and, after some persuasion, related them
as follows:
A certain peddler--one of the "big fellows"--had been furnishing
a well known motion picture actress with heroin. He was accustomed
to deliver the "stuff" at the back door.
One evening Taylor called on the actress a few moments after the
peddler had given his signal at the back door.
The young woman, caught between the two men, each demanding
admission from opposite sides of the house, was at a loss what to
do.
She ran to the front door and told Taylor to wait a minute, as
there was a tradesman at the back door. He thought this strange, it
is said, and noticed that the actress was extremely nervous, almost
distraught.
Before this he had known she was an addict, but she had told him
some months before that she had been cured.
Her long absence made him suspicious. He could not understand
also why he should be kept standing there with the door closed
against him.
So he went around the house and arrived just in time to see the
transaction between the actress and the peddler--he handing her the
bindles and she counting out bills into his hand.
Taylor rushed upon the two, tore the bills from his hands, took
the little packages of heroin from her; then gave the peddler a
terrific beating, ending by kicking him down the steps.
The peddler, it is said, smarted more over the loss of the money
than from his wounds, but the exorbitant profits he had been
exacting from the actress would have salved these, no doubt, had he
not, in a careless moment, told the story on himself.
Thereafter, said the county jail prisoner, his associates guyed
him unmercifully. They did this with all the more zest, as he was
thoroughly disliked.
This ridicule finally "got his goat," as the prisoner put it.
Instead of shrugging the subject off he began to snarl at the jest
and was heard to make threats against Taylor. He is said to have
been encouraged in his vengeful purpose by two sisters--drug addicts
themselves and creatures of the underworld.
These women disappeared the day after the murder, went to
Bakersfield and dropped from sight there: They are now being sought
as possibly material witnesses.[30]
Wallace Smith reported that one of the sisters was the sweetheart of the drug
peddler and she "dinned into his ears the gospel of revenge."[31] But the
press rumor died out after this point. On March 2, Jessie and Maudie Cooper
went to the newspapers and stated:
..."We have no knowledge of any dope sellers or dope-users.
"We never met Mr. Taylor and we haven't any friends among the
moving picture people. We do not know Fields.
"As soon as we saw the names of Maudie and Jessie Cooper
mentioned in the papers, in connection with the Fields story, we
went to the sheriff's office. But we were told the sheriff's office
was not looking for us and was not making any search for us..."[32]
Because the long version of Tale #1 included the Cooper sisters, it greatly
increases the probability that the entire long version was fabricated. When
Giroux repeated this tale, he left off the mention of the sisters, and he
credited the tale to Deputy Sheriff Harvey Bell--conveniently failing to
state that Bell's source was a jailed addict.[33]
What can be concluded from all this? How much of the tale regarding Taylor
beating up a drug peddler at Mabel's home is true? If it happened, the
probable date was in 1920, prior to Taylor's meeting with Green. And if it
happened that long ago, it was not likely the motive for Taylor's murder
nearly two years later.
Tale #2 concerning Taylor and a drug peddler supposedly took place on the
Paramount lot:
...The drug peddler is said to have supplied drugs to a number of
movie folk under Taylor's direction, and less than a week before the
murder, according to the report on which city detectives and
investigators from District Attorney Woolwine's office started out
today, Taylor caught the peddler on the property of the movie
company with which he was associated as head director. He ordered
the peddler off the lot. The peddler, with "friends at court" among
film actors and actresses of importance, is said to have been
defiant. Taylor blazed:
"Get out of here, you son of hell, and stay out, or I'll soil my
hands on you. Get out of here, now, before I wring your neck!"
Taylor exclaimed.
The drug peddler moved off and finally left. He was muttering
threats as he left.[34]
Smith and Doherty reported the name of the drug peddler "a man known as
'Morphine Mose,' reputed to have been addicted to the drug which gave him his
nickname."[35] If this actually took place a few days before the murder, it's
very strange that nobody mentioned this to the police or reporters earlier,
as anyone who witnessed the purported incident would have thought it very
important. Because of the three-week delay before this tale surfaced, it
looks like just another tall tale.
Most "solutions" to the Taylor case which were being theorized in the
newspapers generally fell into two categories:
(1) Solutions which were anti-Hollywood and/or anti-Taylor, and reflected
adversely on Hollywood (rumors that the killer was someone within the motion
picture community, or that Taylor was killed because of something immoral he
had done);
(2) Solutions which were neutral to Hollywood, and did not reflect on the
motion picture industry in any way (rumors that Taylor was killed by Edward
Sands, or by an old enemy from the Klondike, or by a burglar, or by Irish
nationalists, or by a Canadian soldier whom Taylor had court-martialed,
etc.).
The Drug Gang solution is unique because it is virtually the only solution
which is both pro-Hollywood and pro-Taylor, placing the killer outside the
film industry and representing Taylor as a film industry leader giving his
life in a valiant attempt to keep drug gangsters out of Hollywood. This
uniqueness is, in itself, enough to render the theory very suspect. But the
fact that nobody mentioned this theory until it was suggested by a pulp
fiction writer makes it exponentially dubious.
The Drug Gang solution first appeared in the press at the time when the
anti-Hollywood public sentiment in the wake of the Taylor case was at its
peak. Immediately after the Taylor case broke, Edward Doherty and Wallace
Smith, Los Angeles correspondents for two Chicago newspapers, began sending
daily dispatches containing not only lurid rumors about the Taylor case, but
also revealing other scandals in Hollywood, involving wife-swapping, wild
parties, homosexuality, and drug addiction. Doherty's stories, in
particular, were widely syndicated to over 100 newspapers throughout the
country, causing enormous public outcry against Hollywood--outcry which was
magnified because of the recent Arbuckle scandal. Newspaper editorials and
professional reformers such as Canon Chase and John Roach Straton thundered
against Hollywood. One newspaper writer asked
Can Hollywood be morally fumigated? Or must it be wiped off the
movie business map as a nuisance, as a farmer might burn down a
vermin infested barn before putting up a new one?[36]
Is it just a coincidence that the pro-Hollywood "Drug Gang Theory"
happened to magically appear at the peak of anti-Hollywood sentiment? Look at
this reported statement by film industry leader Marcus Loew:
"Mr. Taylor was one of the hardest fighters in this movement
against the drug traffic. I know, too, that he personally was
instrumental in ridding Los Angeles of scores of these traffickers
and it will not surprise me if when this mystery has been solved to
hear that one of these criminals brought about his death."[37]
The possibility must be considered that the heads of the movie industry,
after reading Reeve's speculation, seized that theory as the best direction
to divert the press, and started spreading rumors and propaganda accordingly.
This was the viewpoint of Hollywood historian Kevin Brownlow:
...a theory was put forward that he [Taylor] had been taking on
the drug racket single-handed...but this proved to be desperate
publicity in the face of unpalatable evidence.[38]
Central to the Drug Gang Theory is the issue of whether or not Mabel
Normand relapsed into drug addiction after her rehabilitation at the Glen
Springs Sanitarium in Watkins Glen, New York, in November 1920. Certainly
there were plenty of rumors concerning her relapse, particularly in the
dispatches of Wallace Smith, who even went so far as to report, "She's full
of hop right now."[39] And prisoners in jail obligingly told such tales--one
arrested drug peddler reportedly stated that Mabel had taken delivery of a
large shipment of heroin just two months prior to the murder.[40] But there
is no really convincing evidence indicating she had relapsed by the time of
Taylor's murder.
Mabel Normand had tuberculosis; the disease would eventually kill her. In
addition she drank heavily; she was said to have one of the "six best
cellars" of Prohibition liquor in the Hollywood film colony.[41] It would be
very easy for Hollywood gossips, who knew of her earlier drug addiction, to
explain any decline in her health or acts of public drunkenness with whispers
that "Mabel's on the stuff again."
The rumors that Taylor had spent $50,000 of his own money on her drug
rehabilitation did not appear in print until many years after the murder and
are extremely doubtful. After Taylor's death his financial records were
carefully scrutinized to see if they contained any clue to the identity of
his killer, and no such massive expenditure was found.
In the aftermath of the Taylor murder, the press did not hesitate to
fabricate statements--several newspapers were publicly denounced for having
done so. After one such instance, Los Angeles District Attorney Woolwine
issued a written statement:
In the early edition of the Examiner for Monday morning there
appeared on the first page an interview purporting to come from me
which was never in effect given.
This interview never took place.
...It certainly is an outrage for any newspaper to be guilty of
such a faked and fraudulent interview.
I am informed that this fake has been telegraphed all over the
United States, which magnified its iniquity.[42]
If the 1922 press was even willing to fake an interview with an authority
figure like District Attorney Woolwine, how much more would they be willing
to fabricate statements from less powerful individuals in order to "spice up"
the stories and boost newspaper sales.
Giroux accepts press statements which support his theory, and ignores
statements which contradict it. For example, he says Faith MacLean was
absolutely certain that the person she saw leaving Taylor's home was not
Edward Sands. There were indeed press reports to that effect. But there
were also newspaper reports that, when shown the photograph of Sands, she
exclaimed, "He looks like the man I saw,"[43] or "He looks very much like the
man I saw leaving Taylor's house the night of the murder."[44] If someone is
quoted in the press as having made a statement, various possibilities must be
considered: (1) The reporter might be deliberately fabricating or altering
the statement to "spice up" the story; (2) The person might be incorrectly
quoted; (3) The person might be lying, particularly to reporters (saying one
thing to reporters and something entirely different to the investigators);
(4) The person's memory might be inaccurate. A written statement is highly
preferable over an "interview," but the only written press statement given in
support of the Drug Gang Theory was the vague statement by Ralph Oyler, and
he stated his evidence was only circumstantial.
One of the reporters on the case was Walter Anthony, whose dispatches
contained some information not found elsewhere--he had lived in Los Angeles
for years and had many friends within the film community. But after all the
Drug Gang rumors had run their course, this was his conclusion:
The theory that in his zeal to protect Miss Normand from the evil
influences of others, Taylor incurred an enmity of such malignant
hatred as to result in his murder has as yet no visible means of
support save in the realm of the merely theoretical.[45]
Aside from the Drug Gang rumors appearing the the press, Giroux attempts
to show that the physical details of the crime, supplemented by purported
"witnesses," exactly correspond to the way the crime would have been
committed by a professional hired killer. But if we accept the press
statements of the "witnesses" at the gas station, then the killer spoke to
those employees shortly before the killing, asking them where Taylor lived.
This requires us to believe that a drug gang would hire a killer to murder
Taylor, yet the gang would be unable to tell the killer what Taylor's address
was! And would a professional killer deliberately expose himself to witnesses
shortly before killing Taylor? Isn't it more likely that a professional
killer would learn where Taylor lived and then commit the murder some other
day, speaking to no one near the murder scene on the day of the killing? And
wouldn't a professional killer have used a silencer, so as not to disturb the
neighborhood?[46]
Giroux lists seven "witnesses" and says that five of them were not even
questioned by the police. But on Feb. 4 the Los Angeles Times DID report
that four of the five were questioned by the police--the two gas station
attendants, and the two streetcar employees.[47] If official statements were
indeed taken by the police perhaps they eventually vanished from the police
file (along with other material), or perhaps there was a sound reason why no
statements were taken. (Possibility: "Hey, officer, don't write this down,
there really wasn't any guy here--we just said that to the reporter to get
our names in the paper.") The press reported several other "witnesses" of
strange happenings in the vicinity on the murder night, including one
"witness" who said he was certain he saw Sands within a block of the crime
scene.[48] Giroux selectively picked just the "witnesses" he could use to
bolster his case.
The fatal shot was heard by several neighbors who were uncertain where the
shot came from. However, Taylor lived in a duplex bungalow and his adjacent
neighbor would surely have thought the shot came from Taylor's half of the
building and would likely have gone to investigate. The killer was very
lucky--Taylor's adjacent neighbor was not home, did not hear the shot. The
fact that the killer was willing to risk close neighbors hearing the shot
(and investigating) would seem to indicate that the killer was not a
"professional killer," particularly since the killer (according to Giroux's
scenario) had no quick "get-away" car, but made a leisurely departure by
streetcar.
Let's examine the fatal shot. It was fired not more than three inches
away from the body, as determined by powder burns on the coat. The bullet
entered Taylor's left side and traveled upward at approximately a 60 degree
angle, coming to rest in Taylor's right shoulder near the junction of the
base of the neck (the bullet did not strike any bones, so it was not
deflected upward). This upward path is not the normal path of a bullet fired
by a single-shot assassin; one would expect such a shot to have been fired
head-on, directly into the front of the torso, or directly into the victim's
back, or into the victim's head.
One of the experienced L.A.P.D. detectives working on the case, Herman
Cline, traveled to Northern California within a month of the murder, where
he was interviewed by reporters.
...Cline went on to assert his belief that had members of either
a narcotic or liquor ring sought to slay the film director they
would have killed him at a greater distance, firing perhaps, as he
left his house or walked on the street. He discounts such a motive
and discards it altogether.[49]
Cline's point makes sense--a solo professional killer would not want to be so
close to his victim that the victim might grab the gun.
It's lots of fun to play "armchair detective" with the Taylor case.
Everyone was doing it back in 1922 and it's still easy to do today. But the
conclusions of the original detectives on the case, who had access to far
more information than what was published in the newspapers, cannot be
quickly brushed aside. Another detective on the case, Edward King, worked
on the case for many years and personally investigated many of the drug
leads. He wrote about the case in 1930, and near the end of his article
stated, "There was never a particle of real evidence to connect Taylor with a
dope ring."[50]
In the conclusion of his book, Giroux quotes judge William Doran in 1930,
as stating, "The three principal motives for the Taylor murder were (1) a
crime committed by a dope ring; (2) love and jealousy; and (3) revenge."
Giroux concludes, "Of the motives Judge Doran listed, there is more evidence
for 1 than for the other two,"[51] and Giroux indicates that there is
particular significance in the fact that Judge Doran "listed drugs first."
Giroux quickly brushes aside #2 and #3, without real discussion of those
theories. And as for #1, "a crime committed by a dope ring," let's examine
that complete portion of Judge Doran's reported statement, instead of what
was quoted by Giroux:
"There were three principal motives under investigation.
"It was said the crime was committed by a dope ring. But not one
particle of evidence was found to connect any of the principals--the
dead man or those we questioned--with a dope ring.
"Love and jealousy were considered. The only way these emotions
entered was through the admissions of Miss Minter. She sat in my
office the day after the murder and confessed unashamedly that she
loved Taylor.
"We studied revenge, and the revenge motive was found only in
connection with Sands. Sands worked for Taylor and he ran away.
Taylor had threatened his arrest, had filed charges of theft.
"Miss Normand was questioned by me at a time when she was
completely off her guard. Under the conditions, if she had known
anything about the Taylor murder, the truth would have come out.
"I had two years service as chief deputy district attorney after
the Taylor murder. In these years I had every opportunity and used
it, to follow up every clue, sane or otherwise.
"The net result is that I believe to this day that the Taylor
case belongs among the unsolved crime mysteries of the world and the
chances are good that it will remain there."[52]
Look what Giroux has done with Judge Doran's statement! Judge Doran said that
not one particle of evidence was found to connect Taylor or Normand with a
dope ring, even after years of investigation--this is one of the most
authoritative statements ever made utterly discrediting the Drug Gang Theory.
Giroux has used the statement out of context to make it falsely appear to
support the Drug Gang Theory! And then Giroux writes, "Judge Doran's
familiarity with the case and his position on the bench (he later served on
the district court of appeal from 1935 to 1958) give added weight to his
conclusions." Absolutely true, so let's accept Judge Doran's (and not
Giroux's) conclusions: Not one particle of evidence was found to connect any
of the principals with a dope ring.
If there was no real evidence to support the Drug Gang Theory, then why
did Judge Doran say it was one of the three principal motives under
investigation? Answer: because there were dozens of instances where convicts
or arrested criminals told tales supposedly linking the murder to a drug
ring. A great deal of time was spent investigating those tales but, as Judge
Doran stated, they were all unsubstantiated. The statements by Judge Doran
and Lt. King (that there was not a particle of real evidence to connect
Taylor with a dope ring) contain the strong implication that all tales of
Taylor's supposed confrontations with drug peddlers were spurious. And
during the 1930 flare-up of the case, it was reported,
Federal narcotic investigators yesterday emphatically denied that
Taylor was ever involved in dope transactions or that he was giving
any information concerning narcotic rings, as asserted by
Hefner.[53]
There was one person in Hollywood who, above all others, knew whether the
Drug Gang Theory had any credibility as a solution, whether Taylor was trying
to rescue Mabel Normand from "the clutches of the drug gang" at the time of
his murder. That person was Mabel Normand herself. In her most extensive
interview discussing Taylor's murder, she stated
"I firmly believe that some day the murderer will be discovered,
and I am one with the rest of Los Angeles when I say that I think it
will be found that the guilty person was a woman dressed as a
man!"[54]
So evidently Mabel Normand didn't believe in the Drug Gang Theory. If
she, of all people, didn't believe it, and if the investigators didn't
believe it, then why should we believe it? It will take more than a few
selected old press clippings and Giroux's armchair theorizing to make a
convincing case.
Should we arbitrarily brush aside as fantasy all the drug rumors published
prior to Feb. 10, and then eagerly accept as fact all the anti-drug rumors
printed after that date? Or is it equally probable that most of the anti-drug
rumors are fantasy, too?
To summarize the case against the Drug Gang Theory:
1. The theory first surfaced from the typewriter of a pulp fiction writer
who had no connection with the case, amidst all sorts of other wild
rumors and speculation.
2. Judge Doran and Lt. King, both heavily involved in the murder
investigation, stated that not one particle of real evidence was found
to support the theory.
3. None of the investigators on the case publicly expressed the belief that
the Drug Gang Theory was the correct solution. Some investigators
reportedly thought Sands guilty, some though Shelby guilty, and one
thought a burglar was guilty.[55]
4. None of the narcotics investigators stated that Taylor was assisting
them at the time of his death. The contrary was reported, that he was
definitely not assisting them.
5. The Drug Gang Theory is very apologetic towards Hollywood, and may have
been initially propagated by Hollywood executives to help turn the tide
of anti-Hollywood public sentiment.
6. Press reports of the time are very unreliable, containing widespread
fabrications, misquoted statements, and errors.
7. Once the theory began appearing in the newspapers, many jailed prisoners
and convicts told tales supporting the Drug Gang Theory, but none of the
tales were ever verified after investigation.
Of course the Drug Gang Theory is possible, as are many other solutions
possible. But if Taylor was fighting the drug gangs at the time of his death
he was doing so entirely on his own and was not working with the authorities
or providing information to them--and that would be a situation more
melodramatic than any film he directed.
Based on the material presented above it appears the probability is very
low that a drug gang was in any way involved in Taylor's death, or that he
was shot by a "professional killer." It would not be surprising in the least
if future books present equally strong cases "proving" that Taylor was killed
by someone else.
The Taylor case is still unsolved.
NOTES:
[1] See Robert Giroux, "The Farce of 'A Cast of Killers'," FILMS IN REVIEW
(November 1986).
[2] Adolphe Menjou and M. M. Musselman, IT TOOK NINE TAILORS (Whittlesey
House, 1948), p. 131.
[3] LONG BEACH TELEGRAM (February 3, 1922).
[4] See LOS ANGELES TIMES (October 31, 1921).
[5] LOS ANGELES EXPRESS (February 3, 1922).
[6] LOS ANGELES EXAMINER (February 4, 1922).
[7] PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER (February 4, 1922).
[8] CHICAGO AMERICAN (February 6, 1922). Of course Smith did not want to be
sued for libel, so he did not mention Mabel Normand's name in his articles
linking her with drug use, but the context was clearly worded so that his
readers would know he was referring to her.
[9] MILWAUKEE JOURNAL (February 6, 1922).
[10] BALTIMORE AMERICAN (February 7, 1922). But many press items contrarily
reported that Taylor never used drugs.
[11] NEW ORLEANS STATES (February 7, 1922).
[12] See LOS ANGELES EXAMINER (February 8, 1922).
[13] CHICAGO AMERICAN (February 7, 1922).
[14] CLEVELAND PRESS (February 9, 1922).
[15] CHICAGO AMERICAN (February 9, 1922).
[16] NEW YORK DAILY NEWS (February 9, 1922).
[17] DETROIT NEWS (February 10, 1922).
[18] CHICAGO HERALD-EXAMINER (February 10, 1922).
[19] CHICAGO AMERICAN (February 11, 1922).
[20] See TAYLOROLOGY 50.
[21] CHICAGO AMERICAN (February 13, 1922).
[22] CHICAGO TRIBUNE (February 14, 1922).
[23] NEW YORK WORLD (February 14, 1922).
[24] CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER (February 14, 1922).
[25] See TAYLOROLOGY 62.
[26] DES MOINES REGISTER (February 14, 1922).
[27] LOS ANGELES EXAMINER (February 19, 1922).
[28] LOS ANGELES EXAMINER (February 24, 1922).
[29] LONG BEACH PRESS (February 25, 1922).
[30] LOS ANGELES EXAMINER (February 27, 1922).
[31] CHICAGO AMERICAN (February 25, 1922).
[32] LOS ANGELES RECORD (March 2, 1922).
[33] Other press items indicated Bell himself did not believe drug gangsters
killed Taylor. See SAN FRANCISCO JOURNAL (March 3, 1922).
[34] CHICAGO NEWS (February 21, 1922).
[35] CHICAGO AMERICAN (February 22, 1922).
[36] Lindsay Denison, NEW YORK EVENING WORLD (February 13, 1922).
[37] MOVING PICTURE WORLD (March 4, 1922).
[38] Kevin Brownlow, HOLLYWOOD: THE PIONEERS (Knopf, 1979), p. 111.
[39] CHICAGO AMERICAN (February 24, 1922).
[40] See CHICAGO AMERICAN (February 23, 1922).
[41] See LOS ANGELS HERALD (December 8, 1920).
[42] NEW YORK HERALD (February 14, 1922).
[43] SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER (February 6, 1922).
[44] LONG BEACH TELEGRAM (February 6, 1922).
[45] SAN FRANCISCO BULLETIN (March 2, 1922).
[46] Silencers were available in 1922, and mentioned in contemporary press
items.
[47] See TAYLOROLOGY 60.
[48] See SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER (February 6, 1922).
[49] OAKLAND TRIBUNE (February 26, 1922).
[50] See TAYLOROLOGY 50.
[51] Robert Giroux, A DEED OF DEATH, p. 232.
[52] LOS ANGELES HERALD (January 8, 1930).
[53] LOS ANGELES EXAMINER (January 1, 1930).
[54] Sidney Sutherland, "Mabel Normand: Comedienne and Madcap," LIBERTY
(October 4, 1930).
[55] In an interview in the Los Angeles Record (March 27, 1926), L.A.P.D.
Capt. Jim Bean expressed his belief that Taylor was killed by a "bungalow
burglar": "I checked up the burglary reports for two months before
February 1, 1922, the date of the murder, and for two months thereafter. I
found that a lone prowler, who on one occasion had been chased from a house,
had been operating extensively within a radius of six blocks from the Taylor
domicile, previous to the killing. Burglaries in that neighborhood ceased
immediately following the killing and no others were reported from that
district for several months. I believe Taylor surprised the 'bungalow
burglar' in the act of looting his house, tried to effect the intruder's
capture and was shot down by the man who saw his escape was about to be
foiled. To support that theory, it occurs to me that in most cases of
premeditated murder, with a gun, where malice or revenge furnish the motive,
the victim is generally shot, not once, but several times, even though the
first bullet does the work. There was only one shot fired in the Taylor
bungalow: the shot that almost instantly killed him...From the position of
the body and the location of the room's furniture, Taylor apparently was on
his feet when the shot was fired. Judging from the entry of the bullet, he
was standing sideways to the slayer." Also see TAYLOROLOGY 85.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
[In December 1920, the following article was submitted for publication in the
LOS ANGELES EXAMINER.]
Filming the Great Idea
by William D. Taylor
In making a motion picture from a novel the cinema producer almost
always deviates from the exact sequence of events laid out by the author. He
may deviate in other more noticeable ways: in incidents relating to the plot,
in characters and in title. He may even substitute a plot of his own, or
interpolate episodes that appear to have no foundation in the original story.
It has become the popular thing among magazine writers and newspaper
writers to editorialize on this matter and to condemn motion picture
directors for tampering with "sacred" original creations. Even magazines
devoted to the cinema pretend to view these deviations with disapproval.
It is my purpose in this article to make it clear to everyone just why
such deviations are made in filming a successful novel or play, and to show
that so doing is a perfectly legitimate procedure from both artistic and
intellectual standpoints.
In translating a literary work written in one language so that it may be
read in another, we speak of "idioms" as opposed to literal meanings of
words. Idiomatic passages cannot be translated word for word, because in
their native use they are peculiar to the language in which they are written.
The meaning of such phrases must be considered in connection with adjoining
passages, otherwise the result would be ridiculous.
It is just so in translating the form of the novel to the form of the
cinema. It is so in transplanting the form of the spoken drama to the form
of the cinema. They have different modes of expression--their own idioms.
In translating we must take care to preserve the author's original meaning
and not, by transposing too literally, obscure that meaning and perhaps make
it ridiculous.
In making screen adaptions of novels or plays I aim to preserve the
original plot--as nearly as possible. I aim to preserve the author's
philosophy--exactly.
That is no easy task, you may be sure. Julia Crawford Ivers and I have
found it the most important and the hardest part of screen transposition.
First the philosophy of the author must be determined upon. Then it must be
expressed pictorially so that the cinema spectators will "get" it.
There, too, is where the author has the advantage of the director. In
twenty-five words the author may express an idea that the director requires a
dozen scenes to put over. While a sentence, or a paragraph, or a while
chapter additional may mean no mechanical difficulty in publishing a novel, a
dozen scenes may throw the pictureplay over footage and call for delicate
scissors work in the cutting room.
The most difficult thing in filming a story, I find, is the commercial
necessity of putting out a picture in so many reels--so many thousand feet.
There are fifteen separate photographs to the foot, but one foot of film
shows only one second's action. And subtitles sometimes take up as much as
one-sixth of the completed feature. At the beginning of the picture more or
less film must be wasted in introducing the characters. In the book,
introductions do not matter. A few hundred words more or less make no
difference to the printer. But a few hundred feet more in a film are out of
the question.
If the author's expression of his philosophy requires three times as
many scenes in film exposition as the scenario calls for and such situations
occur several times in the picture--and then the picture must be cut down to
footage--the change from the original story may often be markedly radical.
Nevertheless such change is as permissible as it is for a sculptor to work
from three dimensions in interpreting a subject which a painter has handled
in two.
The relation of the sculptor and the painter is analogous to that of the
novelist and the cinema director in more ways than one.
Suppose that an artist in oils evolves a painting which he calls
"Despair." It shows a woman, her head bowed, her arms folded, standing alone
on a precipice by the sea. It is night and the wind whips her garments in
gloomy lines, while the black surf has shot a furious flume of livid spray
high in the air. With blues and greens the artist paints a canvas that
breathes the dismal grandeur of his subject.
Now take this canvas to a sculptor and invite him to hew a piece in
granite interpreting the same subject, "Despair." The sculptor will
concentrate on the figure of the woman. The sea, the night, the plume of
spray--all the background, in fact--are impractical of reproduction in stone.
The sculptor may suggest the precipice but he must depend on the figure to
put over his story--in its attitude, in the lines of the garments. No one
will criticize the sculptor because his statuary lacks the blues and the
greens that characterizes the canvas. No one will criticize him because he
has not attempted to limn in stone the spray of the sea or the blackness of
the night.
He has been forced to narrow his field of exposition. But in narrowing
it he has given searching regard to every detail of the central idea. He has
given the figure another dimension and the great similarity of life.
Although it is now colorless, it appeals to the eye by sheer modeling and
character of life.
The novelist and the playwright are the painters with the broad field of
the book and the stage and the ample opportunity to be lavish with color and
background. The cinema director is the sculptor who expresses the same ideas
in another media, one that must forget trivial details and seize on
fundamental characteristics. He must so strongly hew that his figures stand
forth and express their ideas alone.
They are different forms of expression, the canvas and the granite.
Just so are the printed page and the lighted screen different forms of
expression. Each must be used in its own way, and each may interpret the
same phases of life with truth, yet with different details and with
individual technique.
The novelist may bring in incidents that color his story, give it a
feeling of variety and life. The dramatist may interpolate brilliant
repartee or pantomime that serves for a momentary amusement.
But the director must maintain a unity of purpose. Limited to five or
six thousand feet of film, he can have no scene nor incident that does not
bear on the subject of the story, carry it forward towards its climax.
Everything else must relentlessly be pruned or the result is tiresome, a
hodgepodge.
While rarely observed, unity is the ideal in any form of drama. In the
pictures it is not only an ideal, it is the compulsory goal of the photoplay
is to be a success.
Therefore I catch and keep the author's "big idea" intact, and let petty
details of plot develop or drop.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Back issues of Taylorology are available on the Web at any of the following:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/Taylorology/
http://www.etext.org/Zines/ASCII/Taylorology/
http://www.silent-movies.com/Taylorology/
Full text searches of back issues can be done at http://www.etext.org/Zines/
or at http://www.silent-movies.com/search.html. For more information about
Taylor, see
WILLIAM DESMOND TAYLOR: A DOSSIER (Scarecrow Press, 1991)
*****************************************************************************
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink