Black Dahlia Avenger

"Actually, you haven't shown that "Le Minotaure" Number 7 was available in California in 1947. But who's counting?"

So it's your claim that the journal in question was not available to those in the state of California in 1947 or prior? It was YOUR claim that the photo was not available to Hodel prior to 1947 and that he could not have seen it. For your claim to be true, you have to show that Hodel was unable to see the photo in question in the manner which Hodel claims. You can't. The burden of proof that Hodel's theory is not possible is on you. He's supported his theory with facts which makes it highly probable.

You're welcome to make such a fantastic claim and try to dismiss the fact that as a friend/aquaintence/and or customer of Man Ray (take your pick) and a fan of surrealism, that Hodel isn't likely to have seen this major work of Ray's prior to 1947 when it was available in journals (Hodel published his own subscription surrealistic art journal) and other outlets to those living in the United States. That doesn't mean that anyone with half a brain will take you seriously though. ;)

Steve Hodel’s claim as to how his father could have seen the “Minotaure” photo is this:

"As stated in my book, Man Ray’s MINOTAURE was created in 1934-35. It was one of Man Ray’s most famous works. Below we see it published in the Surrealist Magazine, LE MINOTAURE, Volume 7, in 1936. That photograph, as well as Man Ray’s LOVERS LIPS, which I also reference, both appeared as published works and were displayed in art galleries in New York and Los Angeles. During Man Ray’s “Hollywood Years” he and Juliet remained good friends to both of my parents, the photographs were on display in “retrospective” exhibits in galleries in Pasadena and Beverly Hills, a 15 minute drive from our Hollywood residence."

Aside from the fact that the photo did indeed appear in Number 7 of “Le Minotaure” (in June 1935, not in 1936) -- a Paris avant-garde arts journal with about 800 subscribers -- none of the other “appearances” he alludes to have any basis in fact, nor does his assertion that the photo “was one of Man Ray’s most famous works” at the time.

Like I’ve been saying, Steve is not too good with the facts. I won’t say he’s lying, but he sure is full of nonsense.

"Aside from the fact that the photo did indeed appear in Number 7 of “Le Minotaure” (in June 1935, not in 1936) -- a Paris avant-garde arts journal with about 800 subscribers -- none of the other “appearances” he alludes to have any basis in fact.... "

...according to you. We've already demonstrated your problem discerning between facts, your opinions and stuff you just decide are true because you just think it is. All Hodel had to do to refute your claim that G. Hodel COULD NOT HAVE seen the photo is to provide a single example of how he could have done so. He did that, despite the claim that he could not of. It would seem as if Hodel has a much better grasp on the facts than those who have tried to discredit him. otherwise they wouldn't make such nonsensical claims. Though, it's apparent that being proven wrong won't stop someone whose aim is to discredit, rather than uncover the truth.

"You're contradicting yourself, unless you're saying that Steve Hodel isn't responsible for the contents of his book."

Uh..no. He's quoted directly the words of others who were on the scene at the time, based on how they remembered the course of events. When it came time for Hodel himself to set the facts straight, he did so accurately as I've quoted him above. He's not responsible for other people misremembering important dates during interviews. He is responsible for his own words, and when it came to that he was factually correct. Writers aren't responsible for incorrect information that might be forwarded by those they interview, as long as they themselves get the record straight. Otherwise, no writer in their right mind would quote a source for fear that they'd say something that was untrue. Sorry.

I did not write part of what you have quoted. This is the second time you have done this. Please respond to the person who wrote it, not me. Thanks.

More later, backing up what I said about the "Minotuare" photo.

I didn't attribute anything to you. Not even the quote that you did write. I simply responded to two rebutals in a single one to save time and space. I understand that the thread follows after one you wrote, but the entire format to these IMDB boards isn't exactly the most user friendly or well laid out. It's easy to become confused where you are at.

As for "backing up what I said about the "Minotuare" photo"....I never refuted anything OTHER than the fact that Hodel could not have seen a copy of the photograph, so I'm not sure why you'd bother. If you have evidence that shows that it was not possible, feel free to post. It would seem that you've got a huge hurdle to prove that a long-time fan of surrealism, who produced his own subscription surrealistic magazine, who was a friend/aquaintence/customer (take your pick) of Man Ray, wouldn't have been able to see a copy of his friend/aquaintance/personal photographer's surrealistic work when it was published in subsription journals and likely Mr. Ray had a copy of said journal himself. While I understand that there is no direct proof that G. Hodel had seen the photograph in question, it's highly incredible for someone to claim as fact that he could not have seen the photograph given the evidence.

As to whether Man Ray was likely to have had a copy of “Le Minotaure” Number 7 when he lived in Los Angeles…

When Man Ray fled Nazi-occupied France, he took with him what he could fit in a suitcase. He left behind virtually all his possessions, including nearly all his art work in all media (in other words, pretty much his life’s work), with the very reasonably expectation that it might all be destroyed by the war. That he would, under these circumstances, bring along a copy of a 5-year-old magazine in which a few of his photographs were printed is unlikely to the point of absurdity.

This can be found it any overview of Man Ray’s life. Several of the sources Steve Hodel cites in his book discuss it in detail. It’s even on Larry Harnisch’s site.

It really does help to familiarize yourself with the facts, sometimes.

More later on the “Minotaure” photo and its history. My books are at home.

"That he would, under these circumstances, bring along a copy of a 5-year-old magazine in which a few of his photographs were printed is unlikely to the point of absurdity."

That friends, relatives or other fellow surrealists (possibly Mr. Hodel himself), upon hearing of Mr. Ray's circumstances in regards to losing most of his collection, wouldn't be willing to provide him with any materials THEY HAD in order for him to have documentation of his prior work, is what is unlikely to the point of absurdity. It's highly unlikely that one of his colleagues would not have presented Mr. Ray with copies of his own work that they had - even if it were just from journals. And again, this is just one of the ways Mr. Hodel COULD have seen the photo - even before S. Hodel produced the journal in question, he wrote in the book how his father produced his own subscription surrealistic journal and subscribed to others. You've got to prove that two of the most likely people in the world to either want or have access to a copy of the "Minotaure" photo in the journal in question, could not and did not have it in order for your claim that Hodel could not have seen the photo and have been inspired by it to be true.

"It really does help to familiarize yourself with the facts, sometimes."

I'm familiar with the facts. That's why I don't go around and falsley accuse people of lying as you have done. You could learn a lesson or two from that.

"More later on the “Minotaure” photo and its history. My books are at home."

Is it going to prove your claim that Mr. Hodel COULD NOT have seen the photo? Or, will it be more guesses as to what he might have been able to do, or might not have been able to do, disguised as fact?

"You're contradicting yourself, unless you're saying that Steve Hodel isn't responsible for the contents of his book."

"Uh..no. He's quoted directly the words of others who were on the scene at the time, based on how they remembered the course of events. When it came time for Hodel himself to set the facts straight, he did so accurately as I've quoted him above. He's not responsible for other people misremembering important dates during interviews."

If he does an interview and later finds that the interviewee had the facts wrong, then he's responsible for noting that in reporting the interview, if indeed he uses material from the interview at all -- often, the researcher might just draw the conclusion that the interviewee's testimony was completely worthless. Instead, Steve Hodel puts a different version of Man Ray's itinerary somewhere else. It's the sort of thing which makes me doubt that he actually wrote the book himself, or if he did, that he's competent to write non-fiction. One way or another, though, it's clear that Steve Hodel's book is rubbish, unless you like badly written fiction pretending to be factual. God knows there's plenty of that around, and a lot of people do seem to like it well enough -- check out your local supermarket.

"One way or another, though, it's clear that Steve Hodel's book is rubbish, unless you like badly written fiction pretending to be factual. "

Yeah...except for all those darn facts. It's easy to try pick away at little things, when you can't dispute the big things ;)

[deleted]

If you knew even a little bit about the subject, you would know how silly you sound. But maybe you already do.

By the way, can you explain to me why, out of all Man Ray's thousand of works, George Hodel would be so desperate to see this rather obscure one? Was it so he could base the Black Dahlia murder on it later?

"If you knew even a little bit about the subject, you would know how silly you sound. But maybe you already do. "

When you can't credibly refute...ridicule.

"By the way, can you explain to me why, out of all Man Ray's thousand of works, George Hodel would be so desperate to see this rather obscure one? Was it so he could base the Black Dahlia murder on it later? "

Who said he was desperate to see it? S. Hodel simply says he saw it, was inspired by it, and was likely the basis for why B. Short was posed the way she was. S. Hodel has explained credibly how he likely saw it and that he was in a position to have seen it. He didn't have to have been "desperate" to see it based on the facts.

Trying to refute this kind of profound cluelessness it about as fruitful as shoveling against the tide, but here a two little hints for you:

1. You might want to look into how Man Ray felt about his photography, especially in the '40s.

2. The inconveniences Man Ray ran into around 1940 were not peculiar to him. There was a certain amount of unpleasantness going around at the time. You might want to look into that.

The fact is...you can't refute S. Hodel's claims and defend your own claims that he "lied". Instead, you wish to difuse your failure by interjecting facts and arguments that aren't relevant to the following question:

Is it possible or impossible that a friend/aquaintence/fan of Man Ray who subscribed to surrealistic journals and published his own, could have access to the artists's "Minotaure" photo which was known to have been published in a surrealistic journal in 1936, despite the original being in France.

You already have gone on record as saying it's impossible. It's my belief that any unbiased source who looks at the facts will disagree. Of course, that doesn't mean that G. Hodel saw the photo, or that he even killed the Black Dahlia. What it does mean is that S. Hodel's theory is credible (whether G. Hodel was inspired by it or not) and that claims that he "lied" are not. It's this sort of false criticism and exageration which leaves a reader to belive that those attacking S. Hodel's theory have already made up their mind...and nothing will change that.

"You already have gone on record as saying it's impossible."

No, I haven't. Quite to the contrary. I even suggested an alternate means by which George Hodel could have seen it: Maybe he went to Paris in the '30s and saw it then. That's not impossible. It's not even implausible. If we only want to deal in possibilities or plausibilities, why not go with that?

[deleted]

Earlier, I wrote:

"Aside from the fact that the photo did indeed appear in Number 7 of “Le Minotaure” (in June 1935, not in 1936) -- a Paris avant-garde arts journal with about 800 subscribers -- none of the other “appearances” [of the photo that Steve Hodel] alludes to have any basis in fact.... "

The veracity of my statement above has been questioned, so I will substantiate it in some detail here.

Steve Hodel’s confused prose it not easy to parse, but he seems to be saying that the “Minotaure” photo was exhibited a number of times prior to 1947, including gallery shows in Beverly Hills and Pasadena. Beneath this statement on his website, he has blurry scans of the covers of three exhibition catalogs -- labeled “L.A. 1941,” “L.A. 1944”, “N.Y. 1945” -- so presumably he means for us to think the “Minotaure” photo appeared at these exhibitions.

As I said, none of this is true. This is pretty easy to prove.

By relying once again on the sources Steve Hodel cites in his own book (“Man Ray: Paris – LA”, published by Smart Art Press in 1996, is the best for this), we can see that the “Minotaure” photo can be categorically excluded from appearance at any of these exhibitions:

LA, 1941 -- This would be the gallery show in Beverly Hills. Frank Perls Gallery, Los Angeles, CA. February 1941. A one-man exhibition of paintings, drawings, and rayographs. (Rayographs are “cameraless photographs” made by placing object directly on film and then exposing the film to light.)

LA, 1944 -- This would be the gallery show in Pasadena. Pasadena Art Institute, Pasadena, CA. September 1944. A one-man exhibition of works from 1913-1944: watercolors, drawings, rayographs, portrait photographs, and photographs of paintings left behind in Paris because of the war.

NY, 1945 – I recognize the cover of the exhibition catalog for this one. Julien Levey Gallery, New York, NY. May 1945. One-man exhibition of paintings, drawings, rayographs, and constructed objects.

Looking into Man Ray’s other gallery and museum shows during his LA years yields similar results: “portraits”, “paintings”, “drawings”, “works executed before 1930” -- nothing that could possibly include the “Minotaure” photo.

Taking another tack, we can look at the excellent, comprehensive auction catalogue, “Property from the Estate of Juliet Man Ray [etc.]”, published by Sotheby’s in 1995. The “Minotaure” photo sold at this auction. The catalog gives description of the photograph that includes its publication and exhibition history. The photo first appeared first in “Le Minotaure” Number 7, in June 1935. Then nothing for the next 46 years, until 1981. After that, four exhibitions and concurrent publications in each exhibition’s catalog, through 1991.

Finally, in addition to knowing where the “Minotaure” photo wasn’t, we also know where it was. According to the foremost authority on this particular work: 1.) Only one print of this photo exists; and, 2.) This one print was stored away in Paris the entire time Man Ray lived in Los Angeles. I’m sure everyone, with the possible exception of Steve Hodel, can understand that something cannot simultaneously be sitting in a box in Paris AND on display in Los Angeles or New York.

I think this all makes for an object lesson on the in the inadvisably of taking Steve Hodel’s word on anything.

"Looking into Man Ray’s other gallery and museum shows during his LA years yields similar results: “portraits”, “paintings”, “drawings”, “works executed before 1930” -- nothing that could possibly include the “Minotaure” photo."

You're assuming the the listings where exhaustive, and not just a brief overview (most likely) of the subjects at hand. That's a reasonable theory, but not enought to definitively prove that there copies of the "Minotaure" photograph (see below) in any of those shows or that there wasn't anyone who attended one of these shows or exhibits who didn't have available the photo in the journal in question. That is what is needed to claim that S. Hodel is factually wrong, and even that doesn't support your false claim that he "lied" regarding this issue.

"Only one print of this photo exists"

The photo was printed in a journal. Anyone can reproduce printed material via a printers camera. This would have been easy for Mr. Ray to do himself. While that may not have been considered a "print" as the term is normally used (since it wouldn't have come from the original negative or directly from the source material), it would provide a satisfactory reproduction of the image. We do know that there are negatives used in the creation of the "Le Minotaur" journal. Where are those? Even if you ignore the fact that there WAS a non-refutable printed copy of the "Minotaure" photograph available prior to 1947, in a manner which is not unreasonable to believe Mr. Hodel could have seen, there are dozens of ways someone who appreciated Mr. Ray's work (or Ray himself as part of a portfolio) could have reproduced and shown the photo in question despite the original print not being in the United States.

We also do know (as you've already sarcastically suggested) that Hodel traveled frequently and very well could have seen the photo elsewhere.

Again...the liklihood that a long-time fan of surrealism who subscribed to surrealist journals and created them himself, who was a friend/aquaintence/fan of the artist in question, isn't likely to have a seen a journal featuring the friend/artist's work and in fact it was "impossible" for him to do so isn't a credible argument. Not even slightly credible. That's not to say that he definitely saw it. It's POSSIBLE that he didn't. I'm not going to say that those who don't believe he saw it, despite the overwhelming evidence that would suggest that he WOULD be someone who likely would have seen it, are liars.

...and let's face it. Even by your account, there are at least 800 copies of the photograph in question - any single one of which a fan of surrealism (and Man Ray) likely could have had access to. Especially one who did subscribe to surrealisim journals as Mr. Hodel did.

"I think this all makes for an object lesson on the in the inadvisably of taking Steve Hodel’s word on anything. "

I think it makes for an object lesson for how far someone will go to falsey accuse others of things they themselves are apparently guilty of.

You are inventing your own evermore complicated theories of how George Hodel could have seen this photo, not dealing with Steve Hodel's supposedly factual explanation. If that turns you on, the by all means, knock yourself out. It has been sort of fun to watch, anyway. But you are only further demonstrating that Steve Hodel's version is not adequate.

In any case, I never said it was impossible for George Hodel to have seen any copy of the photo. I've even given a more plausible theory of how he could have seen it: maybe he saw it in Paris. What I said was that said Steve Hodel's "facts" are nonsense. Which I have demonstrated to be true.

"You are inventing your own evermore complicated theories of how George Hodel could have seen this photo, not dealing with Steve Hodel's supposedly factual explanation. "

My point is that even if you ignore Hodel's reasonable explanation (which you have tried to do) in regards to the 800 copies of the photo in question, that there are other ways he could have seen it despite your claim that he was lying.

"I only said Steve Hodel's "facts" are nonsense. Which I have demonstrated to be true. "

You've demonstrated your theory that Hodel may not have had ALL the facts in regards to how widespread the Minotaure photo's distribution was. To be fair, all Hodel needed as far as his invesetigation goes was to establish that his father could have, and likely did see the photograph in question. He succeeded with this goal in producing the journal which resulted in the printing and widespread distribution of 800 copies of the photo, in the type of publication his father subscribed to. The rest is "gravy" While your theory that Hodel doesn't have ALL the facts is credible, it does not demonstrate that Mr. Hodel's theory as to how his father could have seen the photo is "nonsense" given the facts.

What I have demonstrated is that when Steve Hodel does not have the facts on his side, he just starts making them up. The "Minotaure" photo was published only once, and never exhibited, prior to 1981. That is, according to everyone but Steve Hodel.

Now, a couple more tedious point of fact, since you share Steve Hodel's habit of straying from them:

You keep saying George Hodel published his own "subscription Surrealist journal", but Steve Hodel never said this. The "subscription" part is entirely your invention. Steve's version is that the 17-year-old George Hodel published a grand total of two issues of what Steve calls a "literary magazine". In my day, I think we called this a "fanzine".

Also, Steve Hodel only started saying his father "subscribed to Surrealist journals" after he got busted about the "Minotaure" photo. It's not in the book, despite your claim otherwise.

And a question:

Just how "widespread" (your claim) was the distribution of "Le Minotaure" Number 7? Do tell. I'm dying to know. Especially since you've wowed me with your erudition so far.

"One way or another, though, it's clear that Steve Hodel's book is rubbish, unless you like badly written fiction pretending to be factual. "

'Yeah...except for all those darn facts. It's easy to try pick away at little things, when you can't dispute the big things ;)'

What "big things"?

We know that Steve Hodel wrote a lot of lies or delusions about Man Ray, because we can check his writing against the standard biographies. That's because Man Ray is famous in the art world. We don't know about the rest of Hodel's writing, but it seems pretty likely that if he would lie or delude himself about Man Ray, he would lie or delude himself about other things as well. And evidence of this isn't hard to find. For instance, a centerpiece of Hodel's fable is the finding of two pictures in his father's papers which were supposedly of Elizabeth Short. Well, they don't look anything like Elizabeth Short to most people who compare them with other pictures of Elizabeth Short. And her family says they are "not Betty". So there we have a major component of the story which is also a lie or a delusion. How many of these do we need?

Hodel's tale is generally a flying-saucer story, which can be made up using facts -- George Hodel, or little green men in a flying saucer, *could* have murdered the Black Dahlia. That's a fact. There's no evidence that they did, but that doesn't stop anyone from concocting a story about it or credulous people from believing it. Why Steve Hodel goes to the extra trouble of adding obvious, detectable falsehoods to his opus is beyond my comprehension, but I do know there are people who are unable to distinguish reality from their imaginations and don't want to, and maybe Hodel is one of them.

Anyway, I'd be very curious to know what "big things" you think Hodel's book contains that are (1) relevant to his case and (2) not false, because I sure haven't seen any. But please, no more of the made-up stuff.

In reference to your idea of George Hodel's seeing the Minotaure photograph, such as "You're assuming the the listings where exhaustive, and not just a brief overview", "The photo was printed in a journal. Anyone can reproduce printed material via a printers camera", "there are at least 800 copies of the photograph in question", and the supposed appearances at exhibitions (Steve Hodel's idea), you may not understand the terms of this issue. According to Steve Hodel, the Minotaure was a central icon governing George Hodel's crime, not a chance viewing. To support his story, he must show that, in fact, George Hodel did see the photograph and was in fact fascinated with it -- for which of course there is zero evidence, nada, nothing. No copies of the magazine, no reproduction, and no evidence that it was shown in any exhibition, which is hardly surprising since the only print was in a box in an attic in Paris. Hodel's idea that it was Man Ray's most famous work when he was living in Los Angeles and that it appeared in several exhibitions is fiction -- pure fiction unadulterated by any trace of fact -- as far as we know from the evidence.

Actually, Steve Hodel's story about whether and where his father saw the Minotaure has developed over time. First it there was *no* explanation, except for the assertion it was famous. Most likely Steve didn't know anything about its history and didn't bother doing any research on it. Then when the obvious problems with the idea were pointed out on various web sites, he came up with his more recent fanciful theories. Eventually maybe his flying-saucer buddy will tell him to have his father see it in a UFO. Can't prove he didn't, right? He does seem to understand that he has to say *something* for that portion of his audience who can put two and two together (admittedly, this may be a minority).

Of course, it's possible that Steve (or you?) have some kind of secret information about where some *other* Minotaure print is, that nobody else in the whole world knows about, and about its secret history of exhibition and subsequent concealment. If so, Steve should give up writing dumb not-so-true-crime melodramas and get into serious art scholarship and criticism. He'll set the art world on its ear when he reveals the Second Minotaure, hidden all these years somewhere in Los Angeles. Figuring out how it got there will make the Black Dahlia case look like a schoolyard lunch-money robbery. And if he can actually lay his hands on the print, he'll get rich overnight as well, and he won't have to weigh down the shelves of bookstores with his tacky fantasies.

" To support his story, he must show that, in fact, George Hodel did see the photograph and was in fact fascinated with it -- for which of course there is zero evidence, nada, nothing. "

Uh..actually, no.

Absent a photograph showing a copy of the photo in G. Hodel's hands, we can determine just how likely it would be that Hodel would have seen the photo in question. As often is the case, when there is no "smoking gun" to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something happened, you can build a convincing case using other evidence. There is no REQUIREMENT to show anything, besides a reasonable theory in this regard. Here's what we know:

- The crime scene resembles (to what degree it is debatable) the Minotaure photo.

- The named prime suspect for the killing during the 1949 grand jury hearing was George Hodel.

- George Hodel was a friend/customer of Man Ray, the photographer of the Minotaure photo.

- George Hodel was also a photographer like Ray, who had his work shown publicly.

- George Hodel was an surrealistic art journal aficionado, having published one himself.

- At least 800 subscribers got a journal which contained the Minotaure photo, any single copy which could have gone to Hodel, or been given to him by a third party.

For S. Hodel's theory to be "nonsene" or "fantasy", one would have to believe that a friend and obvious fan of Man Ray's work, who was an artist himself and who was a surrealistic art journal aficionado (having published one himself) would not likely seek out or have reason to have a surrealistic art journal containing work from his friend. While S. Hodel can not prove that he did, he has shown that it's not an unreasonable assumption as far as the possibility goes. When you couple the fact that Hodel - regardless of whether you think he killed E. Short - would essentially be a perfect "target market" for the journal in question, that he was the murder's prime suspect, and that the crime scene resembled the photo in question, it's hard to take seriously any suggestion that (even if you don't believe that Hodel was the killer) his theory isn't credible, even if it wasn't true in the end.

"Actually, Steve Hodel's story about whether and where his father saw the Minotaure has developed over time. First it there was *no* explanation, except for the assertion it was famous."

..and taken by his friend, Man Ray...and it resembled the crime scene. After being challenged by false accusations, S. Hodel has developed his evidence further.

"Most likely Steve didn't know anything about its history and didn't bother doing any research on it."

Most likely not. All he needed to do was determine that it was possible/probable that his father saw this photo taken by his friend. He did that. The evidence all points to G. Hodel as being someone who likely would be the perfect "target market" for the journal in question, given his interests and relationship to Man Ray (friend/aquaintence/customer...take your pick), thus while not "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt, Hodel's theory is at least credible.

"Then when the obvious problems with the idea were pointed out on various web sites, he came up with his more recent fanciful theories."

Yes...I know. It was said that Hodel could NOT have seen the photo, despite there apparently being 800 copies floating around out in the surrealistic art community at one time. Hodel proved that claim dead wrong, which in the eyes of his critics apparently amounts to "fanciful theories". Excuse me while I yawn.

"Of course, it's possible that Steve (or you?) have some kind of secret information about where some *other* Minotaure print is, that nobody else in the whole world knows about, and about its secret history of exhibition and subsequent concealment."

There's no need for anything secret. It's already been established that 800 subscribers received a journal with the photo in it, any single copy of which could have found it's way to one of Man Ray's friends who had a life-long fascination with surrealistic subject matter, collected art internationally, and who published a surrealistic journal himself. Sorry you can't see the forest for all the trees. :)

You are being a poor sport. I asked you to desist from from the made-up stuff, but here you are, tediously reciting Steve Hodel's blather *again* and then ladling on a few of the factoids you made up yourself for good measure. Tsk, tsk. (Although I must say your made-up-on-the-spot contention that the teenage George Hodel's goth-boy 'zine qualifies as a "surrealistic journal" is cause for some mirth, at least. Pasadena, California, January 1925: Locus of Surrealism. Paris West! Who knew?)

But anyway, out of the goodness of my heart, I will *try* to pick out a path through this persistent thicket of misunderstanding.

You say, "Absent a photograph showing a copy of the photo in G. Hodel's hands, we can determine just how likely it woul be that Hodel would have seen the photo in question. As often is the case, when there is no "smoking gun" to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something happened, you can build a convincing case using other evidence. There is no REQUIREMENT to show anything, besides a reasonable theory in this regard."

Well, that depends what you want to prove. If you want to prove that it was remotely possible that George Hodel saw some mysterious copy of the Minotaure photograph that no one knows about, under circumstances that can never be verified -- or, for that matter, that little green men from Neptune might have committed the murder as part of an anatomy lesson -- sure, that's easy. Anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics is *possible*. It's all fine, if all you want to do is sell a flying-saucer story to credulous ignoramuses, which may indeed have been what Steve Hodel (and his agent, William "Roswell" Birnes) had in mind. It seems to be as good a strategy in the book business as in politics.

On the other hand, if you're actually trying to understand a historical event or put a police case together, then you're out of the realm of fantasy, where anything is possible, and into what can be proven or at least shown to be highly probable. Using concrete evidence, however, not speculation piled on made-up "facts". For instance, if Steve had wanted to make a half-way believable claim that his father was inspired to commit the Black Dahlia murder by a small graffito on a remote crag of the Great Wall of China, he would have to show that there had been such a graffito there, and that his father had been within viewing distance of it sometime prior to the crime. Vague hand waving about Dad being a Sinophile and the funny ways of graffiti writers would not do the job.

"There's no need for anything secret. It's already been established that 800 subscribers received a journal with the photo in it..."

You may think this is adequate to refute Steve Hodel's critics on this score, but Steve apparently doesn't agree with you. As you were kind enough to bring to our attention, Steve felt the need to invent (and publish on his website) a detailed, specific, and entirely *fictional* history of the exhibition of this photograph. One that anyone can check and find to be completely fabricated. Steve may be delusional or a liar, but he does seem to know better than to attribute his father's supposed obsession with the Minotaure image to an obscure pre-war Parisian avant-garde publication, one which may well have been completely unseen and unknown in California in 1947. So he made something up, as usual.

In short, as I said, George Hodel *could* have been the Black Dahlia murderer, or little green men from Neptune, or the Devil. But a believable case for any of the above, or someone else, requires *evidence*, which poor Steve sadly lacks outside of his fantasy world.

"You are being a poor sport. I asked you to desist from from the made-up stuff, but here you are, tediously reciting Steve Hodel's blather *again* and then ladling on a few of the factoids you made up yourself for good measure."

To be fair, you've first got to prove I've "made-up" stuff or that what I've wrote is "blather". Given that you can't/won't, I have no obligation to respect any request to stop posting what I've written.

"Although I must say your made-up-on-the-spot contention that the teenage George Hodel's goth-boy 'zine qualifies as a "surrealistic journal" is cause for some mirth, at least."

Okay. Let's get to the facts, instead of the baseless derogatory remarks

- You attempt to dismiss Mr. Hodel's attempts because he was still technically a teenager at the time of he produced the journal. The fact is that Mr. Hodel had a genius IQ, had already graduated high school at the age of 15, had attended college studying engineering and had been employed professionally as a newspaper reporter at the time he started producing his journal. Hardly comparable to any effort made by normal "teenager" under any normal circumstances. I believe this was in 1925, so that would make him an "adult" at 18, even though he was technically still a "teen" at the time.

- Mr. Hodel wasn't making photocopies at the local Kinkos as your "goth-boy 'zine" comment would falsely imply. Hodel purchased a professional printing press that the journals where made on, using standard press/print procedures (proof paper, etc.). "'Zines" as you refer to them were not common back in the 20's as they were later in the century when photocopying technology existed where essentially anyone could publish as long as they could afford the few bucks it cost to make mimeographs or zerox copies. If you wished to publish printed material in the 20's, you had to go to a lot more considerable cost/effort. Not the sort of thing a teenager does on a whim.

- The content of his journal "Fantasia" was stated as being engaged in the "portrayal of bizarre beauty in the arts, to the delineation of the stranger hamonies and the rarer fragrances.... such beauty we may find in a poem, a sketch, or a medley of colors... we shall consecrate our magazine to the depiction of beauty anomalous, fantasial".

Here's how Dictionary.com (the first source I picked) defines "surrealism":
A 20th-century literary and artistic movement that attempts to express the workings of the subconscious and *it is characterized by fantastic imagery and incongruous juxtaposition of subject matter*.

If Mr. Hodel's subject matter doesn't meet the criteria of the "surreal", I don't know what does.

So, the facts show that a young man with a genius IQ and professional experience as a writer decides to professionally produce a journal dealing with surrealistic subject matter as I've claimed. As we can see, your attempts to denigrate the evidence doesn't stand up to stricter scrutiny and your claims that I've made stuff up or written blather can be seen as a desperate attempt by someone losing an argument.

"For instance, if Steve had wanted to make a half-way believable claim that his father was inspired to commit the Black Dahlia murder by a small graffito on a remote crag of the Great Wall of China, he would have to show that there had been such a graffito there, and that his father had been within viewing distance of it sometime prior to the crime."

It's Hodel's claim that he was inspired by a photograph which was published in a journal, the type his father published himself, to which there were 800 copies and that this journal contained art created by a friend of his, Man Ray. He has shown that the photograph was "there, or in other words available to be seen, and that his father had been in a position to likely have seen it sometime prior to the crime given his a. interest in the subject matter b. interest in these kind of journals c. interest in the artist in question. He established all of this prior to even knowing that the original copy of the photograph had apparently never left France. While that doesn't prove with 100% deniability that he indeed DID see the photograph, it's not a credible claim that Hodel could not have seen the photograph of that he would have no reason to have seen it or even that he was unlikely to have seen one of the 800 copies of a journal dealing in subject matter he was interested in, that contained works from an artist he knew and admired. How Hodel has "made up" this likely possibility, given the facts, is beyond me.

"You may think this is adequate to refute Steve Hodel's critics on this score, but Steve apparently doesn't agree with you. As you were kind enough to bring to our attention, Steve felt the need to invent (and publish on his website) a detailed, specific, and entirely *fictional* history of the exhibition of this photograph. One that anyone can check and find to be completely fabricated. "

You're leaving out other reasonable options. For instance, that Hodel made an incorrect assumption in stating that the photo was shown along with the other pieces in the exhibitions noted. Or that as I've stated, the brief descriptions quoted regarding the exhibitions were not inclusive of all materials, and that Hodel has information you do not. It's already been established that Hodel's critics will attack him based soley on a slim knowledge of the evidence gathered from incomplete sources. Otherwise, people would never have claimed that it wouldn't have been possible for G. Hodel to have ever seen the photograph at all, after which Steve Hodel produced evidence that there were apparently at least 800 copies of the photograph that were distributed to the international surrealist community prior to 1947.

"So he made something up, as usual"

So it's your claim that an artist who as early as the mid 20's had shown an interest in the surreal, who was a friend of and collector of the works of Man Ray, and who had produced his own surrealistic journal wouldn't be inclined to seek out or be in a position to see a surrealistic journal (800 copies of which were produced) containing works of his friend Man Ray.

You're welcome to publicly state such a belief, and we can agree to disagree. But, you're probably not going to be taken very seriously when you falsely claim people just "made something up" regarding a theory when it can be proved to be reasonable as shown.

"But a believable case for any of the above, or someone else, requires *evidence*, which poor Steve sadly lacks outside of his fantasy world. "

Poor guy. If only Detective Jemison were still alive, you could attack him for having no "evidence" to support the belief by him and many others during the height of the investigation (after it was taken from the LAPD and given to the DA) that George Hodel was their prime suspect. He was after all the guy they went to the enormous effort of bugging, who was the "wealthy Hollywood doctor" that was named as the prime suspect before the 1949 grand jury hearings, and who the DA was investigating as the killer of both the Black Dahlia and the Lipstick murder. All this with "no evidence". What a shame :lol Of course, the fact that Hodel was the guy the DA was going after was all an invention of Hodel as well. And that his father admitted to other crimes on tape is his invention and that...oh well...I think that between my disasembling of your attempts to denigrate the fact that Hodel produced a surrealistic journal and your instance that Hodel is making everything up, despite ample evidence that shows that even the district attorney's office back in the 40's believed Hodel had something to do with the crime (which would make most of Hodel's theories credible, if not absolutely true), will allow those who haven't went to the trouble of finding out the facts for themselves determine who it is that lacks credibility in regards to this subject matter.

"If Mr. Hodel's subject matter doesn't meet the criteria of the "surreal", I don't know what does."

If you think George Hodel's fin-de-siècle vapors have anything to do with Surrealism, you need to get out more, specifically to a bookstore, library, or museum. Surrealism is not some category from a dictionary, it's a specific movement with a specific style very much at odds with that of immediately previous generations, which is what George was soaking himself in. Don't believe me, go look at it and read it!

Poor George, stuck in Pasadena in the early '20s, had to make do with the style and context of a previous era to express his so-unique adolescent feeling that there was something wrong with the world, because in those days to know what the avant-garde were doing you had to be where they were, and George wasn't. He should have checked André Breton's web site, I guess! Anyway, the fact that George carried on about the weird awfulness of everything put him in league with about a billion other teen-agers and can't possibly be the basis of suspecting him of swatting flies, much less carving up waitresses and leaving the remains on Los Angeles streetcorners. Face it: there is *no* connection, except of course in Steve Hodel's trashy flying-saucer fantasy world.

"If you think George Hodel's fin-de-siècle vapors have anything to do with Surrealism, you need to get out more, specifically to a bookstore, library, or museum. Surrealism is not some category from a dictionary, it's a specific movement with a specific style very much at odds with that of immediately previous generations, which is what George was soaking himself in."

I know what surrealism is. The point is that I can document my claims and back them up using sources. I don't rely on personal attacks and unsupported derogatory remarks to make my arguments, which is why I posted the dictionary definition.

Throughout the book, Steve Hodel points to his father's fascination with the surreal...dream states, and exploring the what Hodel himself refers to the "beauty anomalous, fantasial". I believe that it's clear that it is no coincidence that Hodel hired a noted surrealist to to take photographic portraits of his family. Out of the thousands of photographs Hodel could have chosen, he chose a surrealist. Wow..."no connection" indeed! :)

"Poor George, stuck in Pasadena in the early '20s, had to make do with the style and context of a previous era to express his so-unique adolescent feeling that there was something wrong with the world, because in those days to know what the avant-garde were doing you had to be where they were, and George wasn't. "

...or subscribe to certain journals. :lol

"Face it: there is *no* connection, except of course in Steve Hodel's trashy flying-saucer fantasy world."

Sorry, unlike you, I can't ignore evidence or dispose of it just because it interferes with some pre-decided beliefs. I guess that's what one does when they can't credibly refute the evidence...but that's not me.

"...or subscribe to certain journals. :lol"

And which journals would those have been, in January 1925?

Do tell. I'm all ears here.

"I can't ignore evidence or dispose of it just because it interferes with some pre-decided beliefs. I guess that's what one does when they can't credibly refute the evidence...but that's not me."

Well, I'll be sure to keep this in mind after you've read the the links I posted to the DA files.

"Sorry, unlike you, I can't ignore evidence...."

I don't know why not. You've done very well at ignoring the lack of it.

Yes, it is unfortunate that Lt. Frank Jemison is not still alive. I’m sure he would have a few choice words for Steve Hodel, and perhaps his lawyer would be having a chat with Steve’s publisher as well.

But, since Jemison is not here to speak for himself, we have the next best thing: the complete text of Jemison’s summary of his investigation of all 22 suspects in the Black Dahlia case. This is now available on the internet:

http://blackdahlia.info/modules/news2/article.php?storyid=4

As you can see, Jemison concludes his summary of suspect #10, George Hodel, thusly: “See supplemental reports, long sheets and hear recordings, all of which tend to eliminate this suspect.” Reading the report on George Hodel in the context of the rest of the suspects, it’s not hard to see why he was not exactly at the top of the investigators’ list.

The idea that George Hodel was the “prime suspect” named before the grand jury is just another of Steve Hodel’s fantasies, lies, delusions, “errors of fact”, or whatever you want to call them. Every evidence here is that the “wealthy Hollywood man” sometimes referred to as having been named as the “prime suspect” in the grand jury hearing was in fact Mark Hansen, just as students of the Dahlia case have long claimed.

Here’s more on the case, or lack thereof, against George Hodel:

http://blackdahlia.info/modules/news2/article.php?storyid=6

And more on the investigation of Mark Hansen:

http://blackdahlia.info/modules/news2/article.php?storyid=9

And still more relevant excerpts from Jemison’s reports and the grand jury documents:

http://blackdahlia.info/modules/news2/article.php?storyid=3
http://blackdahlia.info/modules/news2/article.php?storyid=2

Hansen, unlike George Hodel, had verified connections to Elizabeth Short, was a suspect in the case from the beginning, and continued to be investigated for at least three years afterward, according to these documents. Whereas, again according to these documents, George Hodel only became a suspect nearly three years after the crime, when a mentally ill former girlfriend of his called in a tip to the authorities.

You'll also see from these documents that Jemison did not find the Black Dahlia murder and the so-called "Red Lipstick murder" of Jeanne French to be the work of the same perpetrator, and there is no indication here that George Hodel was ever a suspect in the Jeanne French murder.

Now, what was it you were saying about taking the trouble to find out the facts for yourself?

By the way, although this seems like trivia next to the foregoing information, I’m still waiting for you to produce the information you have on the “widespread distribution” -- and now “international distribution” -- of Le Minotaure magazine, Number 7. I wouldn’t have figured you as such a well-versed expert in the modes of dissemination of French avant-garde arts periodicals of the 1930s, but I guess you must be. Because I’m sure you wouldn’t, you know, just make up something like that.

"And which journals would those have been, in January 1925? "

The type George Hodel himself produced. Are you saying there were no journals produced in the mid to late twenties, other than Hodel's which covered this area of art?

..more to come.

Nice try, but no dice.

You asserted that 17-yeard-old George Hodel, of Pasenda, CA, could have learned about the avant-garde arts movements of his time, such as Surrealism, by subscribing to certain journals. We have already established that young George's two-issue literary magazine was not an avant-garde arts journal. Not by a long shot, unless we’re talking about the avant-garde circa 1870. Ben Hecht was not exactly breaking new aesthetic ground here.

So I ask you again, name some journals he could have subscribed to in which he would have learned about Surrealism by January 1925.

You’ve already assured us that you know all about Surrealism, so you ought to be able to name, say, three, right off the top of your head.

That is, unless you were expressing yourself via a more southerly body part. Again.

"So I ask you again, name some journals he could have subscribed to in which he would have learned about Surrealism by January 1925. "

1. I maintain that the subject matter that Hodel published in his art journal, whether he called it "surrealism" or not, is surrealistic in nature.

If I enjoy talking about dogs, and in particular cocker spaniels, and I do this prior to knowing that the dogs breed was "cocker spaniel" ( the breeds proper name), have I still not described a cocker spaniel? The same is true of his literary exploration of surrealistic themes.

2. I maintain that other journals of the time most likely also high-lighted this type of subject matter, regardless of what name was used to describe it. We know for sure that ten years later there were such journals, one of which published photos by one of Mr. Hodel's artist friends, Man Ray. If I enjoy Cocker Spaniels, and after later finding out the name of their breed and that there are journals available which feature the dog much like the journal I created about the dogs prior to knowing their breed, wouldn't be reasonable to assume that I'd track down such a publication?

Cocker spaniels, eh? Looks like we're done here.

This discussion has been very interesting to read through. The links to that amazing web site with the DA files on it was like a pot of gold at the end.

I'm really impressed by the knowledgeableness of some here. It was great to get all this information on Man Ray, totally at odds with what Steve Hodel tries to put over. And even the whole history of the "Minotaur" photograph... That was weird enough, but so much for it being famous before the murder. It just goes to show how full of it Steve Hodel is on so many levels.

When I read Steve Hodel's book, I knew it was iffy. Those pictures are NOT Beth Short! But I didn't know he was this far off in cuckoo-land. Now I feel kind of silly for taking it even partly seriously, as I did before. The truly sad and scary part to me is that this guy was once a police officer.

[deleted]

Whether Hodel has gotten some things wrong in his investigation in trying to find links to the murder, and why his father was the top suspect during the investigation of the killing, is missing the point. I'm sure any investigation of a 50 year old murder case will go down some wrong roads before they find what they are looking for.

The Man Ray stuff stuff is pretty solid though, regardless of what a few of the illogical skeptics try to claim. Only someone believing that a long-time art collector who has shown an interest in surrealistic imagery wouldn't know some of the works of his surrealist friend who took multiple pictures of his family, gave them gifts over the years, spent time in their home and later visited family members well after Dr. Hodel had left the country, would believe otherwise. The idea that this guy couldn't have been inspired by his friend's imagery, even assuming that some of the images where hard to come by, lacks any real logical basis. Sorry.

That's not to say that it's some kind of "smoking gun", but if you're trying to refute the possibility, I think you're painting yourself as someone who simply doesn't want this to be the killer and are trying too hard to push other alternatives.

There's apparently an entire book that's been published outlining just these facts.

http://exquisitecorpsebook.blogspot.com/