The Black Dahlia Message Boards

[Pamela]

***10/29/07 - Corrected misspelled word, "several" - apparently Matthew's only real gripe is such mistake - because the rest of his response to this post is void of any real argument. This, from someone whose columns are often riddled with poor word choice, improper grammar and, <gulp> spelling mistakes. What a shameful response.***

Here's my latest - as posted on MySpace:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=111219283&blogID=322900229

DRAMA, DRAMA, DRAMA

Sometimes I just have to roll my eyes and laugh, as is the case a few times this month after reading Matthew Mezger's (aka timfinnegan) blog.

A little background, first. Ol' Finnegan was a member of the message boards at http://www.bethshort.com. While he contributed with great insight, his desire to flame other members beyond standard practices got the best of him. I've always been quite tolerant of users - in fact, only three have been banned in the span of more than ten years (both at the old and newer boards).

Matthew, though, sees it as a desperate attempt at keeping a "gal-pal" party going, and nothing could be further from the truth. I've always remained unbiased when weighing the decision of warning or banning members. However, when I am inundated with messages from other members who feel bullied and wonder why they waste their time checking posts when ol' Finnegan's still present, well, that says something. After reviewing his final offerings, I made the decision. He said nothing to me - made no offers to make ammends - but apparently is crying "FOUL" via his lame attempts to ruin my reputation.

His first round of boxing (http://radio.weblogs.com/0152707/2007/10/05.html) was tied neatly with a bow, in a post dubbed "Pamela Hazelton's Horror" (hey, at least he gave me credit!). Here, he explains that The Black Dahlia Web Site is basically a pitiful attempt at investigating the death of Elizabeth Short. He points out another user's idea to investigate a different potential suspect each month. He calls the October suspect a "lark in the park." For a retired cop (this is what he put on his profile at the boards), he must have missed the training where they teach you when things aren't apparent, or when leads hit dead ends, you look in unusual places. For many armchair detectives, none of the published theories on the murder hold water, so they've opted to look in less obvious places. That's certainly more than the LAPD has done in, say, decades.

Matthew claims his unplanned departure was due to his presentation of hard facts. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Hard facts and deep digging is what this investigation needs. What it doesn't need is for many of the other "fact-diggers" to be alienated and treated as if they're completely oblivious of reality. Makes me wonder - if Matthew thought so lowly of those on the boards, why would he even participate? I'd think a guy of his intelligence and background would want a real challenge. Fact is, it was easy for him to push around the masses - and that's not to say they're spineless, but rather that the ones who care too much feel spit on, and the lurkers don't want to get involved.

Saying this is all my horror is entirely inaccurate. I've not lost any sleep over his departure, nor over any methods of investigation in which the people on the boards participate. They're doing more work than most.

His Oct 26, 2007 post (http://radio.weblogs.com/0152707/2007/10/26.html) struck a nerve, only because the referenced writings of mine were misinterpreted, and his comments incorrect. But I was soon over it; I am not ignorant of the fact that this theorist is completely arrogant. He's researched this case for nine months (according to his blog) and has solved it - saying it should soon be closed. So I wonder, if he's found the killer and the case will be closed, why would he waste his time lurking around message boards that utterly bore him? *Me thinks he is just looking for fodder.*

"They don't want the story to ever end. They enjoy the attention, and are terrified that some Finnegan will one day come back from the dead and steal it all away from them by solving their favorite unsolved murder case."

While this may be the case for some, it's certainly not the consensus. Matthew has to tell himself this to somehow justify his comments and massive disrespect. He obviously expects everyone having any interest in discussing this case to be void of any real emotion and privy to the process of criminal investigation.

I get it - he despises Steve Hodel. He's every right to. What Finnegan doesn't tell you is that, while Hodel's theory is just one of many, I still require he receive the same respect on the boards as anyone else expects and deserves. Hodel is the only published theorist who graces the boards, and while there are just as many who disagree as agree with him, the fact that he participates at all says something.

No, Matthew would rather waste his and your time nit picking over Hodel's letterhead and pull cheesy name-calling cards out of a hat rather than make a legitimate argument. It's the best way he can see to prove that Hodel is full of horse-pucky on every front. I've gotta give credit to Larry Harnisch - who despises me - at least he made realistic arguments about other authors' claims.

I've got to say though, I thought my Friday would end on a bad note - after a quite demanding work week. But leave it to Matthew to brighten my day...

"Meantime, I suggest community college night school creative writing classes for the masses remaining at Pity Pam dotcom."

I never knew that a good investigator must also be a decent writer by trade. I never knew that an inability to write well goes hand-in-hand with an inability to read and comprehend, and research topics.

"Pam is rendered pitiable through some business reverses it seems, and contemplates major changes to her creaky, sour, old website and is the only one they really need fear, lest she pull the plug on their oh, so callous cause."

I'm actually quite hysterical. Business reverses? From a writer?...

And I'm none too surprised that Matthew would skew my mention of non-Black Dahlia issues to mean I was making excuses for my comments. I, unlike most, read my posts several times before hitting that send button. I have no reason to excuse my behavior or my comments.

I will give him credit - much of the content on the site does need updating. For the past year the majority of discussion/posting has been via the boards. But, to nitpick, at least I use software that doesn't crash the browser and display macro errors to the visitor.

"Lining their own pockets by selling Elizabeth Short short."

And who exactly would that be? The one author who is active on the boards? (which would be singular) Certainly not me - the site costs me money every month. I'm not aware of any other members who make money off this case. Perhaps Matthew will prove me wrong. Then again, perhaps Matthew has a deal in the works to compensate him for [gulp] nine months of labor.

"Wrung in a dry hole? Scratch one flattopped website. And then they're all banned."

I'll forgo the time it would take for me to actually figure out what Matthew is actually saying here.

Matthew obviously has a complex. The banning of three out of a collective 10,000+ members (on and off) over a ten year period, I think, is not enough to shake even a Pixie Stick at.

Let's be realistic. If Matthew was still on the boards, despite any disagreement about what others posts, he wouldn't be trashing bethshort.com on his own blog. The fact that someone pulled the carpet from beneath him, when it was clearly deserved, has sent him into a spiral of childish hatred. And I couldn't really care less. I will make no apologies for his unwarned banning; I will not be inviting him back. All the drama belongs in the "Off-Topic" category and I do nothing more than scan the post titles there lest I'm alerted to an issue.

I was alerted, by the way, of Matthew's recent post. So yes, I've been reading; Matthew has increased his audience by one. But it's certainly not for the sake of drama... simply put, I navigate many web sites.

Included in his original draft, Matthew posted an image of the virgin cover of a magazine I worked on years ago. He dubbed it "Pamela Hazelton in 'Agony In Black' (now defunct)". The cover was a painting of a woman who, below the torso, was tendrils of snakes. Why he would even consider posting the cover, I don't know, but neither "Agony In Black", nor its publisher, is defunct. The image is not of me, nor any variation of my person or subconscious. Matthew just has a need to make things sound much worse than they really are in order to line others behind him as he cries "Foul!" once again.

Lastly, I don't understand why Matthew is wasting any time over blogging about this at all. He's solved the case. It's about to be closed. So why doesn't he follow his own logic? Move on...find another case. Unless, of course, he simply doesn't know what else to do...
_________________
Best,

Pamela
The Black Dahlia Web site