Site Editorial by Pamela Hazelton I'm afraid that this web site will eventually turn into a forum of people arguing about who has the facts straight about the murder of Elizabeth Short. But then again, I own this site. It is for this reason that I have committed myself from the get-go to do everything possible to remain open-minded, unbiased and mostly, open to learning anything I can about the Black Dahlia case. Unfortunately, as with every piece of history, you get a few who try all they can to throw a monkey wrench into the works. Once again I'm going through the filing drawers, sprawling out on the living room floor, looking for things that are "wrong" with the Black Dahlia case and the hundreds of pages that exist in print form about it. And again, I come to the same conclusion to the big question, "Who Killed Beth Short?" I don't know - that's why I'm here. But latest developments at amazon.com, the largest bookseller on the WWW, have caused the brakes to hit, and another question to be posed: Does John Gilmore know what the hell he is writing about? Larry Harnisch, a reporter for the L.A. Times, has used amazon.com as a forum to spew his ugly tactics and attempt to slam the book Severed harder than Mark McGwire can hit a home run. But it's foul play, and I'm calling three strikes, one for each of Harnisch's "reviews" at the site. (read them here in a new browser window) On Jan. 8, 1999, Mr. Harnisch posted a most thorough review, nitpicking many details of the book. The problem? He gave half the book away. It's called a spoiler - and it's a no-no. On Jan. 20, 1999, Mr. Harnisch posted another, very brief review - accentuating again (as if no one had gotten it the first time) that the book is "25% fact, 25% mistakes, 50% fiction." The problem? He had just posted a review. Is there a need for one person to review the same book twice other than to knock down the rating? On Feb. 3, 1999, Mr. Harnisch again posted a review, most likely for two reasons: 1) in retaliation to the several others who posted positive reviews, and 2) in retaliation for a rather lengthy e-mail I sent to him regarding his previous postings, outlining his unprofessionalism in "spoiling" a book and "triggering the ratings," among other, confidential issues. Now, before you jump up and say, "Aha!! John Gilmore does have this woman wrapped around his finger," understand that my comments regarding such are out of mere principle. Yes, folks, I would have stated the same to Mr. Harnisch had he posted reviews of the same nature for Janice Knowlton's book. Outlining the basic form of the e-mail I sent Larry Harnisch at the L.A. Times, I simply stated that: his tactics of "spoiling" the book would have gotten him tossed from any newsgroup. even though he used a personal e-mail account, his being a reporter for a major newspaper calls for him to remain totally professional at all times (another one of those "everyone is always watching you" jobs). his calling a book "total garbage" is as low as one can get (I firmly believe that nothing someone pours their heart into is garbage). his nitpicking minute details was petty (Mr. Gilmore is checking on at least one possible mistake). his lengthy post and follow up were related to his obvious failed attempt to write his own book about Elizabeth Short. And his most recent tactics to include John Gilmore's father in the bashing reflect immaturity and jealousy. (For the record, Robert Gilmore never rode a motorcycle in his career with the LAPD.) Mr. Harnisch never responded to my request for additional information he might have regarding the case. And I doubt he will. If he didn't take the time to contact Mr. Gilmore about mistakes in Severed, why would he give me the time of day? He's only made one thing very clear: he is miffed that the book Severed and others like it exists, because it virtually closes the doors for another. There can't be another Severed, there can't even be (at least, I hope not) another Daddy Was . . . They've been done. And a book about Beth herself? About how she was a sweet girl and didn't deserve to be murdered? No offense, but I know not one person who would want to read 200 pages about a nice girl, without going into great detail about the crime. I'm not disputing that Beth Short was a beautiful 22-year-old woman who didn't deserve to be murdered. I'm not disputing the crime was repulsive, and that those "close" to the family and friends are disgusted with people wanting the cold facts about the case itself, that they're fumed about the photos and others' allegations, that they can't take it for another minute. But it's not my job to, either. In fact, it's not my job to do anything but search for information, and post it as I receive it, and hopefully assist in a few coming to some sort of conclusion. While it may seem that I'm coming to the aid of John Gilmore out of request, adoration, respect or merely to "pucker up," it's not the case. Because that, also, is not my job. But I do believe in professionalism, tact and knowledge. Without the three of these combined, we'll never know just what happened, and why. Comments may be made directly to me at pamela@bethshort.com. Please use thought-provoked statements, evidents and constructive criticism. UPDATE: Larry Harnisch says he knows who the killer is. Read On UPDATE: Author John Gilmore makes a response. Read It | Home | About Site | Beth Short | The Murder | The Investigation | Interviews | Articles | Media | | FAQ | Visitor Comments | Links | PR | Memorials | The Latest | Register | Contact | The Black Dahlia Web Site is © Pamela Hazelton. All Rights Reserved. Last update: June 13, 1999.