by Pamela Hazelton

If you've read this already, view the resulting correspondence, latest developments, or Ms. Knowlton's June 1999 E-mail.

Throughout this Web site, and since the beginning, I've remained unbiased in the presentation of thoughts, comments, rumors, hypothesis and facts. It is this one time during which I am willing to convey a few thoughts of my own.

I don't think Beth Short was a whore. I don't think she peddled little girls for kicks. That's not to say I won't change my mind tomorrow, because I very well may. For now, however, in my own mind, I stand uncorrected. Convince me otherwise, and once again, I'll post such.

I lend you the remaining of this online page as a response to the many, many visitors who are wanting to know more. Those of you who want to come to your own conclusions make this "drive" to know most apparent in your hundreds of e-mails. I, like you, want to know - have to know.

When I first encountered Janice Knowlton, it wasn't by means of an e-mail address at bethshort.com. It was during an online chat, August 12, 1998.

When Kelly Caldwell, Suspense Books Guide at Mining Co. first asked if I would like to be a guest, I was thrilled. Throughout a few conversations, I relayed to Kelly one concern: "Someone might show up wanting to take over the chat, to turn it around on me." That someone could be friend or family of Beth Short, or another involved with the case. At any rate, there was a legitimate concern.

Being a researcher/reporter/writer of criminal justice, I certainly wasn't afraid of what might happen - I was merely concerned. And, I was right.

During the Q & A about the crime, the Web site, and my take on it all, the following began scrolling wildly on the screen:

suspensebooksADM:
Please let's keep our questions focused to Pamela Hazelton for this evening's chat.

Lucy:
Pamela, why are you writing your book when the facts are already there?

I responded professionally, hoping Ms. Knowlton had calmed down, and offered her the opportunity to represent herself on this site.

The next e-mail was an apology. Then an explanation about her knowledge that Beth Short was a whore, was pregnant when murdered, and was murdered by George Knowlton, Janice Knowlton's father.

This sparked additional e-mails between myself and Ms. Knowlton. Again, with each, I offering her the opportunity to be online interviewed via visitor questions. My plan was to perform the same type of interview as with John Gilmore - offering Ms. Knowlton vast opportunities to convey her side, without bashing others involved with the case or its aftermath.

Her response: A press release of sorts about her book.

Her next response: "At the present time I have other commitments but I appreciate the offer."

Thinking perhaps she misunderstood - my thought that an author would be willing to spend 3 hours one-time to answer some questions and reveal relevant facts she has obtained; it would be a prime opportunity for self-promotion.

Her final response: "If people want to know my story, they already have access to the book (para. A possible 2nd book in future)… Beyond that, I'm not willing to be involved simply to satisfy idle curiosity . . . "

Idle curiosity? Is this what she thinks about the thousands who visit this site and read the books and attempt to come to some sort of resolution about a brutal murder of a 22-year-old woman?

My question: If it was never Janice's intentions to relate to Web site visitors, or any other interested person for that matter, than why the blurt-out in the chat? Why the repetitive e-mails? And why, oh why, the book? If I had undergone such a tragic experience and did not want to relay information to those truly interested in solving this crime, I wouldn't write a book about it. I wouldn't write letters to the LAPD, I wouldn't appear on television magazines and I wouldn't continue my search publicly.

There's no doubt in my mind that Janice Knowlton believes every word of her book. I'm not saying I don't. Anything could have happened prior to January 15, 1947.

But, like others, I want more evidence, I want more information, I want to believe what I hear. I need more than a co-authored book to do that. I need to ask questions. I need them answered.

Ms. Knowlton has made several attempts to convince me that I am wrong, that the Web site is wrong, and that John Gilmore is a selfish bastard none of us should trust. The only thing she failed to do is tell me why.

Why did her father kill Beth? Why did she write the book? Why am I moving in the wrong direction here?

I've read her book. I've read Gilmore's book. I've read Ellroy's novel. I've read legal paperwork, autopsy reports (portions thereof), magazine and newspaper articles from the 1940s and 1950s. I've read Ms. Knowlton's requests to the LAPD, and the responses to those requests. I've watched nearly every television special encompassing the murder of the Black Dahlia. I've seen the morgue photos, the life photos and the family photos. And I'm still somewhat up in arms.

Janice Knowlton will not be contributing to this Web site. That was her choice, in her approximately eighth and final e-mail: "Beth Short stole too much from me when I was nine and ten. She and curiosity-seekers will get no more."

I could be opening a can of worms. They could never close. I've been threatened before for this Web site.

I am a person of my word. I've learned to stand up for myself. Personal bashing and interference with business isn't the way to get me to change this site's content. Facts and evidence, however, are.

You can view the resulting correspondence to this editorial.

If you would like to read the entire chat transcript, it is located at Mining Co.'s Suspense Books Site.

Comments may be made directly to me at pamela@bethshort.com. Please use thought-provoked statements, evidents and constructive criticism.