June 19, 1999 From Janice Knowlton Dear Pamela, Just came across the Jan. 6, 1997 L.A. Times story by Larry Harnisch about the Dahlia, which as you may have noticed includes no mention of my claims nor my book, despite the fact that the L.A. Times had done prior mentions. By this time, however, a couple of things had happened. A columnist acquaintance of mine, Jerry Kobrin (since deceased), apparently believing me, did a column in favor of my claim that the LAPD covered up the facts of the Black Dahlia murder. Apparently, because Kobrin wrote for the Pilot (Costa Mesa/Newport), his column escaped the watchful eyes of the L. A. Times, L. A. editor, who would most likely have deep-sixed it. This is about April, 1995, prior to my book's release, it got plugged in the Pilot, which was an insert in the Los Angeles Times in the areas the Pilot is distributed. I can only imagine the frustration of the Chandler-controlled L.A. Times editor, at this end run. Especially as it must surely have reached them that I was reporting that at least two law enforcement officers named Norman Chandler as both a pedophile and involved in the cover-up. That would be Donald Gibson, for deputy with LASD, and a former LAPD officer, now retired, who hasn't given permission for me to reveal his name. Not surprisingly, within days the L.A. Times did a big story on the Black Dahlia, promoting John Gilmore's "Severed." Hmmmmm. You'll be familiar with it, I imagine. As a former public relations consultant, I recognized it as a "puff piece," and a maneuver, (no apologies to Gilmore). In re-reading the 1997 piece by none other than Larry Harnisch, I note that John Douglas, former FBI makes some comments on the profile of the murderer which fit, at times, my father: "...white man, no younger than his late 20s, and possibly older...lived alone (in a sense he did, my comment), liked working with his hands rather than his brains (a molder in a foundry mainly), was adept with a knife, (seldom seen without one. Why do you think I was careful to behave around him?), for example, a butcher, a slaughterhouse worker, or possible a HUNTER WHO KNEW HOW TO DRESS OUT DEER." I'll have to send you photos of dear old dad in his deer hunting costume, posing with the deer draped over the fender of his car; or perhaps the one with his second wife, Kay (formerly "Fish"), holding their little daughter in her arms, while a dead, disemboweled deer hangs attractively from the grape arbor to her right. I suspect Kay (formerly "Fish" from her marriage to a cop, was the inspiration for James Ellroy's Kay "Lake," having an affair with a cop, until cop Bucky Bleitcher (sp?) steals her away, in his novel, "The Black Dahlia." To continue with Douglas' profile, "He was under great personal and financial stress. He and Short spent several days together and he had been drinking. She rejected him. (All true. She had done that when she saw his sorry circumstances in Westminster). The mixture of personal stress (the deaths of his two youngest daughters a few months earlier, the stress of selling his nine-year-old daugher, Janice to pedophiles in Hollywood and putting up with the pesky kid's attempts to run away, back to her mother in Westminster, etc.)--alcohol, (oh, yes, he was being treated for bleeding ulcers, vomiting blood)--and rejection exploded into murderous rage. "Cutting the body in half was to make transportation easier. (Just as I remembered and reported. Though rigor mortis wears off and corpses become limp, he had no time to wait.)...But the level of mutiliation reflects a personal rage directed at Short, "You can just imagine him saying, 'You bitch. Look who has the last laugh now,' he said." It's almost as if Douglas was there that day. Or has he had a peek at the FBI's files on George, not that he could share that with readers. In fact, I've deduced that Elizabeth Short was a surrogate for his darkhaired, blue-eyed, fair-complexioned mother, who molested him, the great Gladys. As for why Norton Avenue. It's in the book; not the first choice, but the best he could do after his pesky kid delayed him. Maybe he even liked the resemblance between "Norton" and "Nolton" as Knowlton is pronounced. At any rate, he had few choices left as it was daylight. But, back to Harnisch, employed by the family that still controls the L.A. Times editorial policy, is he motivated to keep his job and his future as a journalist, by any desire to please his employers, Norman's offspring, by his blatant attack on my credibility? Or his he an unwitting dupe? Maybe both. He wouldn't be the first. Once again, forgive me if I don't re-read this and correct any typos, etc. Sincerely Jan June 21, 1999 - re: Larry Harnisch