Customer Reviews

Murder in Hollywood: Solving a Silent Screen Mystery

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

The unsolved murder of William Desmond Taylor is a striking and unusual case, in the sense that Taylor's still-mysterious life was perhaps even stranger than his death. I don't believe I've ever read of a homicide where there are so many bizarre characters involved, and so many contradictory, missing, outlandish, and disputed pieces to the puzzle surrounding this enigmatic antique dealer-turned runaway spouse-turned vagabond-turned actor-turned director. I have yet to read one account of the case that does not directly clash with all the others.

Unfortunately, Charles Higham has done nothing at all to clarify, let alone solve, this frustrating homicide. I am amazed that his publishers allowed such a muddled, weak book to go to press. He simply launches the book with an assumption of who the guilty party was, gives a glib "solution" to the murder based on what he airily calls "circumstantial evidence" (evidence that he never sees fit to share with his readers,) and, essentially, forces his audience to just take his word for it that this is what happened. While I can't dispute that it's possible the murder unfolded as he claims, on the other hand, Higham gives us no proof whatsoever that it did. The rambling and irrelevant digressions noted by previous reviewers are, I think, simply necessary padding to cover up the fact that his case against his prime suspect could be summed up in two or three lines.

Higham also has the annoying habit of dropping in little bombshells without providing any elaboration or even evidence of his claims. He says former DA Buron Fitts may well have shot himself using the gun used to murder Taylor. How does he know? He claims his alleged murderer made a "deathbed confession" to a nurse, who subsequently disappeared. Where did this story come from? Much of Higham's book is based on an unpublished memoir allegedly written by a now-dead man, which claims he had a long affair with Taylor. Is this memoir at all accurate? Corroborated by any other accounts? Or could it be fraudulent? If Higham bothered to find answers to these questions, he kept that to himself.

All in all, this book was a most irritating read.

Having anticipated Charles Higham's treatment of the unsolved murder of William Desmond Taylor to be the book-to-end-all-books on the subject, my disappointment was palpable as I trudged through the final pages of this incoherent, typo-ridden volume. Presuming that Higham's facility with biographies would transfer well to the true-crime genre, I expected his effort here to be as polished and well-researched as his previous work; instead this book is a convoluted mess. Besides going into lengthy, irrelevant detail about the lives of people having absolutely nothing to do with the murder (i.e., Neva Gerber, Julia Crawford Ivers, etc.), Higham rambles endlessly, repeating himself often while at the same time curiously managing to contradict himself. His irritating habit of drawing conclusions without providing any real evidence to support his theories throws the entire presentation off kilter. For example, his insistence that an unidentified suicide victim found in Connecticut was Taylor's former employee, Edward Sands, simply because Higham feels that Sands should have killed himself, is simply preposterous. To add insult to injury, this book seems not to have been proof-read - there are a plethora of glaring typos that even a second-grade child would have caught. The fact that Higham had access to files previously unavailable only frustrates the reader further, as his continuous failure to present this new evidence in anything approaching a cohesive fashion denies the reader a clear understanding of such material. Perhaps I expected too much simply due to Higham's reputation - but I was thoroughly disappointed with this book. Its one saving grace (and perhaps what makes it a worthwhile volume for the silent film buff) is the sprinkling of rare photos including portraits of Mabel Normand, Mary Miles Minter and a strange photo of the usuallly dapper Taylor in a frilly nightgown(!). In my opinion, anyone interested in the William Desmond Taylor murder case would do better with the two previous books written on the subject: A Deed of Death by Robert Giroux and A Cast of Killers by Sidney D. Kirkpatrick. Both vastly surpass Higham's scattered tale in clarity, form and content, and both have a style and cohesiveness that Higham's sorely lacks.

I ran into trouble with this book about three quarters of the way down on page 13 (the prologue). Mr. Higham writes about a New Years Day party he attended in 1971, in which he attempts to discuss the William Desmond Taylor murder case with several "legendary figures" of film. He notes that his host films a "priceless historical record" of the party and its guests which include the great director Josef Von Sternberg. Being a fan of Mr. Von Sternberg and knowing that he, in fact, passed away in December of 1969, told me all I needed to know about the research and the information presented in this book. If the author is so mistaken about such an important film maker as Mr. Von Sternberg and that date, then he loses credibility with me about the rest of his timeline and theory.

I would recommend anyone interested in the murder of William Desmond Taylor to read "A Cast of Killers" by Sidney Kirkpatrick (1986). The book is written in the form of a novel and is not a true crime book per se. But the facts and conclusions ring truer than anything "Murder in Hollywood" has to say. Plus the same material is presented with a sense of style and energy that is entirely absent in this short (209 pages)lusterless book.

The flaws in this book are already well documented so I won't go into them except to say that this is not an objective investigation of the crime. Charles Higham appears to have developed a theory of the murder and worked backwards from that. Anyone whose statements or eye witness accounts do not fit his theory he simply brands a liar (with no supporting evidence by the way.) For example, a minor detail that has nothing to do with the crime: Taylor kept a .32 Savage Automatic in his dresser drawer. Higham fixates on this and claims that it was a Luger in the dresser drawer. Then he refers to the Luger as a revolver several times in the book. At the inquest one of the detectives refers to the Savage pistol's presence in the drawer, Higham accuses him of lying under oath. (Taylor owned a Luger Carbine, the long barreled version with a detachable shoulder stock; it was found in the closet.)

Mr. Higham clearly has some kind of personal animosity toward Mary Miles Minter and that animosity fairly reeks from this book, starting with his grotesque physical description of the elderly woman in the very beginning. Vincent Bugliosi does not subject Charles Manson to the kind of vicious personal attack in Helter Skelter that Charles Higham subjects Mary Miles Minter to here.

In short, Murder in Hollywood is poorly written, superficially researched, and doesn't appear to have been edited at all. It is the work of an author who clearly has an agenda and doesn't let minor details like the established facts get in the way.

This is Charles Higham at his worst. Sidney Kirkpatrick's A Cast of Killers is still hands down the best.

I read 'A Cast of Killers' in one sitting in 1986. I think its a fascinating, well written intro to the William Desmond Taylor murder of 1922. However, countless film purists(none of whom have published their own research) deride it as not being factual to the point of complete invention, even though the author used King Vidor's notes. Vidor and Kirkpatrick were storytellers, first and foremost.
That being said, I think 'Murder in Hollywood' is getting a bad rap here. I do think it requires some knowledge of the players in the Taylor case, is a tad dry and whether Mr. Higham's conclusions are definitive is anyone's guess. I for one, really don't want this grand old mystery solved; 85 years later, I think its insoluable. While MIH does tend to branch off the trail a bit: the last few pages, which focus on Higham's take on the murder, held me in a grip: as any good story should ultimately do.
Regardless of how this tale is told, Mary Miles Minter and Mabel Normand were tragic figures; one had the benefit of an early death, the other...who knows. Baby Jane? Sunset Boulevard? Neither? What is needed to complement this is a more detailed look at Minter's later years from 1957-1984.
**For a bonus, pop over to You Tube, search 'Mary Miles Minter' and you'll hear a 1970 audio recording of the old gal talking with the author(in that arresting but creepy Broadway-British accent he refers to in MIH) about her visit to Taylor's body at the funeral home. Delicious!
Bottom line: If you're nuts about old Hollywood, I recommend this as a companion to ACOK...critics of both be damned.

DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK. ITS A HACK JOB FULL OF LIES AND THATS ALL THIS HIGHAM DOES. LOOK AT ALL THE LIES HE TOLD OF ERROL FLYNN AND WAS PROVEN WRONG BY FRIENDS AND THE FBU FILES HE SAID HE USED AS THE FOUNDATION FOR HIS BOOK.HE JUST REWROTE OTHER AND BETTER BOOKS.THIS MAN IS A MERCHANT OF LIES AND BASELESS ACCUSATIONS.HIS BOOKS ARENT GOOD ENOUGH TO UE AS TOILET PAPER. HIS PUBLISHERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED.

"Murder in Hollywood" is a welcome addition to the niche category of books purporting to solve the William Desmond Taylor murder. The book includes some new information not found in previous books on the case.