The author claims to know what is in the mind of Detective Harry Hansen. Detective Hansen is now deceased, so we cannot verify what Wolfe has written concerning the mindset of Detective Hansen. The author, Wolfe, goes on to state that Hansen knew the approximate location of the murder site, that he knew the dark secret of the autopsy, that “he knew there had been more than one person in attendance at the sacred setting. And he suspected that one of them was the short, dark-complexioned man who drove the old black Ford sedan—Brenda Allen’s procurer, Maurice Clement.

Response:

Reference the false information concerning Leslie Dillon, on page 238 the author writes: “Alarmed by the looming Grand Jury investigation, Chief Horrall, Assistant Chief Joe Reed, and Gangster Squad Capt. Willy Burns made a Herculean effort to derail the impending investigation into the murder of Elizabeth Short.  Soon after the 1949 Grand Jury was impaneled, and it was revealed that the Black Dahlia case would be among the unsolved crimes being investigated. Los Angeles Police Chief Clarence B. Horrall tried to take it off the jury agenda by making the dramatic announcement that the LAPD had finally apprehended the psychopathic killer of Elizabeth Short.”

“On January 10, 1949, twenty-eight-year-old Leslie Dillon, a hotel bellhop, was arrested on suspicion of murdering Elizabeth Short, and Chief Horrall stated, ‘There’s no doubt in my mind that Dillon is the hottest suspect there has ever been in this case.’ (Dillon was twenty-seven.) The author continues:  “Police staff psychiatrist Dr. Paul De River proclaimed that Dillon was a psychopath who ‘knew more about the Dahlia murder than the police did, and more about abnormal sex psychopathia than most psychiatrists.’’ (Dillon did know more than he should have known about this case.) 

The author continues with false information:

“The case against Dillon was orchestrated by Dr. Paul De River, one of the most unusual figures within the Los Angeles Police Department.  Allegedly a psychiatrist, De River was a friend of Chief Horrall, who had appointed De River as a psychiatric consultant to the LAPD.  As chief of the so-called ‘Sex Offense Bureau,’ De River was in charge of assembling files on sex crimes and keeping cross-references on every known sex offender.  Although he was a civil servant and not a police officer, as a close friend of Chief Horrall, he became an enforcer within the department and was instrumental in bringing about the false charges against Leslie Dillon in what became known as the ‘Dillon Catastrophe’."

Response:

           (Dr. J. Paul de River was a psychiatrist, a medical doctor who specialized in criminal psychiatry.  I refer you to his credentials  and vast experience.  The questioning and eventual arrest of Dillon was not orchestrated by the doctor but by the police officers, the Chief, the Assistant Chief and Capt. William Burns.  Dr. de River was appointed Police Psychiatrist, a position created for him before Horrall became Chief of Police. He held the rank of Captain; he did not tell the Chief what to do; he followed orders. In the doctor’s opinion, and many agreed with him, these were not “false charges.”)

Statement (Page 240):

            The author writes  “According to Dillon, the charges brought against him started when he wrote a letter to Dr. De River in October 1946 expressing his interest in the Black Dahlia case.  At the time Dillon was an aspiring mystery writer living with his wife and baby in Florida . While working as a bellhop in a Miami hotel, he had read an article in a detective magazine that quoted De River in his analysis of the pathological nature of the Black Dahlia case.”

Response:

The truth is Elizabeth Short was murdered in 1947, making it impossible for Dillon to read about the murder in 1946 before it happened.  Dillon did read about the doctor’s role in the Black Dahlia case in the October 1948 issue of “True Detective”. It might be noted that Dillon jumped from hotel to hotel working as a bellhop or a night clerk; he was often unemployed and lived off his wife’s wages; she was a waitress in Miami Beach , Florida .

Statement (Page 240):

“Former Homicide detective, Sgt. Stephan Bailey, who was working the Dahlia case, recalled that Dillon had written De River at about the time the 1949 Grand Jury was considering looking into the Black Dahlia murder.  Bailey recalled that there was a lot of pressure within the department to deflect the Grand Jury investigation.  Only an arrest of a viable suspect could conceivably stop the Grand Jury from placing the Black Dahlia case on its calendar.  ‘At the time De River was first contacted by Dillon, and then personally talked to him, we were getting more and more flak about the unsolved killing,’  Sgt. Bailey said. ‘It was the cause and effect of circumstances…some showing had to be put on to get us out of the red…’

           The ‘showing’ proved to be an attempt by the Los Angeles Police Department to frame Leslie Dillon for the murder of Elizabeth Short.  When De River informed Chief Horrall of the letter from Dillon and his subsequent telephone conversation, Horrall, along with Assistant Chief Joe Reed and Willie Burns of the Gangster Squad, hatched a scheme to arrest Dillon.  Unable to extradite Dillon from Florida without evidence, they decided to lure Dillon to California , where they would arrest him for the Black Dahlia murder and forcibly coerce him into signing a confession.”

Response:
          Dillon corresponded with Dr. de River prior to 1949, immediately after reading the  October 1948 issue of “True Detective”.  Arrangements were made to meet the doctor in one of three places:  Phoenix , Arizona ,  Los Angeles , California , or Las Vegas , Nevada .  Dillon chose Las Vegas ; it turned out that he did not choose to come to California because he was wanted by the Santa Monica Police Department for breaking into a safe at the Carmel Hotel in Santa Monica while working there.  Dillon said he wanted to help Dr. de River solve the case and he thought he knew who might have committed the crime; the person he suspected was Jeff Connors, a part time film writer who claimed to have known Elizabeth Short.  At the time of the communication with Dillon there was no discussion about extraditing him.  The idea was to gain his trust,  discover why he knew so much about the murder, and if his friend, Jeff Connors might be involved.  Dillon wanted to work as Dr. de River’s secretary and be a writer.  Dr. de River was a physician; he was never known to coerce anyone.)

Statement (Page 240):

            “Initiating several telephone conversations with Dillon, De River spoke in depth to him about the nature of the crime, the site on Normandy where the body was discovered, the findings within the autopsy report, and the depraved mindset of the killer.  De River then proceeded to disclose to Dillon aspects of the murder that only the killer would know.  Stating that he was impressed with Dillon’s knowledge of the crime and its pathology, De River told Dillon he would be interested in hiring him as an assistant in his Sex Offense Bureau at the LAPD and perhaps they could work together on a book about the Dahlia case.  He then offered to meet Dillon in Las Vegas and said he would send him plane tickets and arrange accommodations.”

Response:

The only reason arrangements were made to bring Dillon to Las Vegas , which was his choice out of three possible locations, was because Dillon knew so much about the case that it both startled and alarmed Dr. de River.  The author, Wolfe, has his facts mixed-up.  It is true that with the permission of the Chief and the Assistant Chief the doctor threw out the possibility that perhaps Dillon could assist him in his work.  This was the excuse for his making the trip, to help the doctor find the killer and possibly work with him in the future. Why else would he want to leave Miami Beach , Florida ?

            The writer goes on allegedly quoting Leslie Dillon, and of course, we know that  once the handcuffs were placed on Dillon the trust that had been established between the doctor and Dillon was no more.  Dillon became fearful.  He was now on the defensive and changed his story.  Whoever gave the orders to handcuff Dillon was very foolish; it might well be that that person wanted to prevent the truth from being known.)

            The author writes that Jerry Geisler was Dillon’s attorney, when, in fact a former New York City Gangster Attorney, A. Brigham Rose represented Dillon; his suit against the City was denied for lack of evidence.

             The Black Dahlia investigation was re-opened in 1949 by Frank B. Jemison of the District Attorney’s office.  The officers who worked the case discovered that Leslie Dillon had worked at the Devonshire Hotel in San Francisco on the 8^th of January, 1947 , but they could not account for his time after that until the 16^th of January, 1947 ,  when he reappeared in San Francisco . 

Statement (Page 245):

           Wolfe writes  “Accusing Horrall of ‘high-handed bungling and illegal methods in the re-opened Black Dahlia investigation,’ City Councilman Ernest Debs called for an inquiry into Dillon’s false arrest and accused De River of being a con artist.  It was discovered that De River was neither a doctor nor a trained psychiatrist, and the institution in which he claimed to have studied had no record of him as a student.  Subsequently, De River was indicted for forging narcotic prescriptions and resigned from the LAPD.

Response:

          The truth is no one accused Dr. de River of being a ‘con artist’ but author Wolfe, as far as I know.  The doctor graduated from Tulane University Medical School in 1916, was in the United States Navy as a medical officer in World War I,  and he had extensive experience as a psychiatrist.  These facts were brought out at a special hearing before the police and fire and personnel committees of the City Council, City of Los Angeles .  The minutes of this file are in the City Archives.  As to the narcotic prescription matter, the doctor had been writing pain killer prescriptions for his wife who was suffering  from a botched up back surgery and Lou Gehrig's disease, ALS, from which she passed away. He wrongly took the advice of a pharmacist who suggested he put the names of other relatives on his prescriptions as “it would look better.”  He did not lose his license over this, however.  He did not resign from the police department, rather, the council had created the position for him and in June of 1952, the council abolished the position. 

          To this day we do not know what happened to the files of the Sex Offense Bureau.  We do know that on February 2, 1947 , Assemblyman Don Field introduced a bill, which Dr. de River helped to write; this bill required the registration of all convicted sex offenders.

Statement (Page 257)

          On Page 257 the author writes:   “In Stoker’s book about his bitter experience within the LAPD, ‘Thicker ‘N Thieves’ (Sutter & Co., Santa Monica, Ca., 1951), he refers to two Gangster Squad detectives as enforcers of the abortion ring payoff racket.  When the detectives discovered that Stoker was conducting an investigation into Dr. Audrain, they threatened  Stoker and told him to shut down his investigation.  The two detectives once again proved to be officers Archie Case and James Ahern, who also worked the Black Dahlia case for ‘Big Jack’ Donahoe and were involved in the arrest and grilling of Leslie Dillon for Dr. De River.”

Response:

            It is doubtful that the author can prove that Case and Ahern were involved in payoffs.  Charlie Stoker was, to the best of my knowledge, a good officer; he was a friend of Dr. de River’s and came to his home after his problems with the LAPD to seek the doctor’s advice more than once.  I overheard their conversations.  The author makes false claims, accusing the doctor of being  behind the arrest of Leslie Dillon.  The truth is the doctor was most upset that Dillon was handcuffed.  Once the officers put handcuffs on Dillon he changed his story and became a different person.

Explain to me why Lt. James Hamilton come to our home one evening  and threatened us after Dr. de River testified before the Grand Jury on October 18^th, 1949 . 

In reading the statements made by the author, many of which are not true, I note that he does not think much of Finis Brown.  My father agreed with this observation.  He did not trust Brown, although he liked his older brother, Thad Brown.  My father heard rumors that Finis had removed evidence on the Black Dahlia Murder from the police evidence lockers.  During the re-investigation conducted in 1949 by Frank Jemison of the District Attorney’s Office, Finis Brown went around to witnesses and convinced them that they were probably wrong about their original statements to the police; witnesses changed their stories.