Friday, September 25, 2009

More Wellington Insights

It's said a picture's worth a 1000 words. Well one look at the Barrow Gang car burned at Wellington that summer night in 1933-- says it all. It appears from this fabulous pic of the burned car seemingly taken the next day, that Bonnie, Clyde and W. D. may have cheated death that fateful night.

Quoting from the Winston Ramsey book (which all should own)-- "Jack and Alonzo rushed down the hill expecting to see the vehicle wrecked and the occupants dead. Instead they found the car-- a 1933 five window Ford coupe-- still largely in one piece sitting upright but facing the way it had just come. They tried the doors but found them jammed. Suddenly a voice came from inside the car. "Hey, can you give me a lift?" After working on the right- hand door for a few minutes they finally got it open and assisted the man out. He told them he didn't think he was hurt but that there were two more people inside. Both were unconscious and it was only with great difficulty that they were extracted. The woman's right leg was bruised and bleeding and had been burned with sulphuric acid from the battery, situated beneath the front floorboards, which had been smashed in the crash. The other passenger showed no visible injuries and his friend brought him around by shaking him."

"At this point Jack and Alonzo became somewhat alarmed as the men began passing out pistols, shotguns, rifles and ammunition and something which to the young farmers looked suspiciously like a machine gun. The slightly- built woman, wearing a plain gingham dress, was still unconscious so the taller of the two men ordered Jack Pritchard to carry her up to the house but, as soon as he had picked her up, she began struggling and kicking so violently that he nearly dropped her. Jack tried to quieten her by telling her he would go to fetch a doctor but this caused her to fly into a fresh frenzy of kicking, scratching and cursing. Meanwhile the guns were being moved by the other two men. When the woman asked Jack if he knew who they were, she is reported to have told them "they're Clyde and Buck Barrow" but this may either be misreporting or because Bonnie did not want to reveal the identity of Jones"

My thanks to Winston Ramsey, for this truly insightful photo and quote-- apparently reconstructed from eyewitness accounts. And from me to you, a not too shameless plug for this "wonderful" book-- On the Trail of Bonnie and Clyde Then and Now. To me, a must have and must read B&C resource.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Gladys Cartwright-- A Wellington Survivor

For all who have asked or wondered, this is a photo of Gladys Cartwright. Gladys was shot by W. D. Jones at the house owned by her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Sam Pritchard in Wellington, Texas-- after Clyde ran off the road and their car caught fire.

Here, Gladys is shown displaying her right hand, which sustained Jone's shotgun blast through a window. W. D. apparently thought Gladys was reaching for a rifle kept above the door. However, it's said Cartwright was only reaching to lock this door instead. 14 shotgun pellets entered the back door and 6 entered her right hand, severely injuring it.

All the shots seemingly passed through Glady's hand but 1-- which lodged just above her ring finger knuckle, permanently destroying the ligaments or tendons. That finger it's said would never bend again. Although many bones were broken via this shotgun blast, contrary to some accounts-- Gladys Cartwright's hand was not mangled, with fingers lost. This picture shows Gladys with her injuries in 1937. I had always envisioned Gladys being older than she was. But that too-- was not the case. Many thanks to my namesake Winston Ramsey, for this pic and info from his book.

The Latest "8" B&C Polls-- Perhaps Some Surprises

Here are the answers to the latest "8" B&C Polls. Purple hexagonal sunglasses were Clyde's choice for eye wear, on the day of the ambush. Many thanks to Professor Carroll Rich, and his research-- for providing the account of the purple lenses. The 6 sided shape of these sunglasses, can be obtained by observing the glasses dangling from Clyde's head-- within the Clyde stretcher pics taken in Arcadia. Similarly, I took the question concerning Bonnie's dress that day, from Carroll Rich's writings as well. Bonnie's dress was described by eyewitnesses on May 23rd, 1934-- as being a red rust color. And one more from Professor Rich's research-- a movie magazine, opened to the page Bonnie was reading at the time-- was said to have been found between Bonnie's feet, on the floor of the Warren car. Her pistol, was said to have been found in her lap. And speaking of the Warren car-- after a prolonged "custody" battle with Sheriff Henderson Jordan was settled by a judge-- Ruth Warren finally got her car back on August 2nd, 1934, some 70 days after after the ambush. Thus 2 months, was the closest answer.

In an interview from November 1933, according to W. D. Jones, Bonnie fired 2 or 3 times, toward Lillie McBride's house on January 6th, 1933. Although Nell Barrow apparently gets the Lucerne and Okabena bank jobs mixed up in Fugitives, Ura Witters is said to have attempted to wreck the fleeing Barrow Gang vehicle-- by throwing a log or large piece of wood in front of it. Apparently, Clyde wanted Bonnie to shoot Mr. Witters to prevent him from wrecking their fleeing car. According to Nell, when Clyde asked why she didn't shoot the man-- Bonnie replied "Why Honey, I wasn't going to kill that nice old man-- He was white-headed." This event happened in Lucerne, Indiana. According to information included with her mugshots, when arrested after the Dexfield Park shootout-- Blanche was 22 years old, stood 5 ft 1 inch tall and weighed 81 pounds. Accordingly, 80 lbs, was Blanche's approximate weight that day. And finally, Glen Bufkin was the man said to have held the door for Clyde, as he exited the bank in Stuart, Iowa. That's a great B&C story.

As always, my thanks to all-- for your participation in the B&C Polls. Please look for more polls to be posted soon.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Go Down Together by Jeff Guinn-- Sensational Fodder Does Not a True History Make

Among the flood of comments exchanged, within the Bonnie and Clyde historical community concerning Go Down Together-- Jeff Guinn's revisionist account of Bonnie and Clyde History, many remarks have been "pointed"-- more so perhaps than comments made among the general public. This may be true, because more casual observers of Bonnie and Clyde-- may not possess all the facts necessary, to make informed judgments regarding their favorite outlaw history.

Those who know me, know me to be polite but direct-- and I will be here. Having commented at length, regarding Jeff Guinn and his latest "true crime" offering so much over the past year or so-- I feel in actuality, I may have written this review nearly a dozen times. However for those who've asked me for an "official" look at Jeff's book-- here it is. Many of my comments here concerning Go Down Together are newly composed, with some recounted from past writings-- which I've found hard to improve upon. Even more detailed statements from myself and others, concerning this less than factual "True Story"-- can be found here on The Bonnie and Clyde History Blog as well as on the Boodles message board. I along with many, hope these comments will be widely viewed-- as it's important for an "historically" based commentary of Go Down Together, to reach people interested in B&C. Many reviews of this work have been nearly glowing, and conclude with "pats on the back" praise. Not this one.

First let me say, I differ from most who've reviewed Go Down Together-- The True Untold Story of Bonnie and Clyde. I am not a full or part time book reviewer for any news or Internet outlet. And frankly, I'm not much concerned with how "good a read" Go Down Together is. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that comment regarding this book, I might be writing my review from a sun drenched beach on the island of Fiji-- and skipping my cell phone across the clear blue sea. Discerning how well this book flows to wherever it's going, or giving style points-- for how punchy or effectual Jeff Guinn's well practiced linguistics are-- are not genuine interests for me.

For Go Down Together was touted as an historical work, as evidenced by it's clearly stated sub-title-- "The True Untold Story of Bonnie and Clyde". No, I'm not one who makes my living writing quick and shallow reviews of books-- just in time, to make it to press in covering the next release. I'm an historian. More to the point, a Bonnie and Clyde Historian. B&C Historians (admittedly or not) may be an eclectic and slightly eccentric bunch, but there's one thing we share in common-- we are passionate about the "history" of Bonnie and Clyde. Also, we're more than likely familiar with a literal "bevy" of Bonnie and Clyde historical accounts, myths, legends and lore-- from the most commonly related stories, to the most obscure tidbits of info rarely or never cataloged.

I suppose Go Down Together, could be called a literary leap for Jeff Guinn. According to prior to this effort, 5 of Guinn's previous books were written concerning the topic of Santa Claus. One of his efforts dealt with vampires. Still another, chronicled the photographic history of the Dallas Cowboys. And yet another, was penned about the game of baseball. So as perhaps Mr. Guinn's first serious fore' into the realm of written history, there was heightened anticipation, in welcoming his new Bonnie and Clyde book. But the truth be told, there's always a pronounced "buzz"-- when a new B&C book hits the stacks. It also seems fair to point out, that
in titling his book a "True Untold Story"-- there could be little ambiguity regarding Jeff's intentions to present a rare, new and factual account-- of America's most iconic outlaws.

However it became clear to me early on, that in considering Go Down Together-- I wouldn't need to comment on chapter and verse-- or even choose between multiple pro and con talking points in passing judgment on this B&C work. Rather I would need just "3" elements-- in order to classify this effort, as being a less than relevant addition to the Bonnie and Clyde stable of literary works. As threes are synonymous with strength in history, I've come to call these key elements The Guinn Triad. They are: Mr. Guinn's telling of the ambush-- his labeling of Bonnie Parker as a prostitute-- and an event so astounding to me, it too now has it's own title-- The Guinn Doctrine. This last element, has to do with a "more than remarkable" admission made by Jeff Guinn-- within an e-mail to me on March 14th, 2009. I still don't know, why Jeff selected the fateful words he did?? I may never come to terms with trying to figure out why, he would let this "telling" impression of historical writing-- travel from his head to his fingers and onto an e-mail, to be noted and preserved by me-- whom he knew was critical of his book??

For those who feel my focus too narrow within this review, I respectfully disagree. To me, these 3 elements are so wrong, profound and striking in their lack of diligence and historical responsibility-- I feel whatever good points are contained within the pages of his book, Jeff has trivialized by his egregious errors-- on the 3 fronts I've deemed critical to my opinion of Go Down Together.

The Sailes Ambush-- Many things are known of the waylay executed so memorably, that Wednesday morning in May 1934-- and yet many aspects remain unknown. However, one aspect of the ambush which was meticulously detailed-- was documented by Bienville Parish Coroner Dr. J. L. Wade. His accounting of the wounds suffered by Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker that hot and fateful day, have remained a constant within B&C History for more than 75 years. In conducting his coroner's jury inquest, Dr. Wade made note of the numerous bullet wounds, cuts made by flying glass, previous injuries and other physical characteristics evident in Clyde and Bonnie that day. Numerous photos of the infamous pair in death, were taken, developed and printed by Dr. Wade's assistant King Murphy. Also as noted within scores of eyewitness accounts, the crowded mayhem at Conger's furniture store and morgue that day-- would have provided little opportunity, for anything other than the truth which was witnessed in so public a forum-- to be accounted for.

64 years later, 2 research historians named Sandy Jones and Bob Fischer, would release a report made for limited consumption-- called quite simply It's Death To Bonnie And Clyde. I suppose some viewed this report as ground breaking. However in reality, the assumptions made, particularly concerning the ambush of B&C-- would prove to be erroneous, as they clashed with more credible and well documented events from May 23rd, 1934. Although as stated within this report, it "was" a goal to provide a newly researched account of the death of Bonnie and Clyde-- one of the primary purposes of Jones having examined the Warren car, was to use it as the best model possible-- to build an accurate recreation of itself. From that point of view, the Jones/Fischer report was a success. Sandy Jones built a stunning recreation of the Warren car, which historian Jim Knight later purchased.

However, this perhaps well meaninged report has also caused controversy-- in presenting a version of the ambush which flies in the face of known reality. Key to this fodder, is one singular photo of Bonnie Parker (complete with illustrative arrows)-- which the Jones/Fischer report states, shows an "entry" wound within Bonnie's right cheek-- thus causing the gaping exit wound within her left cheek. It's then somehow advanced, that since there are a small number of entry bullet holes above Bonnie's passenger door-- and that the caliber of bullet may have matched a gun thought used by Capt. Frank
Hamer that day-- that low and behold, Hamer must have fired at Bonnie from her right side, as evidenced by the bullet hole in her right cheek.

The problem for these assumptions, is that there was never an entry wound in Bonnie's right cheek. Concerning the perceived bullet wound, Dr. Wade's coroner's report is clear for all to read. The gaping wound in Bonnie's left cheek was noted by Wade (the coroner who examined her that day)-- to be an entry wound, with it's exit made through the top of Bonnie's head. Also as noted within by a number of photos taken of Bonnie "after" being cleaned up, the indentation noted by Jones and Fischer (previously filled with streaming blood)-- was apparently nothing more than a dimple. Dr. Wade had it right, and unfortunately Jones and Fischer had it wrong.

Also regarding the bullet holes above Bonnie's door, Dallas Deputy Sheriff Bob
Alcorn-- admitted in an interview made with the Dallas Morning News on the day of the ambush, that it was "he" who fired at Bonnie's door with his rifle. And unlike Hamer, who was "not" known to have had a Colt Monitor at the ambush (that's thought to be wrong as well)-- Alcorn in firing a Remington Model 8-- did possess the correct caliber weapon, to apparently match the holes above Bonnie's door. By the way, it's felt by many that Capt. Frank Hamer used an automatic shotgun-- as his primary weapon that day.

The issue for Guinn, is that he admittedly used
the Jones/Fischer report in spinning his version of the ambush. It's never been documented with any credibility, that Bonnie was shot from the right side of the Warren car multiple times by Frank Hamer, in firing his powerful Colt Monitor machine rifle, or by anyone else-- in firing multiple times directly into Bonnie from the right side. To put it politely-- BS. As only left and rear shots were noted by Dr. Wade in having entered Bonnie-- "no" right handed wounds were found.

And before anyone starts spouting off, with conspiracy theory-- to protect
Hamer and the boys from having shot the hell out of a woman in 1934, who Hamer at least thought to be pregnant-- don't get me going on that one. They shot the hell out of Bonnie Parker in 1934, who Hamer thought to be pregnant. Plain and simple. I'm not sure what possible motive anyone could have had, for sugar coating what occurred, and making that "lauded" group assassination appear less dramatic-- than the carnage it already was?? I believe Professor Carroll Rich, who knew Dr. J. L. Wade-- in saying Wade would never have been pressured, to do anything he didn't want to do. Besides-- Hamer himself, was witnessed calling Wade a "straight arrow" which in the 1930s, meant an honest man.

Indeed Guinn's version of the ambush, is
fraught with shameless sensationalism and inept inaccuracy. This is further evidenced by the millisecond by millisecond analysis provided by Guinn, via the Jones/Fischer report-- of the firing order of the officers present that day. With all the years that have passed, no witnesses left to interview and so many assumptions used (which may or may not possess any hint of accuracy)-- I'm not sure how or why, this "carefully crafted" firing order, would have validity or usefulness. All of these bold assertions sound good I guess, until you realize all were formed from the ballistics, forensics and photographic interpretations of non-experts.

The sensational supposition employed by Guinn, follows the lines of 1930's rumors-- involving Hamer having targeted Bonnie at Sailes for the Grapevine murders, which seemingly had no basis in truth at the ambush. I am aware of a report that apparently exists, which states when Hamer approached the Warren car and saw there was nothing left to do-- that he holstered his weapon without firing another shot. But hey, a monstrous and vengeful Hamer dramatically "finishing off" Bonnie sure sounds good-- and what a splash it would make, especially when picked up and used within a well publicized new book-- which along with this dubious claim, sports other instances of sensationalized supposition.

Bonnie Parker "Prostitute"-- For anyone who doubts the impact of Guinn's book, please Google Bonnie Parker Prostitute, and read the results you find. To me, Jeff Guinn absolutely lays the gauntlet down to be slapped in the face with-- in espousing that Bonnie Parker may have engaged in prostitution. He uses as proof for his claim a poem, allegedly written by Bonnie Parker called "The Prostitute's Convention".

"The Prostitute's Convention" has been thought by some, to have been written by Bonnie when she was imprisoned in Kaufman, Texas in the Spring of 1932. Although the story behind this poem is intriguing, I'm not sure it can be proven with any confidence, that Bonnie wrote "The Prostitute's Convention". Never the less, Guinn used it anyway, even though he "didn't know" the correct provenance for it. That poem did "not" come from Marie Barrow via Jonathan Davis as Guinn stated. The provenance for that poem was said to have been Kaufman Sheriff's Office guard J. W. Tidwell, who signed the 10 poem grouping of poetry, written in a bank book-- of which this poem was included. This book of poetry, entitled "Poetry From Life's Other Side", was allegedly given to Tidwell by Bonnie Parker, while she was imprisoned in Kaufman. It was sold at auction by Bonham's in June of 2006 for $36,000-- reportedly to a collector from England.

Within their preparation for auction, Bonhams offered the opinion of a memorabilia dealer and handwriting expert, who judged the poetry authentic-- by comparing it to a letter believed written by Bonnie for Clyde-- and addressed to Raymond Hamilton, as part of Clyde's newspaper war with Hamilton. As many know, I spent 2 years authenticating The Bonnie and Clyde Signatures. In 2006, when I asked noted forensic handwriting expert Emily J. Will CDE (who had worked on the signatures)-- to look at scans of some of these poems I obtained from Bonhams-- she disagreed with the opinion of the Bonham's hired gun. Ms. Will's opinion was, the very aspects of the handwriting the other gentleman deemed similarities in declaring the poems authentic-- were not unique at all, in that so many would have written in the same style they were trained in, within the 1930's. Emily keyed in on what she thought were more "unique" features of the handwriting-- which she felt didn't jive with the Hamilton letter.

I don't think there's any credible evidence, to support Bonnie being involved in even casual prostitution-- whether or not, "The Prostitute's Convention" could be proven to be Bonnie's creation. Half of the 10 poems within that Kaufman grouping, were "not" Bonnie's poems anyway-- but instead, poems known to have been written by others. Within the auction listing, it's surmised Bonnie may have included these other poems along with hers-- as she may have liked them. It's a "long" stretch to prove a poem autobiographical-- especially one so hard to prove was Bonnie's to begin with. I asked Jeff, since he didn't know the correct provenance of the poem he used as "evidence" in backing a Bonnie prostitution claim-- how he could have felt comfortable in advancing such a claim?? I never got a viable explanation in return.

The Telltale Heart??-- So what is The Guinn Doctrine you ask?? In addressing concerns I had regarding his book, on March 14th, 2009-- Jeff Guinn made the following statement in an e-mail to me-- "all written history is ultimately best guess, and clearly you and I have guessed differently in some instances." No Sir, I don't believe I have-- but never the less, that's the verbatim quote. I say with all respect, o
thers can believe what they want. But I for one, cannot find credibility in Guinn's "True Story" of Bonnie and Clyde, while fraught with blatant inaccuracies-- and defined by such a lax and perhaps arrogant historical credo. Some have jumped to Guinn's defense-- in saying they think they know what Jeff meant, in making such a declaration. But to my way of thinking, there are "3" absolutes within the statement "all written history is ultimately best guess". Thus, as I see it, there is little ambiguity in this astounding revelation.

In addition, so many facts "do" exist within written history. So on the face of it, that statement is incredible and obviously false!! So I don't know what Jeff meant, but in uttering such a concise and well structured statement-- I can only feel he meant what he said. I find Jeff's credo concerning historical writing a self defining, damning and scary one for any historical writer to make. However some seem to now question, whether Guinn is indeed either an historical writer or an original one?? It's been pointed out to me, that some of Guinn's "inner circle" revelations have been used previously by other B&C authors-- particularly by Jim Knight in his 21st Century Update of Bonnie and Clyde.

The Damage Is Done-- But the Fight Isn't Over. As many know, feel I can draw a close parallel between Jeff Guinn and John Toland, in having advanced such controversial assumptions regarding Bonnie and Clyde History-- without apparently having the facts to back them up. Thus I view Guinn as the modern day John Toland. Of course, Jeff may not mind being compared to a Pulitzer Prize winning author. But Toland won acclaim, for his chronicles of WWII history. It's his "odd" book of the lot-- The Dillinger Days, where Toland seemingly strayed off course-- to write a not so well regarded account of lawlessness in the 1930's. But perhaps Guinn too-- may have veered away from his more comfortable base, in writing a book perhaps out of his element?? The shame of this for B&C History, is I feel confident in believing the likelihood of Guinn's sensationalized assumptions-- being as harmful and influential in the future-- as Toland's claims have been from 1963 until now.

As I have in the past I will again-- state my belief, that Jeff Guinn should issue a public apology to Bonnie's niece, Rhea Leen Linder (Bonnie Ray Parker)-- for the shameful way he's disparaged Bonnie Parker and the Parker family-- by calling Bonnie Parker a prostitute without just cause. I also feel it would be the right thing to do, for Jeff to apologize publicly to L. J. "Boots" Hinton, for the USA Today review of his book written by Craig Wilson. Mr. Hinton was misquoted by omission within this review of Go Down Together, which was published worldwide.

On a personal note, and on behalf of so many-- I wish to "thank" Rhea Leen Linder-- for being "so kind" to us over the years, and for helping with her contributions to Bonnie and Clyde History. Rhea Leen may now have decided to discontinue her participation in B&C events and assisting with B&C projects-- due in part to B&C "dirt" being bandied about-- which she finds offensive. I can't blame her for her feelings, and can only hope she'll reconsider her position-- as she is a sweet woman, and important friend to this history.

As all who know me understand-- together with "Boots" Hinton and others, I have been a tireless advocate for accuracy in B&C History. As I see it, Go Down Together-- The True Untold Story of Bonnie and Clyde is far from the "True Story" it purports to be.
It seems Mr. Guinn has succeeded in revising B&C History, or at least the perceptions of some concerning this history-- but without the proof needed to do so. The problem becomes, in getting past those like me and so many others, who care about this history intensely-- and who won't let sparse diligence and a non-caring spirit, pass for history-- when it's not. Others seem to have their own issues with Go Down Together. For me, my digs are the ones I mentioned. It is not my goal, to make life difficult for Jeff Guinn-- as I have much of importance to accomplish both within this history, and personally within my own life. However within my love for this unique history, and concerning Go Down Together-- my choice became say nothing, and just chalk it up to another bunch of B&C folly being espoused-- or take a stand and join those who would say "the historical buck stops here"!!

One footnote-- I feel it important to say, that I have nothing against Sandy Jones and Bob Fischer, who have contributed historically in many important ways. I just believe in this case, assumptions were made that were unfortunate.

I didn't create the caption or photographs at the beginning of this opinion. But I kind of like them. As the caption so aptly says-- book 'em. Yea-- "book 'em Danno"-- for impersonating a true historical account of Bonnie and Clyde.
Thanks for your time, and my thanks to all-- who share the hunger for "truth" in Bonnie and Clyde History.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

A Renewed Spirit For B&C Historical Accuracy

As has been the case over many days this past year-- I spent part of yesterday, exchanging comments concerning a seemingly still vibrant debate, over the reasons why some seem to enjoy entertaining the notions and nuances of unfounded B&C lore-- even though many who do so, may realize these innuendos to be false. Today's forum for this exchange was The Boodles Board.

Somehow I just have to wonder, whether those who play You Bet Their Life-- where some apparently bet on when famous people are going to die-- experience a similar sort of rush if you will, as some of the more extreme B&C rumor driven curious-- when exploring the depths of seedy and unsubstantiated B&C lore?? With some having said it's indeed fun to speculate about such rumor, I don't know-- forgive me, but somehow my mind (perhaps unfairly)-- flashed to You Bet Their Life. The You Bet Their Life website, warns that their form of entertainment can be addictive. I suppose it can. I guess so too, that B&C rumor mills-- can be entertaining and addictive as well.

But with my interest in B&C History-- I just can't support the premise or purpose, in debating the incessant B&C "fluff" with such impassioned fervor. To me, the most heated and divisive of these unenlightened and unrelenting B&C rumor factories-- is You Tube. If you want to be entertained in an odd way, and gain a useful lesson in how "not" to be historically relevant concerning Bonnie and Clyde-- just read the comments, connected to many of the B&C videos posted there. There's "so" much impassioned and utterly nonsensical banter expressed there, that unfortunately-- it doesn't seem worth even considering jumping into that darkened snake pit, to try and affect an overall change in mentality. I've thought about it, but have opted not to-- in avoiding what would likely be an acute "slippery slope" of frustration.

Now granted, many there don't seem to be history driven individuals-- but they are the sort of B&C curious who've also read the books, where some of the most blatantly unfounded B&C rumor has been advanced. A good testimonial to my beliefs, concerning the harmful nature of B&C lore being espoused to no good-- can be found within the You Tube environs, where many quote from B&C books in support of one myth or another!! But before you say, You Tube is not a serious B&C forum-- that may be true, however don't forget the importance of this video behemoth's incredible internet reach. According to Google-- You Tube videos are requested 1.2 "billion" times per day!! And one look at the popularity of some B&C videos, and I'm not sure the point needs driving home any further.

Fortunately, some of the same knowledgeable B&C folks who frequent the B&CHB-- participate on The Boodles Board as well. It now seems, many on Boodles are ready to introduce new threads there-- to tackle a number of B&C books, regarding discerning fact from fiction within B&C History. "Bravo"!! May I recommend as a supplement to your experience here on the B&CHB-- the Boodles link blog right>> Great spot-- great people-- and worthwhile debate concerning B&C. For someone like me, this new energy in support of historical accuracy-- is wonderful and most gratifying news. My thanks to so many, for your dedication and passion for this history.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Are We Really the Generation of Idle and Hurtful Nonsense-- and Has this Hurt Now Spilled Over Into B&C History??

I was going to reply with these thoughts, to comments made within previous posts on this subject-- but instead, decided to expand and bring my feelings more to the fore here. These days, it seems throngs flock to reality TV which has little basis in reality-- in order to revel in watching others destroy themselves. And media outlets "can't wait" to provide more scandalous shows, fueled by those who can't wait to watch them. To me, along with the blatant disrespect for women and authority expressed so openly in top 40 video and music these days-- is it any wonder, people have become used to this now "acceptable" element of disrespect in our society??? In many ways, we seem to have become the generation of idle and hurtful nonsense.

Only last night, I drove my daughter and her friend to a high school football scrimmage, which ended before we got there. Why?? Because apparently, fights within the stands were so serious, the game was canceled!! It's good we arrived late, as I wouldn't have wanted those I love and friends-- to be within an environment where someone could be hurt, for just showing up to watch a football game. To my thinking, we live in dangerous and callous times-- where many "idiotic" people especially within the influential money driven media, and unfortunately within many family confines as well-- have seemingly risen to a level of influence, where the teachings of today have more to do with disrespect and selfishness-- than of goodness and upstanding moral value.

When "so many" seem to seek out the dirt "historically" concerning B&C-- and apparently enjoy reveling in it, then I would question, why we don't have a reality TV show (to paraphrase some)-- called Clyde was a homo and Bonnie was a tramp. "Of course" some close to B&C, pay a price-- for their relation to such controversial and polarizing historical figures. But it seems for some who I don't believe crave the spotlight-- the constant, shoddy and historically wrong condemnation of their loved ones, by those who don't seem to give a "damn" about historical accuracy, common sense and common courtesy-- has taken it's toll. To me, there's quite a difference between fielding what comes with the territory-- and having to deal so often with baseless and hurtful claims, which may in reality have been invented-- by those with vivid imaginations or worse, to be "sensational" and sell books.

Those who wish to gossip, and somehow find it fun to speculate-- concerning some aspects of this history which most feel can be discerned to the contrary-- in my view need to stop and "think"-- upon keying into this blog for example, with salacious B&C inquiries. I would respectfully say-- if sordid B&C rumor is more the "game" of some, rather than "history"-- then those for whom this applies, should consider more what it would feel like over and over, to have someone close to you mistakenly and perhaps irrevocably labeled a prostitute. That-- along with the other B&C sexual innuendos, which seemingly have no basis in fact-- which some appear to enjoy delving into so much.

It seems for all these many months, I've just been getting warmed up in my commenting on this. Now that a different reality seems the case, and the hurt has come full circle-- to negatively affect an individual and family I have spent much time in defending (and for good cause)-- I suppose I might need to sharpen and redefine my feelings on this kind of thing even more. It's been hard to watch this historically depraved tidal wave, in becoming personally hurtful to some I respect greatly-- without my commenting with passion about this. I am hopeful for a different outcome, in convincing a good and caring person to reconsider backing away from this history. However, based on e-mail conversations already exchanged, I'm sorry to say I'm not optimistic.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Kind Wishes Within Stark Feelings

There have been many comments re: my desire to complete a Buster Parker post. I remain hopeful to gain the info I need to create a useful article, however behind the scenes there's quite frankly much cause for concern-- which for now, leaves this post being less significant. What I'm now hearing directly-- saddens me. E-mails are being exchanged, but I cannot find happiness in these communications-- only well wishes within some stark feelings being made known.

For my part, I can only express kindness for the individual involved. I believe it may be understood how supportive I've been to this family-- and for good reason. But now even I, am being included in this backlash-- which after how much I've cared and battled for what I know is right, (and with family thanks offered in return)-- leaves me not knowing quite what to say-- except to offer my most sincere good wishes, to a wonderful person.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

A Post-- I Hope Won't Die In Research

I am working on gaining info, for a post I've wanted to do for some time on Buster Parker. Not a lot is known, regarding this seemingly illusive and perhaps misunderstood figure from B&C History. I'm hoping to gain important knowledge from some inside sources about Buster. However it may be true, that some insiders who've been so helpful in the past-- have now reached their limit, in helping impart B&C knowledge.

Someone recently commented on another B&C forum, that it's fun to surmise for
example, with regard to Bonnie being a prostitute-- as claimed erroneously by some less than diligent author. Well for some it may be fun to debate-- but I can tell you, this kind of thing may have taken it's toll, on some particularly close to B&C History. And I can't say I blame them. When things are so errantly stated and by association get personal, people need to "think" -- and not let idle gossip grab the wheel, and steer them off the road aimed at historical truth and common courtesy.

I can only hope, one person in particular I've politely asked for assistance in regards to my doing a respectful article on Buster, and who's always been so nice to so many of us, hasn't shut down-- in being so disgusted with the bad elements of the B&C experience-- that perhaps now enough is enough. For such a genuinely nice person, that would truly be a shame. So for those who say the "sordid" rumors are somehow in fun, or think I spend too much time harping on them-- I can tell you, some might disagree.

By the way, I would think concerning some of this-- in March I suggested to Jeff Guinn, I thought it would be the right thing to do, for him to issue an apology and retraction-- to Bonnie's niece concerning the Bonnie prostitution claim-- and also an apology and retraction to L. J. "Boots" Hinton, concerning a nationally published review of Guinn's book-- which included a harmful misquote. But I suppose in my heart I long for a different time, when honor meant something-- and hurting others (even if unintentional) wasn't so guiltless.