Unmasking the Black Dahlia Killer - Exclusive Interview with Eli Frankel

Nice to meet you. Oh, you too. And I want to say I enjoyed your book. Yeah, I don't really read a lot of, all I read is nonfiction. I don't really, I don't really do a lot of true crime. Because I did the Black Dahlia video with our supposition based upon the Hodel, you know, suspect, and Steve Hodel, that I found that I've been talking to people about your book, so I'm trying to push you out there. Thank you. I appreciate that. No, with regard to your book, I think that your suppositions have merit. I think that the due diligence was done. Sometimes, you know, you could talk to a dozen different people about the Black Dahlia or the Laila Welsh murders, and you'll get 12 different opinions. Yep. That's right. But the good thing is that, you know, although your conclusion is not conclusive, it comes closest to, even better than my supposition, I think it comes closest to tying the two murders together with a common denominator. Yeah. Yep. Thank you. I appreciate that. I mean, it's, listen, it's fascinating. It's interesting to put together all the evidence and everything we know, and then, you know, try to connect them or come up with conclusions. But that's what we do in true crime and definitely in historical nonfiction, and I love it. Well, the good thing is that the way you laid out everything, step by step, pretty much. I liked that because a lot of people, as you know, the attention span's not that great. Right. So you have to really just lay things out pretty simply for people. But no, I liked it. But I have some questions, and we can discuss those. I took some notes. Okay. And one of the things I found interesting, the most fascinating part of the whole thing, were the multiple trials that were launched against Leila's brother, which appears to me, from what you wrote and what little independent investigation I did, there was no physical evidence, really, to tie him to anything. Right. There was not even, I mean, if all you have is circumstantial evidence, in my opinion, you don't have a case. Not for a murder charge, anyway. But yeah, just explain that. Just explain the book as to how that unfolded. Yeah, I mean, it's a fascinating story because when you really look at the totality of the evidence, it becomes real clear early on that George Welsh had nothing to do with this murder, and his own mother saw him asleep on the couch at the exact time when Leila Welsh was being killed. It exists no direct evidence linking him to it. And what he endured over the next two, two and a half years is extraordinary. And it really is owed to that place at that particular time, and the battle between the Pendergast organization, which had been the political machine that ruled Kansas City for decades, that was just coming apart at the seams. It was weakening significantly. And the reform movement that was very active, especially in the Midwest, but specifically in Kansas City at that time. This case and being able to convict George and put it away at the hands of the sheriff's department, which was beholden to the Pendergast organization, the political machine, and to beat the KCPD, the Kansas City Police Department, to the punch and get a conviction. The Kansas City Police Department was on the reform side, that there was this sort of enormous political battle around the murder that is just so rare to see that an entire political machine survival becomes sort of at stake with regards to this murder trial. And it's tragic to see how the Welsh family that suffered so terribly at that time was pulled into yet another battle. And as I was researching and writing the book, my heart just went to Marie Welsh, who was, from all accounts, a really modest and remarkable woman. She appears to have loved her children as much as a parent can and really built a world around them. And then her daughter is tragically murdered. She finds the body. The images haunt her until her death in the 1960s. And then she has to face the reality that her son may also be taken from her and put to death, which becomes this enormous battle. It required her putting together a legal team of experts. This is a remarkable dream team of lawyers. And they had to fight an enormous battle against this political machine that was willing to create witnesses and witness statements and accounts out of thin air in order to get that conviction. The thing is, the Pendergast Organization and the Sheriff's Office at that time and other kind of sundry elements in the office and the prosecution, they didn't care whether he was guilty or innocent. And it was very clear that they knew early on that there wasn't enough evidence, that they believed he probably didn't do it or we couldn't prove it. And so as a result, instead of dropping the charges, they just made up evidence. They created it and went on to psychologically and to some extent physically torture George Welsh until he broke and admitted a murder, which he did not commit. Well, yeah, because that internecine fighting between the Sheriff's Department and the Kansas City Police Department, that was fascinating to read. I mean, it wasn't really that unique in American history. You had a lot of that going on around the country. But one of the things I found interesting was the fact that Joseph Lewis Alpert, who originally did not even have George Welsh in his database, but suddenly later on, he changes his testimony on that. And one can only assume that he was bribed or pressured or somehow coerced into getting that testimony. With regards to George Welsh, when the prosecution realized that they didn't have the evidence they thought they had and didn't have the witnesses they believed would come forward, they created one. They actually created two really kind of egregious witnesses, but the main one was a guy, Alpert, who you just mentioned. So they didn't have anybody who had tied George to the murder weapons. And that was kind of a central part of the investigation into Welsh, was can we somehow prove that he either bought or acquired the railroad track hammer that was used to fracture Leela's skull, or the butcher knife that was used, or the gloves that were bought. They wanted direct evidence in order to ensure that they had a conviction. And when that didn't arrive, they found one. And the guy they went to was a man named Louis Alpert, Joseph Louis Alpert, who owned a really dusty old hardware store, used hardware store in Kansas City and downtown. And Alpert was a kind of a quirky character. He lived with his mother above the hardware store. And he sold really cheap kind of rusty hardware equipment and some kitchen knives and stuff like that for five, 10, 20 cents for a knife or a hammer, whatever it might be. This was all stuff that had just been used for years. And so initially he had told police, because in this massive investigation that occurred following the murder, before even George Welsh was kind of conjured up as a suspect, the police went around interviewing people in hardware stores. They went to every hardware store in Kansas City asking, did you ever carry a knife that looked like this, or a hammer that looked like this, and a few other tools that were used in the commission of the murder as well, to try to identify if anyone had seen these particular tools, and then to try to identify who may have bought them. So they could potentially find a murder suspect in pursuing that. So they go to this guy, Alpert, and he right away tells them, yeah, I sold this knife. And they can't believe it. It's like they've hit pay dirt. This is great. So they bring him downtown to interview him. He identifies the knife as exactly the one that he sold, though there were also other knives in his hardware store that looked just like it. So, you know, he was selling butcher knives that were very similar to the one that was used, but he emphatically claimed that the one that he saw in a photograph in the newspapers of the knife that was used in the Lila Welsh murder was definitely the one he sold. So the police bring him downtown, they ask him questions, and initially he tells them that the knife was bought by a guy who was like 5'2", had sandy red hair, was kind of portly, and in his 40s, an older man, very short and kind of stocky. And they're showing him photos and photos and photos, and he identifies a couple people who kind of look like it. Again, middle-aged men. They look totally different than George Welsh. He's kind of young and handsome. He's thin. He has dark hair. It's obviously not the... George's baby face. The guy he described was, you know, kind of grizzled and in his 40s. And again, they show him photos so he's, you know, identifying what kind of man this was that walked in and bought that knife. And then a few weeks later, they actually take him in a car and have him ride around and identify other people that look like this man. Again, it's nothing like George Welsh. And then when George's name came up, they actually had him look at George. And in a walk-by, I forget, it's like at the jail or something like that, or the sheriff's department, they walk by him to kind of have him take a glance. And he states to them that, no, that is absolutely not the guy. He's much too young. He's much too baby-faced. With absolute certitude, he knows it's not George Welsh. And then a month later, he completely changes his story. And we also subsequently know that he was in conversation with the sheriff's department, which was trying to nail George Welsh for the murder during that month. And when he gave his testimony, which got demolished on the stand at the trial in 1943, and in the earlier trials, the defense noticed that he kept looking over at the prosecutors and winking when he would give certain answers, as if he were saying, I got you. I know what to say. The whole thing was obviously set up. And then when the defense had an opportunity to cross-examine him, they just absolutely demolished his testimony. And he ended up much like another man they brought forward who claimed that he had sold the gloves to George Welsh. It became very evident very quickly that it was all made up and that Welsh was nowhere near those stores. Yeah, I found that interesting in the book too. And also, if I'm not mistaken, the DA's office did not give full disclosure that he had previously misidentified George. Correct. Yeah, that's absolutely right. And you know, the defense team was so good. Again, the Welsh has put together an incredible dream team. The defense was so good that a year earlier before the trial, they had sent in one of their own lawyers to go buy an item because Alport claimed that he had like a photographic memory. He remembered every person, every customer who came in and what they bought. And they sent in one of their own lawyers to lay a trap, and they had him go in and buy an item. And then when they asked Alport about it, they pointed out Eugene Browse, one of the lawyers, he had been in your store a year ago. Do you remember him? And Alport said, yes, I remember him, and I remember exactly what he bought. And it turned out that he hadn't bought the item. It was incorrect, and they had the receipt. And then they asked him about another lawyer. Do you remember him? Because he was in your store as well a few months ago. And Alport said, absolutely, I remember him. And then they dropped the bomb. Well, actually, he's never been in your store. We were trying to trick you there. And so obviously, his quote-unquote photographic memory was nothing of the sort. Now, that was a third trial, wasn't it? Yeah. So the initial preliminary trials just kept getting dismissed, like the judges who weren't totally in the pocket of the Pendergast machine. Let's put it that way. The Jackson County Circuit Court at that time was heavily compromised. The Pendergast machine not only likely paid them off, they also got them their jobs. So initially, their judgeships, and even earlier on in their career, would have been promoted and boosted by the Pendergast machine, which would have meant they would have had to be loyal to the Pendergast machine throughout their entire careers. So eventually, the case comes forward. There are multiple judges in the Jackson County Circuit Court that are compromised, but there's some that are actually still honest. And the judges that the case came before would hear the preliminary evidence to see if it should move forward. And right away, they would say, we're dismissing this. There's just not enough evidence. And every time they did that, the prosecution would go judge shopping and would literally, within 45 minutes of a judge dismissing the case, would refile with another judge and get the trial. And then eventually, it does move forward with all of this trumped up evidence. And then also, really just shocking intimidation tactics during the trial. Like for instance, when George Welsh was on the stand, they put up a photograph of his sister's murdered body in front of him, so that he would have to look at it throughout his testimony as a way to get him to be rattled. I mean, imagine that happening today. It couldn't happen. Well, another thing too, he was finally acquitted by the jury. Of course, as you know, even if you're acquitted by a jury, there are still whispers in the neighborhood about things, because that's just human nature. But well, let's jump to Carl Balsiger, because this is a guy I want you to talk about, because this is kind of like where the hook meets the fish in your book. Yeah. So, Balsiger is a really interesting figure. He's always been a part of the story of the Black Dahlia, but he appears as sort of a kind of passive character, if you will. He's always there. Anybody who kind of goes into the details of the case will tell you that there was a period of time, three days, in which Elizabeth Short left Los Angeles, where she had been for four, four and a half months at that point, and was taken to Camarillo, California, that is a small farming community about an hour and a half north of the city. And then immediately after that three days, she, in some ways, this is probably the proper term, escapes to San Diego. She takes a Greyhound bus out of Hollywood at midnight, which is very unusual for her, at midnight on December 9th, 1946, and takes a seven-hour bus ride down to San Diego, which is a city she's never been in, and she never knew anybody in. So she goes there, essentially penniless, she has no money, and homeless. She has nowhere to go, and in fact, she falls asleep in a movie theater. That's the only place where she can kind of catch up on sleep. And eventually, someone takes her in, and she stays with them for a month. But there's been this kind of central mystery about why she went to San Diego. It was so out of character, and she didn't know anybody there. And then literally, the day she returns from San Diego back to Los Angeles, she disappears. And then nobody knows where she was for six days, and her body appears on January 15th, six days later, the very famous moment in which the severed body is discovered. So there's this three-day gap right before she takes off for San Diego. And eventually, the police were able to determine that she was with this guy, Carl Balsiger. And the police did some reports on him. They were able to determine very quickly, when they found him and questioned him, that there were a lot of distortions, mistruths, and lies that he told them. He created a cover story. And obviously, their immediate thought was, what's he hiding? Why is he telling us all these lies about how much time he was with her, where he went with her, what he did? There's got to be something he's hiding. And like I said, they were able to determine some of these mistruths. And then, over the course of the next few years, as the police are eliminating different suspects, they started out with hundreds. And what they were always looking for was evidence to eliminate people, proof that they either weren't in Los Angeles or they never came into proximity with Elizabeth Short, whatever it is. They eventually, by 1949, 1950, get down to a handful of suspects. And Balsiger is still on that list. And not only that, when you look at the district attorney's list of the suspects that remain and who they are, Balsiger is always at the top of that list. And it's not alphabetical, right? It's a random list of suspects, and he's always there at the top. And I just thought, everybody kind of mentions him in passing, is that, yeah, she was with him for three days, and then she moved on to San Diego, and let's get into what she was doing in San Diego. But I thought, how come nobody has really taken a deep dive into this guy? Especially considering that at that time, the LAPD was clearly alarmed by him. And they felt that there was a lot there that would justify much further investigation. And in fact, they continued to investigate him for the next few years, like I said before, and they flew out to St. Louis to question him. They flew out to Texas in a way that was connected to him as a suspect. They never gave up on him when the case was going cold, and when there were so few resources to give to a murder case that at that point was five years old. And yet, they're still pursuing him. And again, in the last couple, three decades, nobody ever really mentions him as a possible suspect. And I just thought, wow, it's really interesting. What else is there to this guy? And then when you go into the police's description of him, when you go into these old files and documents, you find out that Balsiger, when they investigated him, had gone to college in the 1930s in Kansas City, where he grew up, with a woman who in 1941 in Kansas City was murdered in strikingly similar ways to the murder of Elizabeth Short. And the police wanted to know more. They wanted to know what were the details, the circumstances of this other murder, because here you have this guy who potentially knew two women who were killed in very similar ways with similar murder signatures. Anyway, to make a long story short, they tried to get the files from the Kansas City Police Department, and KCPD never sent them over, even after multiple attempts by the LAPD to get those files. And so they were hobbled in their investigation of him. But there was some reason they're continuing to go the distance until the case is shut and cold in the 1950s. And I thought, what more is there that they knew that hasn't been made public? And what are the details of the Lila Welsh murder in 1941 in Kansas City? Because it'd be really interesting to get as much information as we can and then compare the two murders to see how close they were, something that the LAPD wanted to do in the 1940s but couldn't do. Well, now we have the opportunity, you know, decades later to do that. And that was really the basis of my journey in the investigation and subsequently what became the book. It seems strange to me that if they were having such resistance from the Kansas City Police Department, which I can't fathom you would think they would want to solve the case as well, why wouldn't they bring in, like, the Federal Bureau of Investigation to intercede with regard to an interstate jurisdictional problem? Well, here's the thing. First of all, they couldn't force KCPD to send those files over. And there's a couple reasons why KCPD may not have. I'll just do that really quickly. First of all, the Welsh murder was a huge embarrassment to the city. Enormous resources were expended. The city was totally freaked out by what happened and was afraid that, you know, another murder similarly would occur. Nobody knew who was next. The battle between the Pendergast machine behind the scenes and the reform movement through the sheriff's office versus the KCPD, the police department, it resulted in no convictions. Nobody was ever found guilty. They didn't even really have a real suspect. And so it was, you know, by 1947, six years later, there was a new police chief who had just come in. I think that the department probably was embarrassed by what had happened. There may have been some major mistakes. And subsequently, I don't think they wanted the mighty LAPD with its extraordinary technological capabilities and its fame to get into the case and prove that the KCPD had bungled this thing. It's just, you know, I think that there's probably a sense of who are they to get into a case that we're trying to bury. We're trying to get past, even though people are still talking about it. The other thing, too, is that Ballseeker's family was very prominent in Kansas City, and his father was a very powerful executive and actually had very close relationship with the police department since the 1920s. And so one has to wonder if there was kind of a, if they had had alerted Ballseeker that Los Angeles was looking into his son, and if he had exerted any kind of influence on the police in not sending those documents over. But, gee, I'm sorry, can you repeat the question or the second part of the question? I forgot the second part of my answer. Well, I was just wondering why they didn't bring the feds into it. The feds could have circumvented all of that. Yeah. So, I mean, here's the deal, though. It really is an interstate. They might have, LAPD might have believed that there might be a connection, but obviously the Lila Welsh murder was local to Kansas City only, and then Elizabeth Short was local to Los Angeles. And the FBI actually purposely avoided getting involved in the Black Dahlia murder. There's a well-known among daliologists, people who are interested in the Black Dahlia, a well-known file of documents from the FBI that they had sort of looked into a little bit on the periphery just to, you know, check in on things. And they put together their documents, which there's just not much there. It's mostly kind of oversight over the LAPD and some articles and a few people that they had interviewed, taking a look at like in the Santa Barbara area. But the FBI actually purposely sort of avoided or sidestepped the Dahlia investigation because it was so complex and so layered and so kind of Byzantine with all these people and connections. You had to spend a lot of time even just to grasp, just to understand the kind of parameters of the case, the landscape of it. And I think in some ways also J. Edgar Hoover just knew that there was a real good chance they were never going to catch this guy and that it would be better for LAPD to have to take the brunt of the blame on that rather than involving, you know, his own G-men who would likely end up at the same kind of frustrating place that the police did. So it seems like it was all about publicity and optics all the way across the board. Absolutely. I mean, that definitely was a big part of it. I mean, look, by the late 1940s, crime had really surged across the country. And I think a lot of police departments were under tremendous pressure to reform or change their organization, the structure, and also corruption, which had been pretty rampant, obviously, in political machines, but definitely in police departments for a long time. I mean, you think about the 1930s, there was a lot of corruption. People were getting paid off. And by the way, not all of that is greed. Police officers and officials were really paid a pittance back then. It was, in some ways, a subsistence living. And so if you could pad your pockets with a little bit more money, you could be slightly more comfortable. So, you know, people were open to graft or corruption or whatever, because it was hard to survive on a cop's salary at that time. I mean, even top officials, police chiefs, weren't paid that much. So, you know, you have quite a bit of corruption going on at that time. And I think the departments were under tremendous pressure to reform and to change themselves. And it was a sensitive time. And, you know, you really see the birth of the modern sort of police department coming out of that era. It's fascinating. But one of the things that I found interesting in your book was that you proved in the book, in my opinion, you proved that the murderer on both women was left-handed. So of all the suspects, the one that they knew was left-handed was Carl Balsiger, right? Yeah. I mean, I didn't go too much into the detail on that. I mean, yes. Here's the thing, though. It is speculation. I'm not positive about that. And, you know, I always want to—things that we have certitude over, you know, I will state, but that is—I don't think we exactly know whether the killers were left or right-handed in those murders. Yeah, because one of the things I was looking at when I was doing the research on the Dahlia murder was they were showing that the primary incisions appeared to have launched from left to right, which is what a left-handed person would do. And then the damage to the frontal right lobes of each woman's head would have been indicative of a left-handed hammer wielder. So those are pretty—I mean, it's circumstantial, to say the least, but at least it makes you think. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that's the thing is, like, we don't—there's no way to know for sure, you know, without having the perpetrator in hand, you know, physically back then in the 1940s. So not sure, but yeah, it seems like—and what's interesting is, again, to your point, like, there's certain parallels. Both women were struck twice in the right temple with some kind of heavy object. We know what the object was with Lila Welsh, but in the case of Elizabeth Short, she actually had a stroke when she was in captivity, either when he, you know, took possession of her, if you will, or while she was in captivity. She had a hemorrhagic stroke, which kind of leads you to have a little more understanding of what kind of condition she was when she was being held for those six days. And the exact kind of—the exact wound in the skull of Lila Welsh was also found, the fractures, the two depressions in her skull, and they're in the exact same place. So again, that's somebody in the exact same side of the head. So again, that's an indication of, you know, somebody striking in the same way with as much force in the same location and potentially, you know, with the same hand. Now, do you have a copy of your book handy right now? Yes, I do. Please show us the cover so people can take a look at it. Okay, I'm gonna have to stand up to get it. Is that okay? That's all right. That's fine. Oh, thank you. And here's my lovely wife. This is brought one. Thank you, Karen. There you go. Yeah, it's a good read. It's a good read. And I think that people will learn a lot. I was educated to some extent, to a great extent when I read the book. And I liked the comparative analysis with regard to both cases. But what I found most fascinating was the political infighting. Yeah. That to me was just horrific. I mean, there's no way you could get justice for anybody in that environment. Thank you. I really appreciate that, that you say that because it's, you know, the murders themselves become so front and center, true crime, and we want to know who did it and what happened to them. But I agree with you. I think the historical context and understanding these stories in this broader framework is so important. And I really appreciate that, because that was a deep dive and something I was really passionate about. Well, you also interviewed, it was Betty Bersinger. Yeah. And we have about seven minutes left. Tell us about that. Yeah. So, you know, as I'm sure many people know, the very famous opening scene, if you will, we can call it that, of the Black Dahlia, what everybody always opens the story with, whether it's a podcast or a book or an article, is how the body was found. It's a very dramatic scene. And it's become very, very famous. A 26-year-old, you know, pretty young housewife is going down the street, pushing a stroller with her three-year-old daughter, Anne. They're walking by a two-block, weed-strewn stretch of lots where houses haven't been built up, even though, you know, for miles around, there's tons of homes have been built over the years. So they're walking down this weed-strewn lot, and she happens to turn to her right, and there she sees the severed form of Elizabeth Short right next to the sidewalk. And it is absolutely horrific. There are large pieces of flesh that have been torn out of her body. She's been tortured. She's been mutilated. And again, she's been cleanly bisected in two, and the two parts of the body, which are symmetrical, are separated by 14, 16 inches. You know, the photos are online, and they've been shared a lot over the years because they are so shocking. And when you see them, it kind of takes your breath away. And then in two versions of the story, she either goes on to the next house and tells them, you know, screaming that there is a murdered body that's been left out on the street, or she thinks it's a mannequin and continues on down the street to call the police and tell them it might scare somebody. So that's always the story. And then the police arrive, and the reporters, and thus begins America's most famous unsolved murder. But something had always bothered me about that, that I couldn't square. And by the way, that story is universally accepted as what went down. So the thing that kind of stuck in my mind that didn't make sense was that Betty Bersinger found the body at 10.50 a.m. And this is not like some remote outpost in, you know, somewhere in Los Angeles that nobody walks by. This is a heavily trafficked artery, right? There's people walking up and down that street from sunup. There's a streetcar that deposits hundreds of commuters half a block away. There's, you know, people are all over that street. How is it possible that nobody saw the body until 10.50 a.m.? So I thought the only person who would have that answer is Betty Bersinger, the woman who found the body. But I didn't know if she was still alive or where she was. So eventually, I tracked down her daughter, Anne, who was three years old at the time and was with her. She obviously didn't remember the event. But she connected me with her mom, who was still alive and was, you know, she had all her faculties. This is about six months before she passed on, a year before she passed on. So I got really lucky, thanks to Anne Bersinger, that I was able to get in contact with her. And I asked her about this. I kept pushing on the subject. What exactly did you see? Thinking that the body was, she did discover the body the way we see in the photographs, you know, three or four inches from the sidewalk in total view, left out for the world to see and be shocked by. And what she revealed to me is, and this explains why nobody saw the body until 10.50 a.m., the body wasn't laid out on the grass. It wasn't symmetrically posed. It was actually thrown away in the weeds about 14 feet away from the sidewalk. It had been hidden in the weeds. So she looks to her right as she's taking the stroller down the street, and she notices something white, stark, gleaming white, but it's not by the sidewalk. It's in the weeds. She can't really make out what it is, and she's intrigued by it. It's an odd form. She makes a few steps into the grass, and she notices the top half, the top torso of Elizabeth Short. Now, the back was one of the only places in her body that wasn't mutilated. I mean, her feet and her lower legs as well, but her back was kind of untouched, and the torso was face down. She's been exsanguinated. She had all the blood drained out of her body, and so the skin appears very white as a result, and it's also been in the sun. She thinks it's a mannequin, right, because it's half of a torso. It doesn't make any sense, and she turns around and walks back to the stroller, goes down the street, and calls the police and says, hey, somebody's left out part of a mannequin, and it's pretty freaky looking. It might scare the kids that I saw bicycling around. You should have somebody come and pick this up, and then the police come, and then in the book, it explains what happened in the nine-minute gap between the arrival of Perkins and Fitzgerald, the first officers to arrive at the scene, and then what happened at 11, 18 a.m. when the second set of officers arrived, and something changed in the position of the body in that nine minutes, and the LAPD later on would sort of hint at this. There was an interview with Harry Hansen in the 1970s, a lead detective, who claimed that everything that the police really discovered about the case was printed in the newspapers or that you hear it on the radio from reporters. The media picked up—they had a very close relationship with the police back then—picked up pretty much every of the kind of major revelations or discoveries that the police made, but there was one key fact, one secret clue, they called it, the key question, that they held back from the public in order to—there were a lot of false confessors, people who said they committed the crime and didn't, and so they would be able to ask this question of the confessors and find out really quickly if somebody truly had committed it, because if they knew the answer to this question, then it was clear that they indeed were the killer, and nobody ever knew. It's still a secret that's held back by the LAPD, was what was the key question? What is the secret clue? And in the book, you discover what happened in that nine-minute gap that changed everything and created that murder tableau that has become so world-famous. I agree with you, and the story is fascinating, and in the time we have left, please close out with us and tell us where the potential readers can get your book, and any information you want to throw out there in the last few seconds we have. Yeah, the book is available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble and, I mean, pretty much any bookseller online, and then at bookstores around the country. Thank you for watching this episode of Forgotten History. If you liked what you saw, please click like, share, and subscribe. And if you would like to assist with the ever-increasing costs of production, please consider becoming a channel member and joining our Patreon page. Please check out our merchandise store, and thanks for watching.