From: Jasper
Date: October 17, 2005
Time: 03:10 PM
Solitairea1, ….I appreciate the corrections. The trouble is, not everything that appears to be a mistake is a mistake. That’s one of the many things that made it so difficult to complete Faye’s piece of the flow chart. I would go so far along a certain track thinking that I had the pivotal facts in order only to run into something that threw one or more of them in doubt. I would make a correction only to learn farther down the line that there was something wrong with the information or my interpretation of the information that cause me to make the correction only to learn that what I had in the first place was correct. …..The Sam Giancana-Johnny Roselle connection to the Vicky Morgan murder case is a good example of the sort of thing that can throw you when your source of information is Faye Resnick, Denise Brown, Mark Fuhrman or Dominick Dunne. All of them are “time shifters.” They move events in and out of sequence and suggest things that can’t be true in a way that seem to be true when they suggest them. In this case its Dunne. ……You have to keep in mind that Dunne’s Inconvenient Woman is a fictionalized account of the Vicky Morgan story. It compresses her 12-year affair with Alfred Bloomingdale (from 1970 to 1982) into a year or two. He gives most of the major players different names. He invents characters that didn’t exist and incidents that didn’t happen but couples them with real names like John Kennedy and Nancy Reagan and historical events that make each of the real people recognizable. The actual murder weapon, for instance, was a baseball bat. Dunne turns it into a candlestick. He turns the videotapes into audiotapes. He doesn’t even suggest that the man who was tried and convicted of murdering Morgan was ever charged. In his fictionalized version of Morgan’s death the mobster who orders the hit appears to be a composite character based on Johnny Roselle. He can therefore imply that Roselle ordered the hit and someone else carried it out. ……Denise, another time-sifter, doesn’t really say what you think she did in deposition. The key questions and answers here are the bread in the sandwich of the other things you wrote – the start of the personal injury case and the time it went to trial: …Q. When did that case commence? A. 1989. ….Q. When did it go to trial? A. '94. 1994. ….She does not say that the case was decided in ’89 only that the accident and the legal proceeding began that year. It typically takes several years for a lawsuit to go to trial. A DUI arrest is altogether different. I believe Denise spent jail time for her ’93 DUI arrest before the murders but getting that question cleared up is going to take some research. –Jasper