Otis Chandler

Hi Rand,

....just for the record, not saying that Z was or was not wealthy, but there have been some really eccentric multi-millionaires out there like Hetty Green, who lived, in some aspects of their lives, like paupers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetty_Green

Zabagliona wrote:

Hi Rand,

....just for the record, not saying that Z was or was not wealthy, but there have been some really eccentric multi-millionaires out there like Hetty Green, who lived, in some aspects of their lives, like paupers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetty_Green

I agree! Ever heard of the book, the Millionaire Next Door, it's a good read. Lot's of people have Money...and don't show it. I have a REALLY rich friend, he says he's Rich on Paper but cash poor in his wallet.
If nothing else, this post by IBF was a good read. I suggest to everyone to read the pages of the book he provided. Always good to open your mind to different ideas.

Rand, get used to it. People look into what they want.
There are people watching golf on tv, and I cant understand how anyone can endure the torture of that.
But there are people that actually do that. And I dont have the time to correct them.
And why should I bother. If lets say you want to spend time researching someone that died before the murders, go ahead.
If you find something. Bravo. Good for you. If not, then have fun until then.

POI=Person of interest. Its not accusing someone of being a murderer.
The things IBF have mentioned so far is good enough for me to at least look into this person.
For those that think this is a waste of time. Well, what are you doing here?

Hey Zam,

Thanks for the welcome back and I was saddened to hear about your recent loss.

OC was indeed involved in Car Racing and amassed( twice) a collection of over 130 Motorcycles and 60 extremely rare cars.

Later in life he started an Automobile and " Nature/Wilderness" museum in Oxnard , CA which was a weird combination of the vintage vehicles interspersed amongst over 1000 big game trophies and Diaramas highlighting his various "kills".

In the mid to late 60's he became involved with the SCCA( SoCal Chapter) and began attempting a professional race career which was difficult due to his girth
(He worked out three times a day and put on weight after his 5 life threatening accidents.)

Ben Pleasants of The LA Times said the following regarding Otis Chandler to the writer Charles Bukowski;

http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2003/shortstory.htm

" He asked me to tell him the real stuff at the L.A. Times. We were on our third pitcher of beer and our second bloody steak. Meat School Poets; only I wasn't one of them.

I said I once met Otis Chandler in the elevator and he was carrying a fine leather case. Everyone else stood there not making a sound, but I asked Otis Chandler what was in the case and he told me a hunting rifle. He was shooting wild sheep on Catalina Island. I asked if he'd open the case. He did right there in the elevator, or maybe it was the lobby. I said it was like a kid playing with his toys.

He asked if I hated Otis Chandler. I told him he was the best editor the Times ever had. Bukowski was disappointed. He wanted an Otis Chandler scandal. I told him he ran over an eighty-year-old lady and they knocked it right off the news. "


I also wanted to add that I am looking at OC as a completely individual POI and I don't think that OC (or Mr. X, Houghton or whomever the Z may be) was part of a team/partnership , at least maybe not a "true" partnership where both parties consent or even know. More on this later in respect to "X" and his secretary of 41 years.

I still believe that there is WAY more to Mr. X being a true POI in this case but Chandler's appearance, temper, personality, passions and history have led me to take a much closer look at EVERYTHING I can find.

Secondly, Rand et al, If you even read the first 3 pages( and that is not asking much...I think...as some of your posts are 10 pages long) you would realize Norman Chandler made his sons live like paupers and that is , in fact, how OC came to collect motorcycles.

He was so "poor" that his college roommate at Stanford ( there on a scholarship for athletics) and him SHARED a motorcycle for 4 years and Chandler took menial jobs including with the Sante Fe Railroad as a laborer.

He never really ever received much money from the "Chandler Dynasty", he made it himself through shrewd business ventures and had to sell his first collection of cars just to pay his alimony in 1980.....then built his fortune and collection again!

Please look at the "School Bus Letter" at the first "O" and then look at Chandler's "O" in his signature.

And his "i" in "Otis"

As for "X" well he was an original Objectivist and Libertarian and True Randian Objectivists realize they are superior to all the "looters and moochers" and their role as "creators" is little more than "like slave to master".

They believe in their own "rules" and refuse to be regulated " by the barrel of a gun".

His letter to the Chronicle ( which I supplied w/ the name smudge, courtesy of Mike R.) was in response to several editorials on May 28 1969 which included several letters, one from a CHP officer and one the Editor, that were in response to the Police Response to the People's Park Protest culminating on May 25th 1969 in the Gassing/Shootings at Berkeley and beyond.

Mr. X compares the CHP Officer to "Hitler" and speaks of "militants and lawbreakers lying dead in the street".

He uses the words " rather expensive for the people of this state".....( " This State is in Trouble" and " rather expensive for the citizens of the Bay Area")

He uses the words " As A Citizen" once. He uses the word "Editor" repeatedly, " The Chronicle" 8 times, "Your Editor and columnists" repeatedly.

I will be discussing a theory I have later in the "Mr. X" thread that will link his motivation to his emerging political and ethical credo of the time.....as an Ayn Rand Asshole of the 1st magnitude and his desire was to rid "his world of "looters, moochers and useless eaters".

I hope that when I do discuss the theory, as it relies heavily on theory,plot and characterizations from "Atlas Shrugged" that someone with the "name" of "RAND" has at least read the 1100 pages the "Novel/Manifesto" consists of before commenting!

Thanks for the information and many of us look forward to reading more.

One point however.

You said "Mr. X compares the CHP Officer to "Hitler" and speaks of "militants and lawbreakers lying dead in the street"."

Not correct. He does NOT compare the CHP Officer to Hitler. He comments about how the paper and the officer missed something with respect to the Hitler quote. Mr. X makes it very clear he is angry with the SF Chronicle for siding with the "militants and lawbreakers". He is taking the right wing, pro-police, pro-establishment, anti-youth protestor perspective.

AK Wilks wrote:

Thanks for the information and many of us look forward to reading more.

One point however.

You said "Mr. X compares the CHP Officer to "Hitler" and speaks of "militants and lawbreakers lying dead in the street"."

Not correct. He does NOT compare the CHP Officer to Hitler. He comments about how the paper and the officer missed something with respect to the Hitler quote. Mr. X makes it very clear he is angry with the SF Chronicle for siding with the "militants and lawbreakers". He is taking the right wing, pro-police, pro-establishment, anti-youth protestor perspective.

Ahhhhhhhh knowing IBF, he will explain The OC here.. and answer our questions on that. And take the Mr.X questions to a different thread. As he said, these are two different possible POI's to ponder. He is not saying that they are the Z.
I look forward to hearing more.

He was, in general, something of a loner, a trait he traced partly to "spending my young years on that ranch in Sierra Madre, a little remote, rather than on a neighborhood street with a lot of kids." Asked repeatedly in one interview to name his best childhood friends, he came up blank.

He spent 1951 to 1953 on the ground in the Air Force, supervising sports and acting as co-captain of the Air Force track team at Camp Stoneman in the San Francisco Bay Area.

"Otis said he wanted a more assertive, more liberal editorial page," Day said. "He wanted the paper to take what he called more 'balls out' positions, and he wanted us to change our position and editorialize against the war in Vietnam." (Doesnt sound like Z to me.)

Despite the liberalization of The Times' editorial page under Chandler, he remained moderate, even conservative, on many issues, feminism among them.
One had only to visit the men's room in his car and wildlife museum — its walls covered with posters of scantily clad women draped over shiny sports cars — to realize that his ultra-masculinity wasn't limited to guns, barbells, fast cars and motorcycles.

The Times, on his watch, consistently editorialized in favor of gun control, but Chandler himself was a strong advocate of the right to bear arms. In the 1980 speech, he complained that he felt increasingly like an outcast.

"I must confess," he said, "I am getting darn tired of defending myself as a hunting person."

Chandler said he wanted to hunt only "the rarest and the biggest and the best," and he killed more than 100 such animals — 10-foot brown bears and polar bears, lions and musk ox, wild antelope and mountain sheep — many of which he had mounted on the walls of a trophy room in the home he shared with his first wife in San Marino.
Nearly a decade after his divorce, he installed the best of his animals in dioramas amid the classic cars and motorcycles in his Oxnard museum. Among them: the mate of the musk ox that nearly killed him.


Well, that was the parts I found intresting in the first 19-20 pages. Nothing really special IMO.
Have to check out the book tomorrow.

AK Wilks,

Mad at the Chronicle, you say. Mad at the editor's for giving the "militants and lawbreakers" coverage, you say?

Sort of, and I WILL continue this in the proper thread, sounds like like the focus of much of Z's missives, no?

I believe, in whatever interpretation one may take from this (out of context) letter, that the similarities can not be overlooked.

I also challenge anyone, short of Unabomber proponents, to show me ANY other letter to the editor by any known or unknown suspect, with so many similarities.

IBF

Yes we should probably continue any discussion of this in the Mr. X thread.

Azazel wrote:

Rand, get used to it. People look into what they want.
There are people watching golf on tv, and I cant understand how anyone can endure the torture of that.
But there are people that actually do that. And I dont have the time to correct them.
And why should I bother. If lets say you want to spend time researching someone that died before the murders, go ahead.If you find something. Bravo. Good for you. If not, then have fun until then.

POI=Person of interest. Its not accusing someone of being a murderer.
The things IBF have mentioned so far is good enough for me to at least look into this person.
For those that think this is a waste of time. Well, what are you doing here?

Get used to what? And someone died before the murders? Who died before the murders? You know something I don't? Why all the ire against ME from you and from IBF? What, I'm not allowed to have an opinion? If there's so much here, then why is IBF showing us rather than saying: read the 1100 pages of information I've posted? Life is short. You cull through the 1100 pages and show us what is relevant. That's not my job. I read the obituary, and there's nothing there to suggest that this guy is a murderer, much less Zodiac. And if there's something really interesting, fine. But why tell us that the POI knew Robert Emmit? Is that evidence of something? What?

In Bonus Fides wrote:

Secondly, Rand et al, If you even read the first 3 pages( and that is not asking much...I think...as some of your posts are 10 pages long) you would realize Norman Chandler made his sons live like paupers and that is , in fact, how OC came to collect motorcycles.

He was so "poor" that his college roommate at Stanford ( there on a scholarship for athletics) and him SHARED a motorcycle for 4 years and Chandler took menial jobs including with the Sante Fe Railroad as a laborer.

He never really ever received much money from the "Chandler Dynasty", he made it himself through shrewd business ventures and had to sell his first collection of cars just to pay his alimony in 1980.....then built his fortune and collection again!

So when he was 42, that would be in 1969 when the LB murder occurred, he was a pauper because his father didn't give him any money when he lived under his roof? What's the logic here IBF? He was a successful businessman. So what in the world is the relevance of his father making his sons live like "paupers"? Oh, I forgot, I'm not allowed to comment until I've read the 1100 pages. I didn't get the memo that says that one must read over 1000 pages of material before posting comments. I'm sure that rule only applies to me.

rand wrote:

I forgot to ask: why would a multi-millionaire, who liked race cars, be driving an old beatup car with 4 different tires on it?

This is a valid question in my opinion. Narlow mentioned in a documentary that they thought Z likely wasnt wealthy since the tires were mismatched. What was it like, 3 diff tires? Then again, maybe Z drove someone else's car. Maybe he was a mechanic, worked at a gas station, or borrowed it from a relative.

....or, was eccentric, and lived like a pauper as I mentioned earlier.

He used very cheap writing paper as well...

Personally, I do not believe Z was wealthy. However, if he were, he could easily have been someone of great wealth who lived like a pauper, or who chose to live way "below his means".

In Bonus Fides wrote:

when I discoverd that Otis N. Chandler had also been in Riverside on Oct 30th 1966 AND in Presidio Heights on October 11, 1969 as a guest of .......none other than " Mr. X".2) Confirmed positive , public ID at 2 known or suspected Zodiac murders.
5) Sociopathic Tendencies tend to run in familial lines, generally on the Paternal side, and his father, Norman Chandler I, was publicly suspected on being the "Black Dahlia Murderer" and " enjoyed a special relationship with his son Otis that insulated him as Editor In Cheif of the LA Times and successor as Managing Director of The Times, despite the vehement objection of 60+ family members/owners/voting shareholders.

1. Please provide evidence that he was at Riverside on Oct. 30th 1966 and in PH as a guest of Mr. X on Oct. 11, 1969.
2. If he was a guest of Mr. X on Oct. 11, 1969, how did he take a cab to PH that night? Wouldn't that be a good alibi proving that he was not Z?
3. Please provide evidence of "sociopathic tendencies" in his family. What was sociopathic about Norman Chandler or Otis Chandler. Be specific (e.g., a bad temper does not qualify as evidence of sociopathic tendencies).

NO MORE OFF TOPIC POSTS.

Those are three good questions.

In terms of Norman Chandler being the Black Dahlia killer, I looked into that, and satisfied myself that it is not true.

It is a new theory in a new book. But do a little searching online, and the major premises of the theory are exposed as factually wrong.

The theory is that Norman Chandler got Elizabeth Short pregnant, then had mobster Bugsy Siegel kill her, and it was all covered up by the LAPD.

First of all, Short was not pregnant. You can see that in all the autopsy notes. In fact there is evidence she had a medical problem that made intercourse difficult if not impossible. And she was not a prostitute.

There is no evidence linking her to Chandler. He was way, way out of her social and economic circles. And Bugsy wasn't even in town when the murder happened.

I could go on, but check out any of the Dahlia message boards or sites, this theory is almost universally regarded as nonsense, and they post the facts to show it was nonsense.

Of course that doesn't prove Otis Chandler wasn't the Zodiac, but if one of the main reasons he caught your eye was the possibility his father was notorious killer, that just isn't the case. Norman Chandler did not kill Short, or anyone. So there was no father - son plot or sociopathic tendencies to pass on. And as I say, don't take my word, just do a little digging and I think you will agree. Don Wolfe, the author of this theory, is known for sensationalistic crap, he also accused JFK and RFK of killing Marilyn Monroe!

Now, perhaps Otis Chandler still merits some examination because of his association with Mr. X, or other factors, in your opinion.

All off topic posts will be deleted.

Do I think Otis is the Zodiac? No, not any more or less then most other POI:s.
Its a person of interest, not a PTA. (person thats accused.)
Its a person with intresting background and life. And with some traits I believe could be shared with the Zodiac.
If someone could find evidence that places him around the crimescene at the right time, thats good.
That diesnt make him the Zodiac either way.
Lighten up people. This is a forum for free thinking and there is no need to provide "evidence".
Got it? Post it. Tom started the Zodiac forums in the 90s. We are still here.
I can bet my money on that we will never know who the Zodiac was/is. This is recreation for me and alot of other people also. (I guess.)
So there isnt really any benefit of bashing peoples right to free thinking.

Nobody is bashing anyone, as far as I know.

Off topic posts will be deleted.

For me, these facts (and the ones mentioned above) eliminate Norman Chandler as a Dahlia suspect, but perhaps there is more to the story, and others may have a different perspective.

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2006/01/new_black_dahlia_theory.php

New Black Dahlia theory

Kevin Roderick • January 11 2006 12:59 PM

On Thursday at 6:30 pm, author Donald H. Wolfe will talk about his new book, The Black Dahlia Files: The Mob, the Mogul, and the Murder That Transfixed Los Angeles, at a Press Club reception and signing. The book introduces yet another sensational theory in the Black Dahlia legend: that Elizabeth Short was a prostitute who became pregnant by Times publisher Norman Chandler, then was killed at the behest of mobster Bugsy Siegel. Objections have been posted over at the 1947 Project blog by another Dahlia author, Larry Harnisch.

Having been through the D.A.�s files on the Dahlia case (I inventoried and indexed every scrap of paper) I can say definitively that Bugsy Siegel, Norman Chandler, Jack Dragna and Brenda Allen are never mentioned.

In fact, the D.A.�s files say 1) Elizabeth Short was not a prostitute and 2) she wasn�t in Los Angeles in 1944 or 1945. According to the D.A.�s files and everything else I have ever found, she arrived in late July or early August 1946.

I chatted with Wolfe while he was going through the files at the D.A.�s office so I know he had the opportunity to find those documents. He apparently just ignored them.

Also from wiki:

[Norman] Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times, is accused of involvement in Elizabeth Short's murder, in Donald Wolfe's The Mob, the Mogul, and the Murder That Transfixed Los Angeles. In a complicated scenario involving multiple perpetrators, Wolfe claims that Chandler impregnated Short while she was working as a call girl for the notorious Hollywood "madam" Brenda Allen, which led to Short's murder at the hands of gangster Bugsy Siegel. Wolfe's claim that Short was a prostitute is at odds with the Los Angeles County district attorney's files, which plainly state that she was not, as is Wolfe's assertion that she was pregnant.

Could she have had an miscarriage? I think perhaps they can see that kind of thing also.
Its at least intresting that he was consideret a suspect. Perhaps its all based on fiction. I dont know.
Its an intresting case to say the least.
One thing I always wondered about is if serial killers tend to escalate their crimes. Doing worse and worse things. Like Jack the Ripper.
BTK started with the Oteros? A whole family. Is that really supposed to be the start of his "career"?

From what I can tell, she was not pregnant, and no evidence that she was at any time. Indeed, she had a medical condition that may have precluded intercourse. None of her friends report her being pregnant, ever. And the autopsy says she was not pregnant at the time of her death.

The story from Wolfe is that Norman Chandler got her pregnant then had Bugsy Siegel kill her. To avoid a scandal that he got a prostitute pregnant. Since Short was not a prostitute and not pregnant, and Siegel under FBI watch and out of town, the story just doesn't add up.

Because of his association with Mr. X, interest in guns and hunting, and other factors, perhaps IBF and others may still be interested in looking at Otis Chandler.

IBF, I would be interested in hearing, on a Mr. X thread, your ideas about the letter to the editor and how you think it may tie in to the Z case. Thanks.

I'm very interested on both threads. So PLEASE IBF, carry on.

Zamantha wrote:

I'm very interested on both threads. So PLEASE IBF, carry on.

I agree. He was a very interesting person.