Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:20, 6 November 2008

I watched a documentary about her, she is truly beautiful. I think that me and her have something in commen. November 23 is my b-day she checked into the hotel on the 24th.

Rebuttal

ADDED: (September 14, 2008). Knowing the background noise involving Mr. Girardot, I have refrained until now from replying directly to his constant and pointless attacks on me, which are not just about the Kate Morgan mystery, but he has -- here, and in a string of vitriolic and pointless emails to me -- made his attacks on my book a personal crusade. I happen to know that he savages anyone he comes in contact with, so I will not lower myself to respond in kind. But I am forced to make some sort of statement for the benefit of the innocent reader who stumbles upon this insanity. I am a published author, and a trained journalist with three college degrees. I take a totally professional approach, and honestly have stated that my book is a theory or a conjecture. In the paragraph I contributed about myself, in the third person, as is appropriate on Misplaced Pages, I used all sorts of careful language (conjecture, theorize, final verdict not in, etc) to honestly anchor my book in the realm of theory. In my book, every 'supposition' is clearly labeled as such. In the eyes of most people, there is a right of free speech -- with the exception of Mr. Girardot, who chooses to continually alter this Misplaced Pages entry for inexplicable reasons to undermine my theory -- though he has none of his own, as he makes clear. It is one thing to voice objections - it is another thing to do so dishonestly as he does, with the intent of confusing rather than clarifying. When I began investigating the mystery of what happened at the Hotel del Coronado in 1892, I set myself a well-defined challenge--which I make clear in the introduction to the book. I resolved to use the copious research published by the Hotel del Coronado in their official Heritage Department book, plus my own research, to see if I could solve the mystery. Until I came along in 2006 and going forward, nobody had come up with a comprehensive and plausible explanation. In 1987, Mr. May published a book most agree is best disregarded. In fact, I believe the Heritage Department book was published to dispel the ideas raised by Mr. May. During my research, I learned of Mr. Girardot's web-published efforts to clear his ancestor (Tom Morgan) of the legend that Tom Morgan was a gambler. In an effort to leave no stone unturned, I contacted Mr. Girardot in a professional, friendly, and cooperative spirit. That proved to be a mistake. Mr. Girardot, from the very start, was unrelentingly antagonistic, unreasonable, hostile, even threatening, and opposed to any effort to solve the mystery. Mr. Girardot appears determined to not allow anybody else to come up with a solution to the mystery. He has used this Misplaced Pages article, and any other place where he can dog me, to unreasoningly and deviously attempt to undermine my theory with all sorts of casual disinformation. He constantly mixes his own misinformation up, as in the claims about police chiefs. He mentions a certain psychic, not because he has any interest in psychics -- trust me -- but to add confusion to the story. Robert Leckie, whom Mr. Girardot paraphrases, never wrote or said the words Mr. Girardot attributes to him (in his unpublished "book"); and Leckie was a journalist and a novelist of popular books about WW2 combat Marines--not a scholarly historian--hardly a fountain of gravitas for this entirely unrelated situation. Mr. Girardot is using this forum to continue his senseless campaign. Mr. Girardot has demonstrated (in his writings to me, about situations he has involved himself in) a habit of attacking anyone, anywhere, friend or foe, out of sheer unreason -- so his entries here may be dismissed as more of the same. I can do nothing more than step back now, say no more, and let him continue defacing this Misplaced Pages page with his disinformation and efforts to confuse the issue. I think the sensitive and perceptive reader will see through this. Mr. Girardot raises a legitimate issue in regard to his ancestor, whom I have treated with the utmost respect. In continuing his crusade to destroy people's theories -- including the use of personal attacks and loaded language -- "ridiculous" and "contrived," etc. -- Mr. Girardot has shown himself to be what he long ago showed me in his emails -- an obsessive, pointless, and malicious vandal. The critical reader will immediately recognize that "supposition" and "conjecture" are about the same thing, and thus be puzzled by Mr. Girardot's relentless (here and elsewhere) attacks on my book, which I offer as a conjecture--founded on solid, step by step reasoning. My theory hangs together very well for the open minded and reasonable, or I would not have spent years researching, writing, and publishing it. With that, I leave the intelligent reader to consider the points I make in my book, and I welcome anyone who can come up with a better theory.Johntcullen (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Johntcullen (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Johntcullen (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Johntcullen (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Johntcullen (talk)22:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntcullen (talk • contribs) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Johntcullen (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on correct information documented carefully in the Hotel del Coronado's official book, Beautiful Stranger, Mrs. Wyllie did not identify her daughter from a description sent to police departments around the country. When she learned that the police were searching for a 'Lottie A. Bernard' who lay dead in a San Diego morgue, she feared that the dead girl was her daughter Lizzie. San Diego Police broadcast an official police sketch of the dead woman, which was published in papers around the country, so Mrs. Wyllie certainly saw the picture. She then had her daughter May (Lizzie's sister) contact the Coroner in San Diego, with whom the Wyllies exchanged telegrams in further detail. It was in this correspondence that the Coroner brought up the controversy of pierced ears, which was part of the reason the official identification shifted away from Lizzie. All this is documented in the Hotel's official book, and extensively discussed in my book. The contributor is entirely wrong about the identification of the photos (plural) found in Kate Morgan's trunk. Artifacts belonging to both Kate Morgan and Lizzie Wyllie were found in the trunk, as I show in my book. The San Diego Police chief did not confirm the identity. Hotel employees who had seen the beautiful woman (Lizzie) stated multiple times that the woman in the photo, indentified as Kate Morgan, was not the same as the 'beautiful stranger' they had seen--but everything about Lizzie (her beauty, her stylish clothing, her mannered air) points to Lizzie as being the Beautiful Stranger. The story about Toronto is a falsehood planted by Kate Morgan through John Longfield. The contributor is correct in suggesting interested parties should form their own opinion. They should form their opinion, however, based on correct information rather than the continuing string of inaccuracies that has bedeviled this story for over a century.Johntcullen (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)John T. Cullen

===

They may be accurate, or they may not, but the ONLY information anyone has about this case are the newspaper articles appearing at the time, and the coroner's report. Anything else is pure supposition.

Kate Morgan committed suicide on the night of November 28, 1892. The coroner's inquest was held on November 30. That same day, the coroner received a telegram from May Wyllie requesting further details. The coroner responded, "Height, 5 feet 6 inches; complextion, fair, but sallow; medium length black hair, two small moles on left cheek ...." The newspaper reported, Mrs. Wyllie read the telegram as far as the mention of the two moles and then the paper dropped from her hand."

The sketch of the dead girl's face was not published in the newspaper until December 5th, so Mrs. Wyllie certainly did not use it as a basis for the identification. On that same day, the coroner sent a photograph of the dead girl to Mrs. Wyllie. There is nothing in the paper regarding any response from Mrs. Wyllie after that. By that time, Longfield had sent a letter to his wife from Cleveland, and said Lizzie was in Toronto.

Mr. Cullen's assertion the Toronto story was "a falsehood planted by Kate Morgan through John Longfield" is supposition. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE Kate Morgan ever heard of, much less was involved in a blackmail conspiracy with Longfield. This is all contrived to support Mr. Cullen's hypothesis.

Handkerchiefs found on the body and in the trunk in Los Angeles were marked supposedly "Louisa Anderson" - Anderson was the married name of Lizzie's sister. Mr. Cullen believes this is proof positive that the dead girl is Lizzie Wyllie, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Testimony at the coroner's inquest indicated the the handkerchiefs were marked "L-t-tle. I think it was, I cannot quite make it out, but the last name is Anderson."

Even though the newspapers linked Lizzie to Longfield as lovers, there was never a mention of Lizzie being pregnant. That is supposition and unfounded, other than the fact the dead girl was suspected (but not proven) to have been pregnant.

Contrary to Mr. Cullen's assertion above, the December 15th edition of the Los Angeles Times reported, "Chief of Police J.B. Bruening of San Diego was in this city yesterday, and visited Chief Glass, who has in his possession a photograph of Mrs. Kate Morgan, which was found among her effects at Contractor Grant's .... As soon as Cheif Bruening caught sight of the picture he remarked, 'That is the woman beyond a doubt.'"

My original quest was to restore Tom Morgan's reputation, but that has evolved in a concerted effort to dispel ridiculous speculation surrounding Kate Morgan's death. In the preface of my own book on Kate, I paraphrased the historian Robert Leckie: "Unfortunately, in the writing of history the less that is known the wider and more lurid the speculation. There are only two facts known in the death of Kate Morgan: she killed herself with a pistol, and no one knows why."

Not Alan May, not John Cullen, not me.

24.175.68.222 (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Terry Girardot

WP not the place

I have added the "original research" and "off-topic" tags to this article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for publishing original research, and much of what is contained in the article is not even about Ms. Morgan but rather about persons connected with her. I recommend deleting the last paragraph of the "Haunting" section as well as all the text below the reference list.