Poison Penmanship: The Gentle Art of Muckraking by Jessica Mitford Read Free Book Online Page A

Venetian blind cord “of the type that was used to bind the victim” turned up in the basement of Messinger’s rooming house, and among his effects were “a crumpled pair of suntan pants and a tan sports shirt with what could be blood on the collar ...” Meagre though they were, these clues got front page treatment from all papers.
    In the absence of more impressive copy from police sources, at least two newsmen turned detective and sought to dig up evidence themselves.
    Ed Montgomery of the Examiner found a bit of Venetian blind cord with hair adhering to it in the flower bed near where Messinger parked his car. The color of the hair was “similar to that of the girl”, and Montgomery, in true amateur sleuth fashion, was reported to have “carefully avoided touching it until police arrived”. ( Examiner , 7/27/57)
    Once again, the dissonant theme—that pointing to innocence—was almost drowned out. But it was there, for the observant reader, at the end of the story: “... the cord was considered to be of secondary importance, since the landlord at Messinger’s rooming house is in the Venetian blind business”. Thus vanished the spine-chilling significance of the blind cord!
    From time to time the dissonant theme would crop up in unobtrusively placed paragraphs:
    “The D.A.’s office indicated the possibility that the inquiry might be running into a wall by saying ‘we are not prepared to take the case to the Grand Jury at this time’ ” ( Examiner , 7/31/57) or, “Inspectors still had no physical evidence to link Messinger with the attack and preliminary reports from the Oakland crime laboratory showed ‘only possibilities, nothing obvious’ ”. ( Chronicle , 7/29/57)
    Only once did an authoritative voice, bluntly expressing dissatisfaction with the turn of events, take precedence in headlines and news space over the “chase” aspects of the case. Public Defender Abraham Dresow was prominently featured in all newspapers (8/1/57) as saying, after an interview with Messinger, “The police are holding the wrong guy”.
    However, a new development swiftly banished Dresow’s statement from the front pages.
    The second of the Examiner sleuths, Larry Cahn, had been working on a store-by-store check of the city looking for the person who sold Messinger the manacles used to chain the victim’s legs.
    On August 3rd, the Examiner reported success: “Mrs. Jenelle St. James, former surplus store clerk, positively identified Allan Messinger as the man to whom she sold a set of manacles about 2 months ago”.
    She was quoted as saying, “I am sure that is the man ... I am certain of it ...”
    This was, by any standards, new evidence of real importance in the case against Messinger. A second positive eyewitness identification linking him with the crime had now been added to that of the victim. Chief of Inspectors Daniel McKlem was prominently quoted in all papers as being “firmly convinced he is the man”.
    Just a week earlier, Mrs. St. James had told the Examiner she had seen Messinger in the store but “was unable to recall whether he had bought the manacles”. What could have happened in the intervening time to refresh her recollection?
    The disturbing question was never answered. For within hours on that busy Saturday an Examiner extra had hit the streets with the headline,
    “NEW SUSPECT ADMITS TORTURE; MESSINGER ELIMINATED”.
    By afternoon the whole story was out.
    Three days earlier, two narcotics agents following up a routine tip, had picked up a tiny, 5-foot drug addict, Melvin Bakkerud, former inmate of an insane asylum. The arrest had not even merited one line in any newspaper. Bakkerud was held for investigation of peddling dope in San Francisco’s South of Market area.
    A search of his room turned up, among other things, a gold wristwatch with distinctive markings. A police inspector “remembered reading in the Chronicle” Lonergan’s description of his stolen watch. He checked the