Poison Penmanship: The Gentle Art of Muckraking Page 4

  * He was wrong, of course; under California law medical records are the property of the patient, and if you have the written consent of the patient, medical and hospital files must be made available for copying.

  TRIAL BY HEADLINE

  NATION / October 26, 1957

  Our fathers claimed, by obvious madness moved,

  Man’s innocent until his guilt is proved.

  They would have known, had they not been confused,

  He’s innocent until he is accused.

  Ogden Nash,

  You Can’t Get There From Here

  In varying type sizes, San Francisco’s four daily newspapers for July 25th and 26th carried identical if slightly ungrammatical headlines: “ ‘THAT’S HIM!’ ”

  “Girl Victim Identifies ‘Fang’ Suspect”, continued the News (7/25/57). Directly under the headline, a picture of the person thus identified bore the caption:

  “Baring his teeth in response to a reporter’s half-whimsical suggestion, Allan Messinger* shows his buck teeth that made him a suspect in the ‘Fang’ case”.

  Thus the news was broken that, after five days of intensive police search, one Allan Messinger had turned up as a likely suspect in the latest sensational sex crime, and had been identified by the victim.

  From first commission of the crime on July 20, the papers had evidently decided here was an event of unusual public interest. Even in the absence of any new developments it was seldom off the front pages.

  The heat was on the police department to produce the culprit.

  Briefly, the facts as related by the victims were these: At about 10.30 p.m. of a Saturday night, a pretty young nurse and her escort, a Mr. James Lonergan, were approached by a stranger as they stopped their car in Golden Gate Park. At knife’s point, the stranger bound Lonergan with cord and gagged him with adhesive tape, manacled the girl with leg irons, cut off her hair with a pair of scissors, burned her with a cigarette, raped her twice, and before leaving pricked her and Mr. Lonergan with his knife. To top all, he had stolen Mr. Lonergan’s wristwatch.

  The San Francisco News (7/23/57) had reported that, according to the victim, the most outstanding feature of the assailant was his “canine teeth, which protruded fanglike over his lower lip. They were more than twice normal size ...”

  The News thereupon had become the first newspaper to use the descriptive and alliterative nickname, “FANG FIEND”.

  The rest of the published description was unexceptional, although it was to have some bearing on later developments: a white man, 20 to 25, 5' 9" tall, 150 to 160 lbs., dark complexion, big nose, light horn rimmed glasses.

  The young girl’s identification of Messinger as the culprit drove most other news off the front pages. First reports variously described him as “insular, suspicious and withdrawn”, (Chronicle, 7/26/57) “evasive”, (News, 7/25/57) a “schizoid personality with an incipient hysterical psychosis” (Examiner, 7/26/57) “querulous” (Call-Bulletin, 7/25/57)

  To San Francisco newspaper readers, this treatment of a suspect in a notorious crime revived uneasy memories of another recent big sensation—the arrest, trial and subsequent execution of Burton W. Abbott, for the kidnap-murder of a Berkeley school-girl.

  Newspaper handling of the Abbott case had resulted in a flood of protest in the letters columns. While many readers had complained that the newspapers had shown “bad taste” in the undue publicizing of gruesome details of the case, others had raised a more fundamental question: Was it possible for Abbott to have received a fair trial, in view of the unending flood of adverse publicity he had received, both during the trial and for months beforehand?

  Could the jury have been truly unbiased, coming as it did from a community saturated by so thorough a press bombardment—all pointing to Abbott’s guilt?

  Does the traditional American concept of freedom of the press extend to the trial of such a case in the newspapers before the defendant has been brought into court?

  An English judge, holding a newspaper in contempt for commenting on a case before the trial, once said: “It is possible very effectually to poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow.” (Wills J., Rex. v. Parke)

  Had the fountain of justice been poisoned for Abbott? And was it now being poisoned for Messinger?

  The newspapers themselves were quick to notice the parallel between the two cases.

  Under the headline, “MESSINGER TALE RECALLS THAT OF ABBOTT”, the afternoon News (7/26/57) was first to draw attention to the physical resemblance between the two men, running pictures of them taken in identical poses.

  Messinger’s very protestations of innocence became sinisterly Abbott-like:

  “ ‘I hope someone saw me. I sure hope so. Because I didn’t do it’ ... “To newsmen his words sounded strangely like those spoken a year ago by Burton W. Abbott ... and his cry of ‘frame-up’ is the same as that put forth by Abbott and his attorneys ...”

  Pointing out that under California’s Little Lindburgh Law Messinger could also get the death penalty, the News continues with this apparent non-sequiter: “Stephanie was 14 when Abbott killed her. The student nurse Messinger is charged with attacking is 19”.

  The Call-Bulletin for the same afternoon played it from a slightly different angle, featuring an exclusive interview with Messinger in which he expressed fear he might “become another Abbott”.

  The morning papers quickly followed suit: “... like Abbott, he was calm and detached in expressing himself” (Examiner, 7/27/57). “Messinger’s appearance and mien have been compared to that of Abbott” (Chronicle, 7/30/57).

  In the days that followed, news coverage of the case might be compared with the rising strains of a huge orchestra, swelling from crescendo to crescendo, through which, however, occasional dissonant notes could be heard implying doubt of Messinger’s guilt.

  Often, it would have required a very thorough newspaper reader to discern these notes of dissonance. Thus, the News, Examiner and Chronicle built up Messinger in headlines as having a “police record of sex crimes”.

  The Chronicle (8/2/57) noted “three sex crimes on his police record”. The Examiner (7/26/57) reported “Parolee Served Time in Quentin for Assault”. Only those who read to the end of the news stories learned that the sole jail sentence served by Messinger had been for forgery, and that the only sex offense for which he had ever been convicted (and for which he was given probation) was that of statutory rape, at the age of 17.

  Under California law, statutory rape is an act of intercourse with a girl under 18 years old, with her consent. By definition it does not imply violence, and is not an assault. Probation is granted when authorities deem the offense to be technical in nature, and in the absence of aggravating circumstances.

  “Queer” and “sinister” aspects of Messinger’s personality received major attention. An Examiner interviewer (7/28/57) asked, “ ‘What about girls he had dated?’ Would any of them come to his aid now?’ For a few minutes he became tense, almost agitated. ‘I don’t want to drag any girl into this case’ ...”

  His living quarters were reported to be “amazingly clean, and without the usual small items a man would have around”. (Examiner, 7/26/57) Here was evidently the very opposite of the all-American boy, the lovable bachelor living in a glorious mess among his untidy masculine belongings!

  The suspect’s repeated declarations of innocence, his efforts to establish an alibi, even his expressed desire to take a lie detector test quickly earned him the label in newspapers of “con-wise”.

  His protestations that he in no way fitted the published description of the assailant—he was too short (5’ 6”), had straight teeth and a pale complexion—got scant notice.

  The real “personality angle” came after police invited reporters to listen to some taped recordings which figure in Messinger’s alibi. Messinger claimed he was at home making the recordings, consisting of poetry and philosophical essays, at the time the crime was committed.

  The N
ews (7/29/57) voiced the opinion that the “philosophical discourse made it clear that he considers himself above the law ...” and as proof, quoted from Messinger’s essay: “ ‘The only law is the law of self respect. Observe that.’ ”

  Going one better, the Examiner (7/30/57) headlined “Messinger’s Poetic Rambling Indicates He’s Sexual Psychopath, Inspector Says”.

  “(The recording) turned out to be a one-hour pot pourri of poetry by Kahlil Gibran, author of ‘The Prophet’; various works by Messinger himself ... and an Anarchistic essay in which the ex-convict suspect said ‘it is half-witted living when we allow our way to be blocked by some silly inhibition’.

  “This last effort generated far more interest among police than anything else. It said in part,

  “ ‘If a thing is worth desiring, planning for, and reaching out for, why is it denied us because of some small voice in our traitorous inhibited character or consciousness?’ ...

  “In conclusion, he said: ‘If a man does not fail himself—if he lives up to his own rules—he can do no wrong. Let him fail to live up to his own due respect and he will earn the destruction or injury which will surely come to him ...

  “Inspector Frank Gibeau, while conceding he was no literary critic, said yesterday the ‘alibi’ tape recording made by Allan Messinger ‘clearly indicates he is a sexual psychopath and sadist’.

  “And he said he believed Messinger, whose voice rose to a vibrating emotional pitch toward the end of the tape, may have become so excited while recording that he left home and immediately set out for trouble”.

  A contrasting estimate of the poems was also reported. A University of California extension course instructor had jotted on the margin of a typed copy of one of the poems: “Excellent and beautiful. Technical control and emotional restraint make this a real poem. You have real ability. Keep writing!”

  The Chronicle (7/30/57) reported “An essay on justice struck police inspectors as revealing. It said in part that the ‘Golden Rule allows more leeway than any law that has been written since’ ... Police were sure they spotted a Freudian slip in one of the strange stories. The central character is a man named Cabot and after the story had rambled on for a while, Messinger mispronounced the name, ‘Abbott’ ”.

  Police were quoted as saying Messinger should be in jail for the poems alone, to which he retorted that if Edgar Allen Poe were alive today, Inspector Gibeau would no doubt have him behind bars!

  These excerpts represent only a very tiny sampling of press coverage of this part of the case. Most papers devoted an entire page to the poems and to interpretations derived therefrom of Messinger’s personality.

  Again, an alert reader might have remembered, amid the thunderous chorus that accompanied release of the poems, a note of contradiction heard a few days previously.

  Walter Stone, Chief of the State Division of Adult Paroles, had said that frequent and intensive psychiatric examination of Messinger had revealed “some personality problems, but no evidence whatsoever of any sadistic drive. It just wasn’t there ...” (Chronicle, 7/27/57)

  Police were less inclined to let the press in on their progress in cracking Messinger’s alibi for the night of the crime. However they reported that Messinger admitted lying in accounting for part of that night. His statement that he had been alone in his room had been contradicted by an ex-convict who claimed to have been with him before 8 p.m. and after 1 a.m.

  Actually at this point the police had a very thin case. No physical evidence linking Messinger with the crime had been found. No manacles. No adhesive tape. No wristwatch. Police criminologists, subjecting Messinger’s clothing and sweepings from his room to microscopic examination, had turned up nothing.

  True, a knife had been found in Messinger’s room, which “officers inferred belonged to Messinger and ... was the one used in Golden Gate Park”. (Chronicle, 7/27/57) True, FAILURE to find any scissors in his room was “considered significant” by police, who commented “they may have been thrown away”. (Examiner, 7/26/57)

  True, a quantity of 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 description with the watch found in Bakkerud’s room. It tallied. Confronted with the watch, Bakkerud readily confessed to the assault in G
olden Gate Park. He led police to the hidden “torture kit”, containing tape, cord, scissors, knife. The police criminologist found within ten minutes microscopic evidence that fibres taken from Bakkerud’s belongings matched those from the victims’ clothing.

  And the manacles? Bakkerud had stolen them from the glove compartment of a San Francisco police car on the night of the crime. Apparently the theft had never been noticed or reported, much less linked with the assault.

  A badly shaken press and police department set about picking up the pieces—and assigning the blame.

  “San Francisco police had worked up a case strong enough to send an innocent man to San Quentin for life”, said the Chronicle (8/6/57)

  “The cops were out for a conviction more than they were out for the truth. They think a case is solved when they get a suspect”, said Public Defender Dresow. (Examiner, 8/4/57)

  “I never said positively that I was sure he was the one,” said the victim (Examiner, 8/4/57)

  “(Chief of Inspectors) McKlem denied having been ‘certain’ Messinger was the man,” reported the Examiner (8/4/57)

  “The description furnished by the victim was way off”, said the Chronicle (8/6/57), pointing out that in every essential the published description, that of Messinger and that of Bakkerud were totally at variance.

  “Above all, Messinger lied”, editorialized the News (8/6/57). “Had it not been for his falsehoods, police would never have been able to build up a case against him”.

  There was little comment by the newspapers on their own part in the case. The News (8/6/57) was the only one to tackle this aspect of the post mortem. It editorially extolled the “spotlight of public interest which said in effect, ‘you must be certain; you must prove your case’ ... Our kind of society demands facts. Spurred on by public interest, the police produced the facts—and cleared him”.

  In a subsequent television program, News editor Albert Colgrove explained newspaper use of the word “FANG”. He pointed out that it made for easier headline treatment than SUSPECT because it contains fewer letters.