The Anniversary of the 'In Cold Blood' Killings

---

---

"Now, on this final day of her life, Mrs. Clutter hung in the closet the calico house dress she had been wearing and put on one of her trailing nightgowns and a fresh set of white socks. Then, before retiring, she exchanged her ordinary glasses for a pair of reading spectacles. Though she subscribed to several periodicals (the Ladies' Home Journal, McCall's, Reader's Digest and Together: Midmonth Magazine for Methodist Families), none of these rested on the bedside table — only a Bible. A bookmark lay between its pages, a stiff piece of watered silk upon which an admonition had been embroidered: 'Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.'"

Truman Capote
In Cold Blood

---

They happened before I was born, but the murders of the Clutter family 55 years ago today in Holcomb, Kansas, still have the power to grip people.

I re–read Truman Capote's riveting account of those murders, "In Cold Blood," about a year ago. I was just as engrossed by it as I was when I first read it in college. As a reading experience, it reminded me of Vincent Bugliosi's account of the Manson Family murders, "Helter Skelter."

Capote did a lot of writing in his life, but "In Cold Blood" was the book he was born to write. It seems almost like the kind of book that would write itself, that all it needed was a person to be the go–between. But writers are a funny sort, and my understanding is that Capote agonized over aspects of his book. Some writers are like that. The creative process makes impossible demands on them.

So writing "In Cold Blood" may have been a very emotionally trying experience for Capote. It may have been unimaginably wrenching to try to put everything on paper. I know it took awhile for him to finish it. Some writers find it very difficult to achieve the level of detachment that is necessary to write about unpleasant things. It is often essential, I have observed, to be detached in the news business. You must express in print the shock and revulsion people feel upon hearing about such things — without letting those things affect you personally. It is why many talented writers don't make it as news writers.

Such a level of detachment must have been necessary for the local officials who investigated the murders. In a small town like Holcomb (which, more than half a century later, has a population that barely exceeds 2,000), everyone knows everyone else, and Herb Clutter, the family patriarch, was a pillar of the community. He was a farmer, he hired people to work on his farm, and, by all accounts, he treated them well. He was rumored to be very wealthy — after all, he didn't drink or smoke. Had no vices of any kind, as far as anyone could tell. He was also rumored to keep all his money in a safe in his home.

At least, that is what one fellow in particular had heard. This fellow had worked for Clutter about 10 years earlier and told a jailhouse cellmate about him and the money he supposedly had in his remote country farmhouse. Truth was, Herb Clutter didn't have a fortune in his home. He didn't have a safe, either. This cellmate didn't know that, though, and he started planning to rob this farmer as soon as he and another buddy of his were released.

---

---

Fifty–five years ago, they were both free, and they made their way to Holcomb, where they intended to rob the Clutters. When they discovered that there was no safe and no fortune, they could have left and, in all probability, never been charged with a crime. Instead, they killed each member of the family so there would be no witnesses and left with $42 in cash, a radio and a pair of binoculars.

The crime shocked America, which was a more innocent place (at least, it seems so in hindsight) in the 1950s than many people today realize — even with all the jokes that are made about the simplicity of that decade. It's my opinion, though, that the difference between that time and today is the level of technology. I doubt that shocking crimes happened any less frequently then than they do today; people just didn't hear about them as much.

Nearly two years earlier, the nation was transfixed by the murder spree of Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate, the inspiration for "Natural Born Killers." It must have taken a lot to transfix the nation in those days. TVs were not fixtures in every American home in those days — maybe 60% would be my guess. Cable didn't exist, nor did the internet. The primary sources for news and information probably were newspapers and radio.

Those same news sources must have been the primary sources for most Americans when the Clutter family was killed, and the word spread so far that it reached Truman Capote via the New York Times — and he and his lifelong friend, Harper Lee (author of "To Kill a Mockingbird"), traveled to Holcomb to do research for a book on the case.

What is often lost in the telling of the murders is the fear that the victims must have experienced in those early morning hours. They did what people are usually told to do if they are abducted — cooperate with your abductor, do whatever you must to stay alive. Yet, they did not live through the night.

Their deaths led to Capote's book and at least two movies of which I am aware. For Capote, of course, it was a career–defining book — which has been criticized frequently since its publication for fabricating conversations and scenes it described. Sometimes that was obviously necessary, given that it described conversations and/or scenes that no living person could verify. But sometimes Capote appears to have deliberately misquoted some people whose versions of events did not support his narrative.

Sometimes that wasn't terribly important to the story; other times, though, it was. That seems to be how it is with the new journalism, the nonfiction novel.

One fact cannot be changed or fabricated. The Clutter family has been dead for 55 years.

The Jersey Shore Anniversary

---

---

When you hear the phrase Jersey Shore these days, I guess most people's first thought would be of a reality series on MTV.

But a series of events on the Jersey shore in the early 20th century had a profound impact on American culture later in the century — a much greater impact than any television show.

Those events began on this day in 1916.

I'm speaking of shark attacks that led to four deaths and one injury in the first half of July 1916.

As I understand it, it was a brutal summer along the East Coast. Folks had been sweltering in a heat wave, and that — along with a polio epidemic — sent hordes of people to the beach seeking relief.

No one probably thought about the possibility of shark attacks in those waters. Such attacks are quite rare in that vicinity, but, on Saturday, July 1, 1916, a 25–year–old man who was vacationing with his family decided to go for a short swim with his dog before dinner.

After entering the water, the man began shouting, and other people on the beach thought he was calling to his dog, but, in reality, a shark was biting his legs. A lifeguard pulled him from the water, but he bled to death on the hotel manager's desk.

The beaches remained open, though, in spite of reports from ship captains of swarms of sharks off the coast. For awhile, it must have seemed that the folks who stood to gain from keeping the beaches open were going to get away with it, but then, on July 6, tragedy struck again about 45 miles north of the first attack.

A hotel bellhop was attacked while swimming about 100 yards from shore. He, too, was pulled from the water and bled to death on the way back to shore.

Another six days went by, then two attacks occurred about 30 miles north of the second incident. These were perhaps the most baffling. The first two attacks had happened in seaside resort locations, but the one on July 12, 1916, happened inland on a creek in a community that didn't really seem like a resort. An 11–year–old boy, who had been playing in the creek with some friends, was attacked and killed by a shark. A man who dove into the water in an attempt to save the boy also was attacked and bled to death at a hospital.

About half an hour later, the final victim, a 12–year–old boy, was attacked. He eventually recovered from his injuries.

The shark attacks triggered a panic. Tourism declined precipitously, and shark sightings rose sharply. Things only began to settle down after a fellow named Michael Schleisser caught a 7½–foot shark at the mouth of the creek. When they examined the shark, they found human remains in its digestive tract — but it was never established absolutely that the shark had been responsible for the attacks.

Half a century later, the shark attacks off the Jersey shore inspired Peter Benchley's phenomenal best–selling novel "Jaws" — which, in turn, inspired a blockbuster movie by the same name that dwarfed every other movie that was released that year.

Although the public officials along the Jersey Shore, like the ones in Benchley's novel, thought more about tourism and profits than public safety initially — and few, if any, people seemed to dispute the conclusion that sharks had been responsible for the attacks — it's still something of a mystery exactly what kind of shark it was — or, for that matter, how many were involved.

In the novel, the great white was to blame, and it was a good suspect in real life, too, but some people insisted it had been a bull shark instead. Bull sharks are known for their aggressiveness, as well as their ability to tolerate freshwater, which would account for its (or their) presence in the creek.

Folks didn't know a lot about sharks or shark behavior in 1916. Until the attacks, they were seen as relatively harmless, unlikely to attack humans unless provoked.

People knew a little more when Benchley wrote his novel, but public opinion had swung to the other extreme, mostly viewing sharks as dangerous and unpredictable. Before the end of his life, Benchley had a change of heart and said he regretted whatever role his book may have had in public misunderstanding of sharks.

A Private Conversation

---

"That's a secret private world you're looking into out there. People do a lot of things in private they couldn't possibly explain in public."

Lt. Thomas J. Doyle
Rear Window (1954)

---

First of all, let me say I am not a fan of Harry Reid. But I don't live in Nevada. I have never lived in Nevada. I have never even been to Nevada. So I have never had to decide whether to vote for him or not. That decision has been left to others.

Nevertheless, it has been clear to observers, both inside and outside Nevada, for quite awhile now that Reid faces an uphill climb in his bid for re–election this year.

The Las Vegas Review–Journal recently reported that Reid trails three likely Republican challengers for his seat.

But Reid's problems with the electorate are independent of the latest flap he's found himself entangled in — which has left him groveling like a severely beaten dog.

I refer to remarks Reid apparently made privately during the 2008 presidential campaign, remarks that are being reported in a new book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.

---

"He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a 'light–skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.' "

Mark Halperin and John Heilemann
Game Change

---

People are getting all bent out of shape over something that Reid said in private.

I could understand the uproar if Reid had made the comments to a reporter who was holding a microphone in his/her hand. But I don't know if he did or not. Or if he had made the comments in a speech. I know he did not do that.

I haven't read the book so I don't know the context in which Reid made his remarks. Was he answering a question from someone else? Was he volunteering his thoughts on the matter? Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times reports that Reid "made the remark to the authors in the context of praising Mr. Obama's political skills," but that doesn't really answer my questions. Did Halperin and/or Heilemann ask for his assessment? Did he volunteer it?

Zeleny adds, "An aide to Mr. Reid said the comments about how he believed the country would accept Mr. Obama ... were not intended for use in the book."

What I do know is that Reid has dutifully carried the water for the Obama administration for nearly a year. He has been an advocate of health care reform. He supported the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. He supported the pork–laden stimulus package. Can anyone name a single thing that has originated in the Obama White House that Reid has not supported?

That's a secret private world ...

And, even if, as he now says, he "deeply regret[s]" his choice of words, he was making an assessment of a black politician's chances of winning a national election — something that had never happened before.

In order to make such an evaluation, it would be impossible not to use words that referred to Obama's race — just as, 50 years ago, it would have been impossible to evaluate John F. Kennedy's chances of being elected president without referring to his Catholicism. Like it or not, the issues Reid addressed were expected to be factors in a general election campaign that was months away.

Reid's assessment, by the way, was favorable, a point that seems to get lost in the knee–jerk reactions many on the left are having. "Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination," Halperin and Heilemann write.

Those who have insisted on making this an issue should be reminded that the economic meltdown — which most people believe was the point in the election chronology when Obama began to lock up his victory — didn't happen until after the conventions.

So Reid's concerns about the influence of race on the 2008 election were well founded — whether it is politically correct to acknowledge it today.

And that still doesn't change the fact that Reid's comments apparently were made in confidence, not in public.

That's a secret private world ...

Going Rogue

---

rogue (noun)

1. vagrant, tramp


2. a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel


3. a mischievous person : scamp

Merriam–Webster Online Dictionary

---

The other night, a high school classmate of mine made an interesting observation on Facebook.

Referring to Sarah Palin's new book, "Going Rogue," my ex–classmate posted the Merriam–Webster link and wondered, "So, which of these definitions does Sarah Palin think best describes herself?"

He confessed that "ever since the book was announced I've been very puzzled by her choice of titles."

Another former classmate tried to clarify the point, saying, "She is using the term that McCain's staffers used about her."

The first classmate responded, "So she wants to emphasize the fact that the people whose job it was to sell her to the public thought she was unstable and irresponsible? If I were managing her 'brand' I would counsel her to reconsider. Maybe this is all part of being a 'maverick' ..."

I wasn't a Palin fan last year — in the interest of full disclosure, I wasn't an Obama fan, either — and she never seems to make it easy on people like me. This is the 24th post I have written in which "Palin" has been listed as a label, and I have tried — or, at least, I feel that I have tried — to give her the benefit of the doubt.

When it comes to Palin, I rarely agree with her on anything, but I do try to be fair. Her book hasn't hit the store shelves yet so I haven't read her side of the story, but I am unaware of any lobbying that she did (or that anyone did on her behalf) to encourage John McCain to pick her as his running mate.

In fact, Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson wrote, in "The Battle for America 2008," that, although McCain had been reviewing possible running mates since securing the nomination in the spring, Palin's name wasn't added to the list of prospects until about a month before the Republican convention — when the McCain campaign "became alarmed at the size of Obama's lead among women."

If it turns out that Palin waged an active campaign to be chosen, I would feel differently. But the Balz–Johnson account tends to confirm what I have suspected all along — that she was not chosen because of her political views but because of her gender.

McCain, I have contended, believed that the majority of Hillary Clinton's supporters could be persuaded to support his campaign if he had a female running mate. But, while Clinton's supporters undoubtedly were disappointed that she came up short in her bid for the Democratic nomination, it turned out they were driven more by ideology than gender.

McCain might have been more successful in winning their support if he had chosen a centrist woman to be his running mate — but I have seen no indication that ideology played a key role in Palin's selection.

Once she was on the ticket, campaign officials may have experienced "buyer's remorse" when it became clear that she was in over her head — but it should be noted that McCain was the buyer. He may have felt remorseful at times, but I think that was overridden by his desire to avoid appearing indecisive in what was perceived to be his first presidential–level decision.

The role of the campaign staff was to be supportive of the ticket and try to help shore up any weaknesses, like the fact that she came across as inexperienced and uninformed in her interviews with Katie Couric. If she was ill–prepared for the national spotlight during the fall campaign, it was in part because the campaign does not appear to have made much effort to address her deficiencies.

It was legitimate, for example, to question Palin about the leaders of foreign countries and America's relationships with those countries because, if elected vice president, that was the kind of knowledge she would need if she eventually became president. But five vice presidents had been elected since the last time a sitting vice president ascended to the presidency, and such knowledge wasn't strictly part of the definition of the job for which she was a candidate. The vice president presides over the Senate. In modern times, the vice president has been dispatched to represent the United States at the weddings and funerals of foreign dignitaries so familiarity with the governments of foreign countries is a good thing to have, but it is not a constitutional requirement.

The vice president is next in line for the presidency, but it has been nearly 50 years since a vice president became president following the death of a president, and it has been 35 years since a vice president became president following the resignation of a president. As I observed before either running mate was chosen, we're overdue — historically — for such a thing to happen, but, in a lifetime of studying the presidency and presidential campaigns, I have seldom come across an instance in which a prospective vice president was chosen because he (or she) was believed to be the most qualified to take over as president if that became necessary.

I have seen running mates who were chosen because their presence on the ticket, it was believed, would heal political wounds and unify the party (i.e., Ronald Reagan's choice of George H.W. Bush, his main rival for the 1980 Republican nomination, and John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as his 2004 running mate). I have seen running mates who, like Palin, were picked because it was believed they would appeal to certain demographic groups (i.e., Walter Mondale's choice of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984).

I have even seen people who were mentioned frequently as potential running mates primarily as lip service to shaky supporters.

Perhaps my classmate was right. Perhaps McCain's staffers did view Palin as "unstable and irresponsible." If so, they weren't the only ones. But it was their task, as my classmate also observed, to "sell" her to the voters. And they failed.

I'm inclined to believe Palin is right when she says she has been made a scapegoat for McCain's defeat. As objectionable as she may have seemed to many voters, I don't believe any running mate could have salvaged the Republican ticket after the economic meltdown occurred.

Having a running mate who went "rogue" did not cost McCain the election. No matter which definition one takes for that word.

Laughing All The Way to the Bank?

---

"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided -- that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. ... What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

Scott McClellan, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong with Washington

---

I don't think it's hit the store shelves yet. I think you can pre-order it, but I don't think it arrives in stores until next week.

I don't sell books for a living so I don't know what the schedule is. If you're in a hurry to read it, you might be able to find it in a book store. Or your best bet may be to order it online.

Anyway.

Scott McClellan's book about his experiences in the George W. Bush White House is not drawing very good reviews from his former employer.

Guess the former White House press secretary doesn't mind, since Barnes & Noble has McClellan's book at the top of its speculative best-seller list.

In the book, McClellan says Bush is guilty of "self-deception" in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Dana Perino, the current occupant of McClellan's old office, calls McClellan "disgruntled" over his White House experiences.

And Karl Rove, who is apparently one of McClellan's primary targets in the book, says the writing style "sounds like a left-wing blogger."

Newsweek’s White House correspondent Richard Wolffe wasn't surprised by the tone of the book excerpts to which he has had access.

"He promised when he first started writing this book that he’d engage in some truth-telling,” Michael Calderone quotes Wolffe in Politico. “And that’s what he’s done.”

McClellan may not be an authority on the Middle East ... or Iraq ... or much of anything.

But he had a front-row seat. He's hardly a "left-wing blogger."

No "left-wing" anything could get into Bush's Oval Office for five minutes. McClellan was Bush's spokesman for nearly three years.

And, like it or not, the Republicans are going to have to contend with this book during the election campaign.

Because, if anything, Fred Kaplan writes in Slate, John McCain is more of a neocon than Bush is.

So this book is going to be a topic of discussion in the 2008 campaign. Many discussions.

Unless the totally unexpected happens -- and America pulls its troops out of Iraq.

Don't think that's gonna happen, huh?

Me, neither.

The Real Clarence Thomas

When you watched the 1991 confirmation hearing of Supreme Court designate Clarence Thomas, did you think you were seeing the real Clarence Thomas?

In a way, you might have been, if you accept what Thomas Sowell says in Real Clear Politics today. It depends on how you interpret Sowell's writing.

Sowell says he has known Thomas for nearly 30 years, that he has been a principled jurist and that he has an astonishing sense of humor.

Sowell also says that, contrary to his image, Thomas is not "a lonely and embittered man, withdrawn from the world" after his experience before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The truth, Sowell says, is that Thomas meets people in a low-key way during the summers -- not "grandstanding," as others do, but driving his bus around the country and mixing with middle class folks in "truck stops, trailer parks and mall parking lots."

The man of the people has just published a book about his life, My Grandfather's Son, which is out in bookstores now.