It has been taken for granted by most scholars that the late arriving testimony of crucial witness Howard Fellows, brother of Lasky employee Harry Fellows, is not to be doubted. Fellows' testimony is critical because it supposedly places almost exactly when the murder was to have taken place. I s it possible, however, that Fellows, as part of a cover-up, was lying? Harry Fellows, his brother, was one of those who, along with Charles Eyton, searched Taylor's bungalow the morning of Feb. 2. (11)
From The Los Angeles Examiner, February 8, 1922:
"Declaring that he called William D. Taylor at 7:55 o'clock
Wednesday night and receiving no answer, went to the apartment
of the film director. Arriving there at 8:15 o'clock, rang the
doorbell and still met with no response, Howard Fellows, chauffeur
for the murdered director, last night definitely fixed the time
within which the crime must have been committed and added facts
regarded as of first magnitude importance in their bearing upon
the crime.
"Strangely enough, this young man, who had been Taylor's
driver for nearly six months, had not been questioned at length
until yesterday, when an Examiner representative
called on him at his home, 1622 Shatto Place. He is brother of
Harry Fellows, who was Taylor's assistant director.
"Yesterday Detective Sergeant Tom Zeigler took Howard to
the Taylor home, 404-B South Alvarado Street. He was partially
identified by a resident of the neighborhood as the person he
had seen seated in a car on the night of the murder near the scene
of the crime and about the time it was committed.
"Fellows denied this and convinced Zeigler that the man
was mistaken."
"One of Fellows' most interesting statements, other than
that relating to his movements and observations on the night of
the assassination, had to do with an alleged quarrel between Taylor
and Mabel Normand.
"'I was driving Mr. Taylor and Miss Normand from the Ambassador
Hotel where they had attended a New Year's Eve party, to her home,'
said Fellows. On the way they had a quarrel. I don't know what
it was about, but both were very much excited. Mr. Taylor took
Miss Normand home and then returned to his apartment. Upon arriving
there he broke down and wept. On the following morning he did
up some jewelry in a package and took it to Miss Normand at her
home.' Henry Peavey, Taylor's colored valet, confirms this.
"'Mr. Taylor and Miss Normand were very affectionate,' continued
Fellows. Questioned independently, Peavey said Taylor often caressed
her.
"As to these matters Fellows spoke casually, but when he
entered upon the events of the night of February 1, his narrative
became astounding both as to its content, and because he never
told it before.
"'I left the house (Mr. Taylor's) about 4:30 Wednesday afternoon,"
Fellows began. Mr. Taylor told me he might be going out in the
evening and instructed me to be sure to telephone by 7:30. I went
to the home of a young lady friend and was there until 7:55. I
recall the time accurately because I had it on my mind to call
Mr. Taylor and ask him if he would need the car. I called him
two or three times before that hour, but received no reply. I
left the house of my girl friend at five minutes to eight and
drove directly to Mr. Taylor's. I reached there about quarter
past eight. There was a light in the living room. I was surprised
that Mr. Taylor should be home and not have answered the telephone.
"'I rang the doorbell. Silence. I rang again. Still, no response.
I must have rung three or four times. Then I concluded: `Well,
he has some one there and doesn't want to answer. So I put up
the car, I was around back of the house, and it is peculiar that
persons in the neighborhood should have heard me walking and not
have heard me put up the car. I made a good deal of noise doing
this, as the garage is difficult to get into, and I guess I must
have backed the car up four or five times. I am satisfied that
I am the man Mrs. Douglas MacLean saw standing on the porch and
leaving the house, I wore a cap and a raincoat. I noticed no cars
in the immediate vicinity and saw no one who aroused my suspicions.
Naturally, I am convinced that both when I phoned and when I rang
the doorbell, Mr. Taylor was lying there on the floor murdered.'
"Taking the testimony of Fellows and Miss Normand together,
it is now possible to fix the time of the murder within fifteen
minutes. Miss Normand said she left Taylor between 7:30 and 7:45
o'clock. Fellows called at 7:55. The murder was committed between
Miss Normand's leave taking and Fellows' phoning. Hence, for the
first time, the police have a picture of the murder as it relates
to the time when and in which it was committed.
"Before Fellows' statement became available there was no
conclusive evidence as to the time the bullet of the assassin
struck the film director down. testimony as to the shot being
heard was so vague as to be unconvincing. It could not be said
with finality that the murder did not occur at midnight or at
any hour of the night.
"The acts of the drama leading to the murder must have been
brief. It would appear, indeed, that there were no preliminaries,
that the intruder, concealed in the room, stepped out and fired
the shot. It is therefore deduced that it was a premeditated crime
and not one precipitated by a quarrel or any sort of scene more
than of momentary duration. One group of police investigators
and most of the deputy sheriffs working on the case are now convinced
that the visit of Mabel Normand was the immediate antecedent occasion
for the crime.
"This theory naturally takes for granted that Miss Normand
had not the slightest intimation that her dear friend was to be
shot to death, but officers cannot help but believe that the murderer
found the way for his crime paved in some way by the visit of
Miss Normand."
From The San Francisco Examiner, Feb. 10, 1922:
"Walter Vogdes: In contrast was Howard Fellows, Taylor's
chauffeur, who followed Peavey. Fellows, a lad with a weak, somewhat
furtive face, sat on a bench in Woolwine's outer office and with
twitching fingers lit one cigarette after another, each one on
the preceding one.
"When his turn came to enter the inner office he literally
ran inside, the way a timorous man runs into an ice cold plunge.
When he came out his expression was frightened as he pulled his
cap over his eyes and streaked it down the hallway . . ."
Why did Fellows insist it was he whom Faith MacLean saw? How could
he be so sure? Is it possible no one heard Fellow's starting his
car because he wasn't there in the first place? Finally, it should
be noted, Fellows disappeared from public view just after being
questioned for hardly more than a day.
From The Los Angeles Examiner, February 6, 1922:
"[Mabel:] 'There is a doubt yet in my mind but that the murderer
was not in the house secreted during the time of my short visit
with Mr. Taylor,' she said. 'I can't understand how he could have
been brazen enough to have entered during the brief interim when
Mr. Taylor came with me to the curbing.'"
And added to this, how the much more astonishing that Howard Fellows should be knocking at Taylor door only 15 minutes later, with the killer having committed the deed nicely in between.
If there was a deliberate effort on the part of some major studio heads, and cooperated in by some of the police, including D.A. Woolwine, to change the reported time of the shooting from 9:00 pm to 8:00 pm, what could have been it's purpose?
This, of course, can only be speculated at present. It might
be argued it was done to mislead the killer, as to what they knew.
However, there is another possibility. That is, smear Mabel Normand
by tying her more closely in with the crime, yet without formally
implicating her of any guilt. Why would they want to make things
more difficult for Mabel?
1. Some important people were very angry with Mabel. Emotionally,
they blamed her for what happened. And perhaps, though through
no fault of her own, they were right, inasmuch as someone may
have targeted Taylor out of jealousy over Mabel.
2. As of the Arbuckle scandal, Hollywood was already in the process
of cleaning house. In the occurrence of the Taylor case, here
was a perfect opportunity to rid themselves of suspected drug
user Normand.
3. Mabel was known for a devastating wit which might have got
her into trouble with someone. This was then, their bitter "joke"
her.
To make this distortion of the facts all the more easily to accomplish -- even if this interfering with justice were somehow brought to light, the damage would still have been done, and their would be little sympathy for Mabel, and probably more sympathy for the would-be do-gooders who, it could be said, were only looking out for public morals.
"....Mabel was the Patsy who got the blame for what other people did. She suffered humiliation and disgrace in silence when she could have set herself right -- by 'telling on' some one else..." (12)