Speaker 1: Welcome to Invention, a production of I Heart Radio. Hey,
Speaker 1: welcome to Invention. My name is Robert lamp and I'm
Speaker 1: Joe McCormick, and we have got a treat for you today.
Speaker 1: Last time we told you we would be back this
Speaker 1: time with a murder mystery from the development of the
Speaker 1: motion picture technology history, and today our friend Scott Benjamin
Speaker 1: is joining us on the show. Yeah, that's right. I mean,
Speaker 1: people keep turning up dead in history of the Motion
Speaker 1: picture so we thought we'd bring bring in somebody extra
Speaker 1: to help us out with the heavy lifting on this one.
Speaker 1: Scott loves murder and he's really great at talking about it,
Speaker 1: and uh, I think it's gonna be so much fun.
Speaker 1: So let's go right to our talk with Scott. Hey, So,
Speaker 1: if you have been listening to this show for a while,
Speaker 1: and if you have made it to the little koda
Speaker 1: we tend to do at the end of every episode
Speaker 1: when we when we do our outro music, we you've
Speaker 1: probably heard us mention Scott Benjamin, who helps with research
Speaker 1: on this and we've got such a treat for you.
Speaker 1: Scott Benjamin is joining us in studio today. Scott. It
Speaker 1: is a pleasure to have you. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. But what should people know about you? Well,
Speaker 1: I've been around here for a long time. I've been
Speaker 1: a podcaster with How Stuff Works originally, uh, for about
Speaker 1: eleven years now, um taken the last couple of years
Speaker 1: off off air, I guess, um as I do research
Speaker 1: and writing for some other shows and true crime stuff.
Speaker 1: In fact, I've got an all new true crime podcast
Speaker 1: coming out pretty soon of my own. I can't really
Speaker 1: give you too many more details about it right now,
Speaker 1: but but it's it's on its way. But this is
Speaker 1: one this is key to while we're having you on
Speaker 1: here now, because you've been helping us with the invention
Speaker 1: research and then suddenly we ran across a little bit
Speaker 1: of true crime, but potentially true crime, or at least
Speaker 1: a mystery that's kind of embedded in the research for
Speaker 1: the invention of the motion picture exactly. Yeah, And I
Speaker 1: thought this was just a little bit too juicy to
Speaker 1: let it go, you know, without without investigating this just
Speaker 1: a little bit more. And uh, to be honest with you,
Speaker 1: it's about a hundred and one nine year old cold
Speaker 1: case now, so I don't think we're gonna you know,
Speaker 1: be you know, solving anything. I don't. I don't think so,
Speaker 1: but well we we could try at least we can
Speaker 1: at least, uh, you know, let people know what's happening
Speaker 1: and let them investigate it for themselves and see what
Speaker 1: they think, because there's a few theories about what happened. Alright,
Speaker 1: So here's what here's what's going on. Um. We tend
Speaker 1: to credit the invention of the motion picture camera to
Speaker 1: either Edison or the Lumier brothers. And you know, we
Speaker 1: we've got kind of know the history behind that and
Speaker 1: the timing. It's all kind of strange timing. It all
Speaker 1: ties in very very closely. Well, it appears that there
Speaker 1: was somebody that was filming motion of filming scenes long
Speaker 1: time prior to that, six seven years prior to that.
Speaker 1: And the earliest film that we have on record anything
Speaker 1: that remains still is from eighteen eighty eight October. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, UM we know the date because
Speaker 1: of a specific reason. I'll tell you in a minute.
Speaker 1: But it's called the Roundhay Garden scene and that was
Speaker 1: shot by um a man named Louis la Prince, and
Speaker 1: Louis la Prince of course French born French born um inventor.
Speaker 1: He had a lot of other things that he had
Speaker 1: had developed. A lot of them had to do with cinematography,
Speaker 1: the early days of cinematography. Um. He filmed this scene.
Speaker 1: It was just it's just like two point one seconds,
Speaker 1: I think, very quick, but it does show motion. And
Speaker 1: he was using you know, a type of film that
Speaker 1: was it the early days of film that the um paperbacked,
Speaker 1: and you know it had a very complex way of
Speaker 1: getting this, you know, down and captured. Now, this one,
Speaker 1: the Rounday garden scene, is this before the celluloid film?
Speaker 1: It is just before the celluloid film, right, so that
Speaker 1: was just just after this he had not yet really
Speaker 1: quite kind of experimented with that yet. UM. They know
Speaker 1: the date of this film because specifically, ten days later,
Speaker 1: one of the people appeared in the film died, So
Speaker 1: it was like, you know, this is film in October fourteenth,
Speaker 1: but on October his mother in law who was shown
Speaker 1: in the film passed away. So they know specifically that
Speaker 1: it was prior to this date. In in it's it's approvable.
Speaker 1: But by that UM, he did another scene it was
Speaker 1: like this, I think it was a traffic crossing leeds
Speaker 1: Bridge in eight as well, and there's a few other
Speaker 1: early films that have survived, but they're all from right
Speaker 1: in this in this timeframe, the stuff from Edison and
Speaker 1: from the Lumire Brothers are in you know, the well
Speaker 1: the early UM eighteen nineties UM. And then the patents
Speaker 1: came later. But that's part of the story that we're
Speaker 1: getting too here. You know, the patents, right, so we
Speaker 1: know that Edison was was very much like a patent
Speaker 1: talk or is that the right word. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think there's a little bit of over demonization of Edison
Speaker 1: that maybe goes on on the internet today. A few
Speaker 1: years back, what was it, There was something like popular
Speaker 1: comic strip where it was basically like Tesla is great,
Speaker 1: Edison sucks, which, which, of course it's it's you know, it's, it's,
Speaker 1: it's It's probably a flawed idea to really go all
Speaker 1: in on on either individual as being like you know
Speaker 1: this this this angelic figure of invention or this demonic adversary. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Maybe actually it over sells Tesla instead of underselling Edison. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the problems I guess is that Edison.
Speaker 1: Edison had a huge laboratory that he worked in where
Speaker 1: he employed many many inventors, and then of course anything
Speaker 1: that was invented under that umbrella, he would then take
Speaker 1: the credit for it. He would say, you know this
Speaker 1: Edison's invention. It's just like any other major corporation does. Now.
Speaker 1: The automotive companies do it all the time. You know,
Speaker 1: people invent features, functions, you know, uh, parts, components, and
Speaker 1: they may get the patent, but uh you know, uh,
Speaker 1: I don't know a Ford or GM owns that product,
Speaker 1: they own that that that the patent, they get the
Speaker 1: royalties from all that. Well, this is something we've seen
Speaker 1: over and over again just looking at the history, photography,
Speaker 1: and and now the motion picture is that you know,
Speaker 1: we want to think about the inventor ter as this
Speaker 1: uh this you know, this this individual this just out
Speaker 1: there figuring out stuff on their own. And a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of inventors do fall into that category.
Speaker 1: But increasingly there's no closer to get into the modern
Speaker 1: era the more you see this uh industrialization of invention,
Speaker 1: the corporate um use of invention, and so you know,
Speaker 1: Edison is just a part of that growing trend. I
Speaker 1: mean already talked about Kodak on the show. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean we tend to think of inventors as or we
Speaker 1: like to think of inventors as like like Victor Frankenstein, right, like,
Speaker 1: you know, the independent scientist working on a problem in
Speaker 1: solitude with their own mad genius. But more often it's
Speaker 1: true that inventors need to be part of a system
Speaker 1: that's like providing infrastructure that makes their invention possible at
Speaker 1: the same time that they're working on the invention. And
Speaker 1: the movie camera is a perfect example of this, because
Speaker 1: you couldn't really have the kind of movie cameras that
Speaker 1: even Edison's people came up with, like William Dixon came
Speaker 1: up with, until you had celluloid film and that was
Speaker 1: what you know, other people were working on. What would
Speaker 1: Frankenstein have been, like the novel had it been Frankenstein inc. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Edison's likes you know, he gets one of his little
Speaker 1: lab assistants like resurrect the dead, you know, and then
Speaker 1: I'll get the patent. Yeah, this and this stuff is
Speaker 1: happening on separate continents as well, so you know, it's
Speaker 1: just one of those times in history where you know
Speaker 1: that they're working on the same thing hundreds if not
Speaker 1: thousands of miles apart. And they don't quite know it yet.
Speaker 1: They don't each each doesn't know what the other one
Speaker 1: is doing right at that moment, unless you know, there's
Speaker 1: some talk within the community of scientists, you know, inventors
Speaker 1: of what they're working on. And uh, and likely they
Speaker 1: would have kept that pretty you know, close to the vest.
Speaker 1: They wouldn't have really said, hay, I'm working on this
Speaker 1: new camera and here's in fact, here's a drawing off
Speaker 1: how it works. Why don't you, Uh, I haven't see
Speaker 1: if you can perfect that now it doesn't work that way.
Speaker 1: They keep them really really tight, um until of course,
Speaker 1: the you know, the goal is the patent, of course,
Speaker 1: you know, to make their royalties from this invention. And uh,
Speaker 1: apparently it looks like La Prince beat Edison to the
Speaker 1: you know, to the mark there on the one. So
Speaker 1: he made all the money, right, No, no, didn't make
Speaker 1: any money on it. In fact, I guess maybe we
Speaker 1: should jump right into the story here at this point
Speaker 1: right now, tell us about the mystery. All right, so
Speaker 1: you know he's he's working on a stuff. He actually
Speaker 1: successfully films these scenes, the round Hey Garden scene, you know,
Speaker 1: the traffic crossing leeds Bridge, etcetera. And he's got this device.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a single lens camera, and this is
Speaker 1: an improvement over a camera that he had just prior
Speaker 1: to that, which was like a sixteen lens camera that
Speaker 1: shot there's actually two banks of eight lenses. I think
Speaker 1: that we're that would quickly take images and then you
Speaker 1: could put those together and then show them in rapid
Speaker 1: succession and make, you know, make a moving image out
Speaker 1: of them. This is a single lens camera that would
Speaker 1: record continuous motion. Right, so this is quite different, less
Speaker 1: laborious editing. Yes, yes, exactly right. And again and this
Speaker 1: is the old paperback film at this point, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not the not the cleloid at this at this point, um,
Speaker 1: but he has this invention. He's ready to uh find
Speaker 1: he's finally after you know, showing it to friends and
Speaker 1: family and you know, projecting these on on screens and
Speaker 1: his his laboratory or wherever you know, these private showings.
Speaker 1: He's ready to go with you to the public with this,
Speaker 1: to to show it publicly and then file for a
Speaker 1: patent in New York City here in the United States.
Speaker 1: And this is all going to happen in I believe
Speaker 1: in October of eighteen ninety, that's when it's supposed to happen.
Speaker 1: And so prior to that, you know, he's he's still
Speaker 1: kind of touring around and he's got his family trying
Speaker 1: to get things together in New York City, trying to
Speaker 1: get things like a place to do this, you know,
Speaker 1: a proper venue, etcetera, and uh, and they're working on
Speaker 1: the they've got it. He's still in France and he
Speaker 1: makes a trip to see his brother, which is expected
Speaker 1: at this point because I guess his his mother had
Speaker 1: just passed just prior to this, so his brother is
Speaker 1: in charge of the estate and kind of breaking up
Speaker 1: the estate and you know the will, I guess, you know,
Speaker 1: executing the will. So he makes a trip to Dijon, France,
Speaker 1: and he is he spends like three days as his brother,
Speaker 1: and who knows, you know, what's going on there, whether
Speaker 1: it's you know, they're talking about finances or whatever. I'm
Speaker 1: sure there's a lot to discuss at that point. But
Speaker 1: then his brother takes him to the train platform, you know,
Speaker 1: the other train um station there in town in Dijon,
Speaker 1: and it's a Dijon to Paris Express trains, so it's
Speaker 1: not gonna stop anywhere. It's gonna go straight from there,
Speaker 1: right to Paris, and he's back where he has to be.
Speaker 1: And then I think he's going to head to England
Speaker 1: and then to New York for this, for this, you know,
Speaker 1: the showing this patent awarding or whatever. Um. His brother
Speaker 1: says that he put him on the train on the platform,
Speaker 1: and that's the last anybody ever saw of the prince.
Speaker 1: He just disappears somewhere in between Dijon and in Paris
Speaker 1: on a NonStop train, on a NonStop train, he completely
Speaker 1: disappears and his luggage disappears. There's no paper record of
Speaker 1: him being on the train really, Um, other than his
Speaker 1: brother's word that he put him on the train, no
Speaker 1: one can remember seeing him on the train, Like he
Speaker 1: didn't share a cabin with anybody or anything like that.
Speaker 1: And this is a pretty notable guy. And aside front,
Speaker 1: the guy was six ft four, so he kind of
Speaker 1: stands out today. Yeah, he would, he's a tall guy. UM.
Speaker 1: I don't know how well how well known he was
Speaker 1: at that point, if anybody could really recognize him, I
Speaker 1: don't think that he was. Um, but there's really no
Speaker 1: sighting of him on the train. Itself, and certainly not
Speaker 1: in Paris when when it arrived. So obviously that seems
Speaker 1: suspicious like that. People don't normally disappear from trains. But
Speaker 1: uh so, so the question would be, are there any
Speaker 1: reasons people had to suspect foul play related to his invention?
Speaker 1: Other and just the fact that he was about to
Speaker 1: debut a hotly contested invention for which people would be
Speaker 1: competing for patents. Well, the timing is extremely convenient for
Speaker 1: anybody else who might be working on this a similar invention.
Speaker 1: I mean, so think about who that might be, and
Speaker 1: we'll talk about them in just a moment. All of
Speaker 1: this is going down on September sixteenth, eighteen ninety He's
Speaker 1: what forty nine years old at this point. Um, And again,
Speaker 1: just two months later, or even one month later, I
Speaker 1: believe he was supposed to be in New York to
Speaker 1: debut this this and this would have uh clearly, it
Speaker 1: would have revolutionized the industry. I mean, it was something
Speaker 1: that was going to make him a lot of money,
Speaker 1: no doubt about it. All Right, so he vanishes, But
Speaker 1: then what's the follow up. Who's looking for him? Well,
Speaker 1: of course there's going to be an investigation right, I
Speaker 1: mean his brother. His brother's word is that, you know,
Speaker 1: he put him on this train and and now he's
Speaker 1: just suddenly gone into thin air. Right. So Scotland Yard
Speaker 1: is on the case, and you would think Scotland Yard
Speaker 1: would do a pretty good decent, you know, examination of
Speaker 1: what's going on here an investigation. The French police are
Speaker 1: also looking and his family of course is searching for
Speaker 1: him as well, in addition to the other two agencies.
Speaker 1: So um, I don't know who they hired or how
Speaker 1: they went about that, the family themselves, but you've got
Speaker 1: three separate groups looking for him for years. Really, I
Speaker 1: mean they're they're they're trying to track him down, trying
Speaker 1: to figure out exactly what happened, because again, it doesn't
Speaker 1: just happen like this. So um, it's just a real
Speaker 1: strange occurrence. So if he disappeared, could you tell initially
Speaker 1: what the predominant theory was like at the time. Did
Speaker 1: they think he was dead or did they think he
Speaker 1: had run off for what? You know, I don't know
Speaker 1: if there was a predominant theory at that time. I
Speaker 1: think there were just so many different thoughts going through
Speaker 1: everybody's head, like what could have happened to this guy.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a lot a lot of these came
Speaker 1: up later in time. I mean, some of them are like,
Speaker 1: you know, discussed in the nineteen sixties. You know, so
Speaker 1: we're still talking about this guy seventy five plus years
Speaker 1: later with a new theory about what might have happened.
Speaker 1: But there are there are three or four main theories
Speaker 1: that have been tossed around for the last in twenty
Speaker 1: nine years now. The more recent theories are going to
Speaker 1: you know, pertain to our our our modern interpretations and
Speaker 1: really why we remember this guy. But but at the time,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking it's like, surely they probably approached this in
Speaker 1: the same way one might approach a modern disappearance, and
Speaker 1: they would look too, They would looked to family, they
Speaker 1: would look to you know, connections and major stressors in
Speaker 1: their personal life. I mean, this is a guy who
Speaker 1: recently lost a loved one, may have been involved in something,
Speaker 1: and I mean was definitely involved in some sort of
Speaker 1: a state, uh situation. Sure yeah, um, And uh you know,
Speaker 1: I guess we can just talk about the very first theory,
Speaker 1: which was of course suicide. They thought maybe he had
Speaker 1: jumped from the train on his own somewhere between Dijon
Speaker 1: and Paris. But they searched, you know, track side that
Speaker 1: whole distance, didn't find anything. Didn't find of course, you know,
Speaker 1: why would he take his luggage with him? If he
Speaker 1: did that and all that, it would make it even
Speaker 1: more visible if you know there's the body and luggage somewhere,
Speaker 1: you know, in the woods in between or something like that,
Speaker 1: or you've jumped off a bridge or right. Okay, So
Speaker 1: I guess I'd have two questions about that. Number One,
Speaker 1: if anybody thinks that suicide, is there any physical evidence
Speaker 1: to indicate that. No physical evidence. That's the thing. All
Speaker 1: of this is just circumstantial evidence because there's nobody there's
Speaker 1: there's no proof of anything. No one saw him, there's
Speaker 1: no witnesses. But the theory, I think that one of
Speaker 1: the theories behind the suicide thought is that um, he
Speaker 1: was he was in a significant amount of debt when
Speaker 1: he died. That was the other thing I was gonna ask. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so he's you know, he's an eventuorre. He's probably borrowing,
Speaker 1: taking loans some people to get these inventions off the ground,
Speaker 1: these fledgling inventions. And I have seen numbers around and
Speaker 1: you know, these numbers are suspect because they come from
Speaker 1: a lot of different places and you read different numbers everywhere.
Speaker 1: But they said that he was somewhere around eighty four
Speaker 1: thousand dollars in debt at the time of his death.
Speaker 1: That would have been a lot of money, and it
Speaker 1: still has a lot of money, I guess, but it
Speaker 1: would be so much more in you know what kind
Speaker 1: of an unheard of amount. And um, he I guess
Speaker 1: he didn't really know the um the true success of
Speaker 1: his of his new invention. He wouldn't know exactly what
Speaker 1: that would have brought him, the windfall that that would
Speaker 1: have meant. I mean, I knew he he thought it
Speaker 1: was big, and of course he was trying to patent it.
Speaker 1: But um, I don't think he had any comprehension of
Speaker 1: the type of money that that would have brought in
Speaker 1: had that been the fact. It's it's not very likely
Speaker 1: that he committed suicide either, because he did have this.
Speaker 1: He had a loving family. He there were a lot
Speaker 1: of letters that were shared between um, you know later
Speaker 1: on that were shown between him and his wife and
Speaker 1: other members of his family, and you know, his whole
Speaker 1: family was behind him. They were all supportive. It wasn't like,
Speaker 1: you know, he was um, I don't know. It wasn't
Speaker 1: like he was ostracized in some way, you know, he was.
Speaker 1: He was definitely a tight part of this, this close
Speaker 1: knit family. So the suicide theory is rather unlikely for
Speaker 1: a few reasons. All Right, we need to take a
Speaker 1: quick break, but we'll be right back with more. All right,
Speaker 1: we're back now. I know. Another one of the theories,
Speaker 1: which I guess maybe we can get to next, is
Speaker 1: the one that involves some kind of industrial escapade or
Speaker 1: do should we do that next? Or why? It's another
Speaker 1: very popular one, right, So I do think we want
Speaker 1: to be careful not to just blithely throw out historical
Speaker 1: murder accusations. But we wouldn't be doing this from out
Speaker 1: another out of nowhere like other people have sort of
Speaker 1: alleged this based on just circumstances, right, sure, Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: all circumstantial. Everything is in this in this case again,
Speaker 1: there's nothing really concrete here to hold onto. Yeah, alright,
Speaker 1: So the theory if you if you want me to
Speaker 1: just jump right into it, you get to jump right in.
Speaker 1: So it's the timing is so suspecting this, and we
Speaker 1: we mentioned, you know, there's somebody else involved, and Thomas
Speaker 1: Edizen's name gets thrown into the mix quite often when
Speaker 1: we're talking about this, that that Thomas Edison actually had
Speaker 1: um Louis La Prince assassinated on that train or somewhere
Speaker 1: near that train. Now, was this something that was alleged
Speaker 1: by anyone at the time or was it only an
Speaker 1: accusation that was alleged like historically as an interpretation many
Speaker 1: years later. I believe that the family thought initially that
Speaker 1: that's what this was all about, because and I don't
Speaker 1: think initially I don't think they initially came up with
Speaker 1: this theory. I think that later we will find out,
Speaker 1: you know, there's some other things that go on to
Speaker 1: that that kind of they kind of demonized Thomas Yson
Speaker 1: a little bit um um in the way that the
Speaker 1: patent was eventually handled. We'll get to it. Well, I
Speaker 1: do know I read right, Am I wrong in saying
Speaker 1: that at some point um Louis La Prince's wife said
Speaker 1: that he had left New York because he was trying
Speaker 1: to escape being pursued by industrial spies. Yeah, so there's
Speaker 1: some background there, a little bit you know that there
Speaker 1: is there, there is a little bit of that intrigue
Speaker 1: that you know, there could be something going on there
Speaker 1: that's a little more nefarious than we would like to
Speaker 1: to think now of this person, you know, Thomas Edison. Um.
Speaker 1: But then again that's like secondhand hearsay, right exactly, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Now. A lot of this is I mean
Speaker 1: a lot of it is you know, you know, this
Speaker 1: person said this to this agency and they reported that,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's just it gets kind of distributed
Speaker 1: or passed down and it changes a little bit along
Speaker 1: the way. Right. And then also like if someone is
Speaker 1: you know, allegedly speaking to paranoia about industrial spies following
Speaker 1: them around like that, also, I mean you could interpret
Speaker 1: that as being a sign of of you know, some
Speaker 1: form of you know, not conspiracy, but perhaps you know,
Speaker 1: mental illness. Oh sure, that's also possible. And we're not
Speaker 1: we're stress. We should say this right now. I guess
Speaker 1: we haven't even said this. But but Thomas Edison wouldn't
Speaker 1: have been you know, the hit man. He wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been the guy, you know, the guy pulling the cord
Speaker 1: tight around the other guy's neck or anything. It would
Speaker 1: have been hinchman. Or if if it was you know
Speaker 1: something of that you were thinking of from Russia with
Speaker 1: love as well. We can't help to think of all
Speaker 1: the cinemat tin, piano wire and all that Thomas Edison
Speaker 1: played by what's his name? Quint Oh, yeah, Robert Shaw
Speaker 1: come up all right, So I mean it's it's fascinating
Speaker 1: the timing of all of when all this happens, and
Speaker 1: the way that Edison then benefited from the death of
Speaker 1: Louis la prince Um via the patent. So remind us
Speaker 1: again exactly of the timing here. Okay, So the timing
Speaker 1: is that in I guess it would be September sixteenth
Speaker 1: of eighteen nineties when Louis the Prince went went missing,
Speaker 1: and again Edison was simultaneously working on his own camera,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't ready yet at the time, very very
Speaker 1: close now that they got their patents in. Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: and he was supposed to have the showing are the
Speaker 1: the public viewing of his device is is his camera
Speaker 1: the Prince was the Prince was in October of eighteen
Speaker 1: ninety So the timing is just far too convenient for Edison.
Speaker 1: It raised a lot of eyebrows, that's supposed to say,
Speaker 1: because he benefited in such a tremendous way from this
Speaker 1: because his name is now tied in with the birth
Speaker 1: of cinematography, the birth of motion pictures. Really, um as
Speaker 1: our Loomier brothers who came about just a little bit later,
Speaker 1: I believe, right. Um, so nobody's alleged, I mean, even
Speaker 1: if there's not much to these allegations, nobody's alleged that
Speaker 1: the loomi Are brothers were involved. No, absolutely not, No,
Speaker 1: it's all it's all focused on. Yeah, that's right, because well,
Speaker 1: the Lomiere brothers, I think like one of the things
Speaker 1: there is that a lot of the interpretations are that
Speaker 1: they they didn't necessarily see the long term future of
Speaker 1: this technology themselves, so they don't seem to have the
Speaker 1: character of like, you know, viciously plotting for their their
Speaker 1: you know, their their takeover of the culture via there
Speaker 1: at this new tech that they've developed. No, no, absolutely not.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, that shouldn't their names shouldn't really come into
Speaker 1: the assassination. Um I'm theory at all. I mean, but
Speaker 1: we'll stick with Edison being the scapegoat on that one.
Speaker 1: And you know, as funny as as reading this, you'll
Speaker 1: come across so many different versions of this in the
Speaker 1: way that this all went down. And and Joe, you
Speaker 1: and I had a discussion earlier in the office about
Speaker 1: about some of the stuff that's very very misleading. Oh, yes,
Speaker 1: that's right. Well, I mean, so there is one I
Speaker 1: was looking for good like, you know, articles in journals,
Speaker 1: like journals that would cover the history of photography and
Speaker 1: stuff like that, peer reviewed kind of things. And there's
Speaker 1: one article that is widely cited around the Internet that
Speaker 1: alleges the discovery of a diary entry by Thomas Edison
Speaker 1: from where he essentially confesses to the murder. Do you
Speaker 1: have the exact words? If you do, I want to
Speaker 1: be clear. We're gonna heavily caveat this in a second. Yeah, yeah, okay.
Speaker 1: So supposedly, should I tell where this letter came from
Speaker 1: or do you want the exact note? Yeah? Go ahead,
Speaker 1: all right. So this supposedly comes from a graduate student
Speaker 1: at the University of New York UM named Alexis Bedford,
Speaker 1: And in two thousand and eight it was it was
Speaker 1: said that he was he was studying uh chemistry and
Speaker 1: photography and was conducting research into history of motion pictures
Speaker 1: for about a year and a half prior to this discovery.
Speaker 1: And the search leads him to what they called the
Speaker 1: inner Forgotten Archives of the New York Library's hysterious already, right,
Speaker 1: it's probably room full of dusty books and all that.
Speaker 1: So he's finding, um, you know, these journals, these notes,
Speaker 1: these pages, and you know that that are actually the
Speaker 1: work of Thomas Citizen. And he stumbles across this book
Speaker 1: that's just kind of fallen apart. It's a leather bound book.
Speaker 1: It's very dusty and old, but it's a journal of
Speaker 1: Thomas Edizen. That would be fantastic to find something like that.
Speaker 1: That was, you know, at this point undiscovered. Really, it
Speaker 1: was just put in on the shelf and left um
Speaker 1: in the journal. You know, of course he jotted, and
Speaker 1: he was known to keep journals like this where jot
Speaker 1: down ideas and thoughts and sketches. All most inventors do that,
Speaker 1: all of them do, probably. But he finds the following
Speaker 1: note and it's got the date of September nine, which
Speaker 1: is four days after the Prince went missing. And the
Speaker 1: note says exactly, Eric called me today from Dijon. It
Speaker 1: has been done. Prince is no more. This is good news.
Speaker 1: But I flinched when he told me murder is not
Speaker 1: my thing. I'm an inventor, and my inventions for moving
Speaker 1: images can now move forward. That's the end of the entry.
Speaker 1: So I have seen this cited all over in like
Speaker 1: blog posts and even in books I looked at. This
Speaker 1: has been cited in books as evidence of Edison's involvement
Speaker 1: in this supposed murder. I am ninety nine point nine
Speaker 1: nine certain that this is a work of fiction. And
Speaker 1: I don't mean a work of fraud. I don't mean
Speaker 1: like a something that is trying to be passed off
Speaker 1: as nonfiction. I believe that this article is intentionally published
Speaker 1: as a work of fiction that has been misinterpreted as
Speaker 1: a as like a straightforward report of a real event.
Speaker 1: What led you to believe it? And there are a
Speaker 1: bunch of things. I mean, number one, it's well never
Speaker 1: why it's if this were true. This is just a
Speaker 1: straight up murder confession, yes, you know, or at least
Speaker 1: conspiracy to murder. Well, I mean, the the language of
Speaker 1: it is somewhat an achronistic. It is not my thing.
Speaker 1: Uh uh Well, I mean, on one hand, I want
Speaker 1: to say, as a work of fiction, I think this
Speaker 1: isn't that bad, it's it's it's kind of interesting. But
Speaker 1: so I tried to look up the names that are
Speaker 1: cited in this article, like of the student who discovered this,
Speaker 1: and of another historian who's named in this article. I
Speaker 1: can't find evidence of these people. They don't appear to
Speaker 1: me to be real people. Um, there's of course that problem.
Speaker 1: One thing that I noticed is that it says Edison
Speaker 1: says in his confession from eighteen ninety and his diaries
Speaker 1: that he says Eric called me today from Dijon. So
Speaker 1: in eighteen ninety he received a transatlantic phone call. That
Speaker 1: is not possible. I do not think there were transatlantic
Speaker 1: phone calls in eighteen ninety. I know when the first
Speaker 1: one was made. Oh yeah, yeah, I was January seven,
Speaker 1: So thirty seven years after this call was supposedly made.
Speaker 1: Is when is when he claims this? This note claims
Speaker 1: that he received a phone call. I think we've had
Speaker 1: a problem here of just mislabeling an article from a
Speaker 1: journal that should have been clearly noted as a piece
Speaker 1: of fiction but has confused a lot of people, right,
Speaker 1: And it could have been more clearly labeled in the
Speaker 1: print version, but was then digitized that's possible. Yeah, correctly
Speaker 1: you said earlier as well, Robert, that you know, there
Speaker 1: have been pieces of fiction that have been passed off
Speaker 1: as scientific well, or at least have been published in
Speaker 1: scientific journals, not even necessarily passed right, just like presenting
Speaker 1: like hey, like Peter Watts was the example came up.
Speaker 1: Peter Watts former marine biologists uh turned sci fi writer,
Speaker 1: and some of his works of short fiction have appeared
Speaker 1: in scientific journals. Um, but but they were they were
Speaker 1: they were not presented as a science. But then again,
Speaker 1: if if the scie can well imagine where of a
Speaker 1: journal were digitized, I wouldn't even say incorrectly, but without
Speaker 1: like sufficient u uh, you know, metadata, metadata or branding,
Speaker 1: like you could have something that is that that his
Speaker 1: fiction would show up and be like, oh, well, here's this,
Speaker 1: here's this murder confession, uh just shows up out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: Al Right. It seems completely implausible, doesn't it you. No,
Speaker 1: I do not think this happened. I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: think so. No. No, I just I don't put a
Speaker 1: whole lot of stock behind it. But I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people do. A lot of people like the
Speaker 1: intrigue of of thinking that you know Edison was really
Speaker 1: that bad that he would have somebody off over an invention.
Speaker 1: He did kill Topsy the elephant and horses, and yeah,
Speaker 1: yeah he was. He liked to experiment with electricity, didn't he.
Speaker 1: I mean, Tom, I'm not saying I think it's impossible
Speaker 1: that Thomas Edison had something to do with this, but
Speaker 1: I definitely ly think that this thing about his murder
Speaker 1: confession in the diary is a work of fiction that
Speaker 1: has been misinterpreted as a real factual article. And number two,
Speaker 1: I don't know we should be careful about making historical
Speaker 1: accusations of murder just based on circumstantial evidence because remind
Speaker 1: us again, there is no physical evidence of this whatsoever,
Speaker 1: No nothing concrete at all of it. But but there
Speaker 1: is often this this this tendency I think to want
Speaker 1: to see the past in movie form, and you know,
Speaker 1: and which is around iven we're talking about motion pictures.
Speaker 1: We want to see it dramaticized, you know, we want
Speaker 1: to think it more along the lines of the prestige
Speaker 1: you know, with with it had a villainous Edison and
Speaker 1: a right who did send Henchman to like hack up
Speaker 1: testlas stuff. Yeah, it's great well, okay, maybe maybe it's possible,
Speaker 1: but not not really then likely, Yeah, I'd go with that. Okay,
Speaker 1: all right, So that was that was a second one.
Speaker 1: There's a there's actually three. They're five here total if
Speaker 1: you want, because I'm kind of all right. So number
Speaker 1: three would be the disappearance. That was a disappearance that
Speaker 1: was ordered by the family. Now, again pretty unlikely in
Speaker 1: this case because it was a tight knit family. We
Speaker 1: do know that from notes that were passed between family members.
Speaker 1: It was a loving, tight knit group. His brother is
Speaker 1: the last one to see him alive, and there's this
Speaker 1: whole state business. Yeah that's right. Well that's yeah exactly,
Speaker 1: So that's a that's a possibility. The the disappearance that
Speaker 1: was ordered by the family was something that was born
Speaker 1: out of the idea that La Prince could have been
Speaker 1: a closeted homosexual that you know, he had a family,
Speaker 1: had kids. However, he was carrying on these these other
Speaker 1: relationships that were homosexual in nature, and the family was
Speaker 1: at the time embarrassed by this and sent him away
Speaker 1: to live somewhere else without them. You know that he
Speaker 1: was kind of the shame of the family at this point.
Speaker 1: So like they banished him into some kind of exile
Speaker 1: because he was gay exactly. Yea, that's the thought, that's
Speaker 1: the theory. And you know, I think that this is
Speaker 1: one of the ones that comes about much later. I
Speaker 1: think this is like from a nineteen sixty six French
Speaker 1: film history book where the guy Jacques I'll mess up
Speaker 1: the last name here, but the Land I'll say that's
Speaker 1: it's probably his name close to it anyway. Um, he
Speaker 1: suggested that his disappearance was because of his family. They
Speaker 1: disapproved of his homosexuality, so they think that he fled
Speaker 1: to Chicago, where he died in nineteen I'm sorry, naturally,
Speaker 1: And again, I know these numbers are coming out of nowhere,
Speaker 1: and there's not a shred of you know, evidence or
Speaker 1: proof that that's what happened. But it's just a theory.
Speaker 1: It's another theory that and I don't know why the
Speaker 1: Land thinks that, but he does. I mean in much
Speaker 1: in the same way that it's possible that Edison, you know,
Speaker 1: orchestrated and murder. I mean, certainly we could imagine that
Speaker 1: this being the case. I mean, it certainly lines up
Speaker 1: with you know, with homophobia at the during that time period.
Speaker 1: And um, but I would, well, like, what's the actual it?
Speaker 1: And so I think I've read a critique of this
Speaker 1: theory that said that there's really no evidence that he
Speaker 1: was gay. Now there's no there's no evidence of any
Speaker 1: of this, Yeah, none of it, I mean, and not
Speaker 1: that he lived in Chicago, not that he died in Um.
Speaker 1: When I say there's no proof of that, there's no,
Speaker 1: there's really nothing to this. It's just another theory that
Speaker 1: was thrown out there again as late as nineteen sixty six,
Speaker 1: so we're talking, uh, seventy six years later after the
Speaker 1: guy has gone. It's just a theory that was posited
Speaker 1: by somebody that you know, you could grab onto and
Speaker 1: say like, well it's possible. You know. This reminds me
Speaker 1: a lot of you know, Jack the Ripper theories. So
Speaker 1: it's except more limited in scope, I guess. But you know,
Speaker 1: Alan Moore's whole uh evaluation of that is that it
Speaker 1: ultimately is this uh, this couch snowflake scenario, the whole
Speaker 1: like Freemason conspiracy with the what the surgeon to the
Speaker 1: Queen Victoria? Oh yeah, I mean, there there's so many
Speaker 1: different version but ultimately, like his argument was, there's we
Speaker 1: only know so much and we will only ever know
Speaker 1: so much, and uh, you know, it's just kind of
Speaker 1: an exercise and how many a little uh a little
Speaker 1: you know, blank spaces we can fill in. I think
Speaker 1: actual historians of the period think that, like that whole
Speaker 1: theory is like definitely wrong for Jack the Ripper, right,
Speaker 1: at least that's what I've read. Yeah, well, sure, I
Speaker 1: mean it's all possible, right, Deep Cooper is another one, right,
Speaker 1: you can ever talk about clue in the face, and
Speaker 1: and of course there's always it seems like there's every
Speaker 1: couple of years as someone who's making a deathbed confession
Speaker 1: that they are dB Cooper or their father was dB.
Speaker 1: And it's kind of safe to do that. In the
Speaker 1: same way it's safe to to continue to make a
Speaker 1: lot of ultimately kind of like crazy ideas because we
Speaker 1: don't know and we probably never will know. That's exactly
Speaker 1: the scenario with this here. And so what you're telling
Speaker 1: us is that Thomas Edison wrote the Dear Boss Letter
Speaker 1: like he was the Ripper. That's right. He did the
Speaker 1: White Chapel murders because, let's see, because he was afraid
Speaker 1: that they would get ahead of him on some kind
Speaker 1: of knife patent. That's good theory, good theory, very likely
Speaker 1: to back back to this case, though, what are some
Speaker 1: more of our theories? Alright, So the the other one
Speaker 1: and this is really one of the last ones that
Speaker 1: you'll hear about. But then I've got another one I
Speaker 1: want to throw in there too, um for retricide, which
Speaker 1: is his brother killed him. Oh well, again coming back
Speaker 1: to his brother, and exactly right, I mean it could
Speaker 1: it have been over money, you know, his mother's will.
Speaker 1: You know that. Did his brother get greedy and want
Speaker 1: to take his share as well? And that's a that's
Speaker 1: an entirely possible scenario. I mean, the only prince, the
Speaker 1: only person that saw the prince at the Dijon station
Speaker 1: was his brother. No one else saw him on the train,
Speaker 1: no one else really, I don't even don't know if
Speaker 1: there's a report of him being seen on the platform
Speaker 1: even but his brother swears that that's the last place
Speaker 1: that he saw him. He put him on the train
Speaker 1: with his luggage and that was it. Then he just,
Speaker 1: you know, disappears into the midst somewhere. Well, I guess
Speaker 1: a suspicion very often does fall when somebody disappears on
Speaker 1: the last person to have seen them, right. Yeah. And
Speaker 1: the other thing is, you know, of course, you know,
Speaker 1: Scotland Yard and the French police and even the people
Speaker 1: that were invest getting for the family, they all eventually
Speaker 1: interviewed everybody that was on that train that night. There
Speaker 1: was no uh you sense that anything aggressive was happening,
Speaker 1: you know next door in the cabin or you know
Speaker 1: that they they heard or saw anybody being thrown from
Speaker 1: the train or jumping from the train or anything unusual.
Speaker 1: And there was nothing really out of place on that
Speaker 1: whole thing. It's just it's almost it's it's like he
Speaker 1: was never there. And I think that's the idea, is
Speaker 1: that he really was never there, never exactly the thought
Speaker 1: behind this is that his brother had him disappear. To
Speaker 1: put it politely, one more theory, Okay, I'll let it go.
Speaker 1: There's there's other people that kind of throw this around
Speaker 1: and talk about it, and um in a way that
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense with a lot of what we've just
Speaker 1: told you. So that's they all have some kind of
Speaker 1: hole in the in the story. But um, there's a
Speaker 1: theory that he actually did make it to Paris and
Speaker 1: he was on the train, took his luggage off the train,
Speaker 1: but somehow wasn't seen by anybody the whole time, and
Speaker 1: you know, had to take a cab from the train station,
Speaker 1: which with the train I think would have arrived around
Speaker 1: eleven pm, so very late. He was going to go
Speaker 1: to a lab or you know, somewhere to work, maybe
Speaker 1: a study or something in the house. And the theory
Speaker 1: is that, you know, the the coach that he took
Speaker 1: from the train station to wherever he was going to,
Speaker 1: the person who was driving the coach likely just you know,
Speaker 1: knocked him over the head stoleg'e luggage, you know, which
Speaker 1: probably had some cameras and things and you are, some devices,
Speaker 1: photographic devices and uh, and simply dumped him in the river.
Speaker 1: And that was happening, I guess quite a bit at
Speaker 1: that time. If you go back and investigate um, you know, murders,
Speaker 1: at the time, it was not all that uncommon for
Speaker 1: someone just to be kind of off quickly overnight like that,
Speaker 1: um dumped in the river, never to be seen again
Speaker 1: or found as a supposed drowned victim. And there's kind
Speaker 1: of an interesting twist to that too, is that in
Speaker 1: two thousand three, uh, someone's going through the Paris Police
Speaker 1: archives and found a photograph of a drowning victim from
Speaker 1: that looked a lot like Ui Le Prince. Really, yeah,
Speaker 1: so there is a photograph of a drowning victim that
Speaker 1: does match his description, that does look like him. Um,
Speaker 1: and that's a possibility that he did drown or somebody
Speaker 1: you know often made it look like a drowning and
Speaker 1: that's when he was discovered. Well, this is this whole idea,
Speaker 1: just the basic idea that maybe he did make it
Speaker 1: to Paris. Like that opens it up tremendously because there
Speaker 1: are only so many ways to die on an express
Speaker 1: train to Paris, but there are hundreds of ways to
Speaker 1: die in metropolitan Paris. But how does a six ft
Speaker 1: four man, you know, blend in and not even make
Speaker 1: his appearance, you know, known on any of the cabins,
Speaker 1: you know, if it's a full train, I don't know.
Speaker 1: So why why do they think he didn't arrive in Paris? Like,
Speaker 1: who who would have seen him there? Well? He was gosh,
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't know. He was scheduled to
Speaker 1: go there to meet with friends I think, and then
Speaker 1: a return trip to England. So maybe maybe people were
Speaker 1: supposed to meet him in Paris and didn't, or maybe
Speaker 1: he was supposed to meet them after, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess picking up a friend at eleven o'clock at
Speaker 1: the train station. That's kind of like it is now,
Speaker 1: you know, picking up a friend at eleven o'clock at
Speaker 1: the airport. It's not not a great favor to ask
Speaker 1: of somebody, you know that sometimes you have to. But
Speaker 1: maybe maybe they didn't they maybe they said you can
Speaker 1: catch a cab, you know, meet me at this hotel
Speaker 1: in the morning or something like that. This is all
Speaker 1: again just theory. I don't really know that the surrounding
Speaker 1: story about what was supposed to happen in Paris when
Speaker 1: when he made it there. Um, But yeah, maybe he
Speaker 1: did make it, maybe he didn't, We don't know. But
Speaker 1: he's the theory again, the predominating or predominant theory is
Speaker 1: that he went missing somewhere between Dijon and Paris. He
Speaker 1: never really made it there. There's a lot of different
Speaker 1: you know, ideas tossed about, and I'm sure you can
Speaker 1: come up with five more you know, scenarios that that
Speaker 1: might make sense. But the timing is just all very
Speaker 1: very strange. Because again, this this this whole thing comes
Speaker 1: back to this, this patent that never really happened, but
Speaker 1: then Edison kind of swooped in and took the patent
Speaker 1: the family. I guess you would think the family could
Speaker 1: patent his devices. Um. I read somewhere that there is
Speaker 1: like a seven year waiting period between when somebody goes
Speaker 1: missing and you can I don't know if this is
Speaker 1: a U. S. Patent law or what, but you're not
Speaker 1: able to patent the family members item until after the
Speaker 1: person is officially declared dead. And I think he was
Speaker 1: declared dead in even so that was seven years later.
Speaker 1: But in that time for in that window of time,
Speaker 1: that's when Edison came in with his his new camera
Speaker 1: and patented that device, and of course made a fortune
Speaker 1: on the royalties. So just interesting timing with all this.
Speaker 1: And of course you know they're that's sparked many patent wars.
Speaker 1: We know they're patent wars that were happening at the
Speaker 1: time over many many different things. I mean, the Right
Speaker 1: Blood Right Brothers, they fought patent wars for about eleven years,
Speaker 1: and the same thing with Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone.
Speaker 1: It took something like eleven years and like six hundred lawsuits.
Speaker 1: I think there was a huge over the telephone. There's
Speaker 1: a huge patent fight just over celluloid film, because it
Speaker 1: was apparent first developed in a sort of vague way
Speaker 1: with a kind of poorly worded patent by uh, by
Speaker 1: an episcopalian minister from New Jersey named Hannibal Goodwin. I
Speaker 1: think that's right, hannibals right, yeah, I just looked it up.
Speaker 1: That's right, Hannibal Goodwin. Um. But then also that he
Speaker 1: was in competition with the patent fond celluloid film that
Speaker 1: belong to the Eastman company. Uh and so they fought
Speaker 1: over that. Of course, Eastman was producing you know, celluloid
Speaker 1: film at at at bulk like enough to sell it
Speaker 1: to Edison, and Goodwin was not. This still happens today.
Speaker 1: I mean, Sony and Kodak were in a patent war
Speaker 1: that lasted until two thousand seven over digital cameras. So
Speaker 1: it's you know, newer technology, but you know they're still
Speaker 1: fighting these same type of type of wars. You know,
Speaker 1: it happened with radio, it happened with cars, airplanes, name
Speaker 1: any big invention in light bulbs, it all, you know,
Speaker 1: went through the courts in some way, many many different times,
Speaker 1: and you know, there was always a addle over who
Speaker 1: who invented it first and who has the rights to
Speaker 1: it and gets the money from it. And then here
Speaker 1: can then come to the patent trolls. Uh that's right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there are people that are pat controls, that's right, who
Speaker 1: just kinda scoop up the patents from other people that
Speaker 1: are more deserve are they're completely deserving of that patent
Speaker 1: um and they take a course the credit for it.
Speaker 1: And and I guess maybe medicine would you know, would
Speaker 1: he count as possibly a pat control? I mean, he
Speaker 1: had a different scenario. We talked about his labs and
Speaker 1: you know how he had, you know, lots of inventors
Speaker 1: working under his umbrella of Edison Labs, and that was
Speaker 1: something different maybe, But um, yeah, he's well, I do
Speaker 1: think Edison was not above pouncing on somebody else's idea
Speaker 1: if he thought he could get there first. I think
Speaker 1: so too, you know, I don't I don't know if
Speaker 1: you would think that this would all kind of play
Speaker 1: out smoothly in the courts, and it certainly didn't. I mean,
Speaker 1: it wasn't wasn't as as cut and dry as you
Speaker 1: might think, Um La Prince, La Prince's son ate. His
Speaker 1: name is Adolph Um. He appeared in court, I guess
Speaker 1: as a witness for the defense in a case that
Speaker 1: was brought by Thomas Edison against a company called the
Speaker 1: American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. That is an interesting and
Speaker 1: interesting thing about that is that company was founded in
Speaker 1: by William Kennedy Dixon, who was the guy that worked
Speaker 1: under Edison at his lab to create the camera. He
Speaker 1: developed a camera. He's the one who really did all
Speaker 1: you know, the um the photographic work on it, against
Speaker 1: the lenses and you know the film and all that,
Speaker 1: you know, the technology that made that work. Really, yes,
Speaker 1: so he's the one. He's the founder of that company.
Speaker 1: So Edison is suing him. But La Prince, Uh, Adolph
Speaker 1: La Prince his son again comes in and and testifies
Speaker 1: Um as a witness for the defense in this court case.
Speaker 1: And he claims in that court case that La Prince
Speaker 1: was the first and only inventor of cinematography. So he
Speaker 1: kind of throws in this bombshell into the into the proceedings,
Speaker 1: and he says, of course because of that family, UM,
Speaker 1: my dad had been you know, his dad had been
Speaker 1: declared dead the year prior is then, um, they should
Speaker 1: be getting receiving the royalties for this award for this uh,
Speaker 1: this device, and of course the patent that goes along
Speaker 1: with it, you know, the whole process, right. Well, he
Speaker 1: was unable to submit his dad's cameras as evidence in
Speaker 1: that court case. For some reason. The judge said, no,
Speaker 1: you can't. You can't show me these cameras. He wasn't
Speaker 1: able to put it into um, into the cases as evidence.
Speaker 1: And so the court ruled in favor of Edison in
Speaker 1: that particular case. But a couple of years later they
Speaker 1: overturned that and you know that the direction was reversed
Speaker 1: or the decision was versed rather. But this is another
Speaker 1: interesting twist in the story is that Adolph was he's
Speaker 1: a young man at this time. He's twenty nine years old. Um,
Speaker 1: like two I think it's two years later it was,
Speaker 1: and I'm sorry, three years later. It was a nineteen
Speaker 1: o one. So he's twenty nine. He's out hunting, duck
Speaker 1: hunting near his family cottage which is on fire eye
Speaker 1: into New York State, and he ends up being shot
Speaker 1: to death. And I don't know if he was hunting alone.
Speaker 1: If he was hunting with somebody, you would think that
Speaker 1: all this would have been a little bit more um,
Speaker 1: you know, public knowledge, you know what happened. But but
Speaker 1: the the recording of this is that he was just
Speaker 1: simply found dead after he was out duck hunting, with
Speaker 1: his his own rifle at his side. They don't know
Speaker 1: if it was suicide, if it was an accident, of course,
Speaker 1: it could have been either one of those. Right, But
Speaker 1: the mother, you know, the widow now La Prince, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the mother of Adolph, says that she thinks
Speaker 1: that it's the second murder, that you know, the kid
Speaker 1: simply knew too much and because he had testified in court,
Speaker 1: everybody else knew what he knew now and and that
Speaker 1: was the reason for another merger. So there's another murder
Speaker 1: mystery at the end of that. One that's never really
Speaker 1: been solved either. Is that, you know, the sun turns
Speaker 1: up dead at a young age just two years later,
Speaker 1: three years later. So obviously the Edison villainists are yeah,
Speaker 1: but they think he was involved in that too. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, that's again that's another thing. Yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: possibility of what happened. But then on the same hand,
Speaker 1: you can see why murder does not need to actually
Speaker 1: be involved for one to for especially with this family,
Speaker 1: to um to have you know, some degree of hatred
Speaker 1: or distrust of Edison, of course, and therefore it's not
Speaker 1: that much more of elite than given. You know, if
Speaker 1: you especially if you're distraught over you know, yet another
Speaker 1: untimely death slash disappearance in the family, to do you know,
Speaker 1: jump to this uh this next uh you know level
Speaker 1: of accusation for sure, and they're going to point to
Speaker 1: the villain that they already know. Yeah, he's already established
Speaker 1: as the villain of the piece, the villain of the family.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, yeah, yeah, So I mean again, I
Speaker 1: think this is just a fascinating part of history and
Speaker 1: something that I never expected to come across when we're
Speaker 1: talking about motion picture cameras. Yeah, I mean, it's strange
Speaker 1: how you know that this story just I don't know.
Speaker 1: It captivated me right from the beginning, but it's strange
Speaker 1: the twists and turns that this story tastes all right.
Speaker 1: Time to take a quick break, but we'll be right back. Alright,
Speaker 1: we're back. So on the disappearance of La prince Um.
Speaker 1: If you you you're someone who I think you've got
Speaker 1: a good sense for for crime and and on cold
Speaker 1: cases and all that. If you had to go with
Speaker 1: your gut feeling, what do you think you'd say is
Speaker 1: most likely to you, what feels most right to you,
Speaker 1: What feels most right to me is that his brother
Speaker 1: killed him. Yeah, yeah, And if he means having to
Speaker 1: do with the inheritance or I do, and I think
Speaker 1: that it's uh, Um, I think because of money is
Speaker 1: just such a strong factor in a lot of these cases,
Speaker 1: and especially you know when you're talking about among family
Speaker 1: members where they're supposedly tight, but money does come between
Speaker 1: people like that, and it's unfortunate, but it happens. And
Speaker 1: maybe he didn't have the he didn't have the the
Speaker 1: foresight to know that. You know, his brother would have
Speaker 1: been so much better off. He wouldn't have been you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know, burden, I don't know. I don't know
Speaker 1: how better to put that. Maybe I'm saying that wrong
Speaker 1: that you know, he wasn't really a burden. It's just
Speaker 1: that he stood to make twice the amount of money
Speaker 1: from the inheritance as he would if his brother was
Speaker 1: still around. Um, he could take his share and um,
Speaker 1: you know it's just downright greed. Yeah yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I but ultimately, again this is just a circumstantial hunt,
Speaker 1: right yeah, yeah, exactly right. I mean, any of them,
Speaker 1: any of these theories are are possible, not very likely
Speaker 1: some of them. But but I think that the the
Speaker 1: frighter side is probably the one that is closest to
Speaker 1: you know, but correct. I think. Yeah, so what about
Speaker 1: either of you and he gut feelings on on what
Speaker 1: it might be. I mean, on one level, we I
Speaker 1: mean we already we talked about my Bridge, who definitely
Speaker 1: commurdered somebody. There's no question about that. Yeah. So there's
Speaker 1: so so the idea that there there are you know,
Speaker 1: there there might be a murder in a photographic motion
Speaker 1: picture history. You know, I'm I'm already on board with
Speaker 1: that reality. Um, I guess. I mean I like your
Speaker 1: argument though, I mean, when you come down to, like,
Speaker 1: what are the reasons that homicides are committed? Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: generally it's going to be some sort of you know,
Speaker 1: a family connection or you know, somebody the victim knew,
Speaker 1: uh not some shadowy organization that was plotting against them.
Speaker 1: So it seems like that that that and Also it
Speaker 1: removes the whole mystery of where how do they disappear
Speaker 1: on the train? Uh? You know? And if he if he,
Speaker 1: you know, jumped to his death, why did he take
Speaker 1: his luggage with him? And then why was that body
Speaker 1: and or that luggage never found? So h yeah, I
Speaker 1: like your argument on this. Okay, alright, fair enough? What
Speaker 1: about you, jel, I don't know. I'm not good at
Speaker 1: things like this. I I think sometimes of what people say,
Speaker 1: and I know I don't want to malign you guys
Speaker 1: because I asked the question, but I think of what
Speaker 1: One time, somebody asked Carl Sagan, uh, you know, do
Speaker 1: you think there are aliens out there? Or something like that?
Speaker 1: And he said, I don't know, And they said, well,
Speaker 1: what's your gut feeling? And he said, I try not
Speaker 1: to think with my gut. Um, So I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I may have gut feelings, but I feel
Speaker 1: like maybe it's better or not to say them. Uh.
Speaker 1: I guess I probably have a gut feeling that agrees
Speaker 1: with you. Maybe I tend to think. You know, it's
Speaker 1: when people are pointing outside of the inner circle, it
Speaker 1: very often is something inside the inner circle. And then
Speaker 1: again you know, a random crime could have possibly explained it.
Speaker 1: I'm not very convinced by the by the Edison thing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think I think like the Parisian argument, Yeah, that
Speaker 1: that also is kind of convincing, the idea that like,
Speaker 1: all right, maybe made it to Paris and they're just
Speaker 1: people didn't notice him on the train. And then once
Speaker 1: he gets to Paris, there's you know, any number of
Speaker 1: ways that he could have met his untimely a robbery
Speaker 1: murder which then resulted in the corpse that they found
Speaker 1: in the river. That I see. That's I don't know
Speaker 1: why he wouldn't have been discovered at that point. Why
Speaker 1: you know, um, I think you wouldn't. They even like
Speaker 1: publish photos of people that were drowning victims that you know,
Speaker 1: the unidentified bodies, so that people where they could place
Speaker 1: them on view in some of the morgues there in town.
Speaker 1: I know, um, because drowning was such a common thing
Speaker 1: and these unknowns, they wanted to figure out who they
Speaker 1: were and you know, where they came from. At least
Speaker 1: get them a proper burial, you know, allow their family
Speaker 1: to take the remains and you know, do with them
Speaker 1: what they want. But um, I don't know. It just
Speaker 1: seems like it's it's a very possible scenario that yeah,
Speaker 1: he didn't make it to Paris, and yeah he did
Speaker 1: get off by some you know, cab driver. It's it's
Speaker 1: like the least cinematic theory, to which I feel like
Speaker 1: it's often like a way to try and judge the past,
Speaker 1: like which which is the least interesting story? Um, then
Speaker 1: you know that there's a chance that that's the way
Speaker 1: to go. Sure, yeah, that's a very good point. If
Speaker 1: it makes a good story, you should be inherently skeptical,
Speaker 1: all right, But I mean the bottom line is is
Speaker 1: we don't know. We probably will never know. Um. So
Speaker 1: you know, obviously, listeners out there, you may have some
Speaker 1: some theories you want to chime in, You want to
Speaker 1: share your uh, your solution to this mystery. Well, here's
Speaker 1: one thing I will say if you if you're one
Speaker 1: of those people who likes to stick it to Edison,
Speaker 1: and I can sympathize, I understand sticking it to Edison. Um,
Speaker 1: you don't have to resort to saying I think he's
Speaker 1: a murderer based on no physical evidence whatsoever, or you know,
Speaker 1: or referring to like a fictional story about about a
Speaker 1: diary entry. But you can say he didn't get there first.
Speaker 1: In fact, he didn't get there first in multiple ways,
Speaker 1: like la Prince had the movie camera before Edison definitely,
Speaker 1: and even Edison's own kinetograph and kinetoscope. You know, it
Speaker 1: looks like the heavy lifting was done by Dixon, not
Speaker 1: by the Edison. Yeah. At this point we're just arguing
Speaker 1: over when the patent was filed. Yeah, I mean that's
Speaker 1: all it really comes down to, and that and that,
Speaker 1: you know, then it begets the money, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the whole goal behind all of this really. For them,
Speaker 1: it was that, you know, I think maybe la Prince
Speaker 1: had more of an altruistic view of this that you know,
Speaker 1: he just simply wanted to make make it better, make
Speaker 1: photography better by bringing motion to the screen in front
Speaker 1: of people. And maybe Edison I think was more money driven. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's the way it comes down, and fame
Speaker 1: and credit driven. Yeah exactly right now. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: of course that would have been great if that had
Speaker 1: come for the Prince as well, but it never did. Well,
Speaker 1: maybe it will now maybe posthumously, right, Yeah, Well, I
Speaker 1: don't gosh, I wonder how much how much of the
Speaker 1: family still exists, you know, are there any princes out
Speaker 1: there still that that might benefit from something like that,
Speaker 1: or how how would they even benefit from something like that?
Speaker 1: Every film now made must give fifty of profits to
Speaker 1: his family. Yeah, they could charge per minute, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I'm exorbitan and cost I'm sure you alright, Scott, Well,
Speaker 1: thanks for coming on the show here to murder my Well,
Speaker 1: I hope I didn't leave you with more questions and answers.
Speaker 1: But but that's not your fault. That's what history does. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess. So we're at least kind of reopening the
Speaker 1: books on this one and letting people know what happened.
Speaker 1: And um, I don't know. I like when you can
Speaker 1: kind of spark someone's interest in something and get them
Speaker 1: to search on their own and maybe kind of you know,
Speaker 1: figure out alternate theories or you know, chime in with
Speaker 1: what they think may have happened. That's that's always fun
Speaker 1: for me. Yeah, certainly everybody loves a good murder mystery.
Speaker 1: So if if we have, if this has helped make
Speaker 1: the history of the motion picture more engaging for podcast
Speaker 1: listeners than that, I'm in favor of great I hope
Speaker 1: I hope it has. I hope it has. And and
Speaker 1: thank you again for inviting me here. I really appreciate
Speaker 1: the offer. And uh I'd love to sit in with
Speaker 1: you anytime. Absolutely, thanks so much for coming. So it's
Speaker 1: been fun. All right, Well, there you have it. Thanks
Speaker 1: once more to Scott Benjman for taking time out of
Speaker 1: his day, out of his research to join us on
Speaker 1: the show to discuss a little invention and indeed a
Speaker 1: little um potential murder, potential murder, potential suicide, potential runaway
Speaker 1: and hide in Chicago potential. Were there any others do
Speaker 1: we have? Like a beast morph situation and it was
Speaker 1: potential hidden away by the family, And we didn't even
Speaker 1: get into like any just crazy speculator. We didn't get
Speaker 1: ato aliens, no abductions, no right off became Sasquat or Langoliers.
Speaker 1: I mean, is it possible for Lango leers on a train?
Speaker 1: You don't need an aviation technology for that to happen.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but uh at anyway, we cover the
Speaker 1: realistic ideas. That was the Jules Verne Novelt. Yeah, length
Speaker 1: Langoliers on a train? Alright? Uh? Thanks again to Scott
Speaker 1: coming on the show, and yeah, I think this this
Speaker 1: is wrap it up for motion pictures or there gonna
Speaker 1: be more motion picture episodes. I think we got one
Speaker 1: more motion picture episode in us. All right, all right,
Speaker 1: we'll stay tuned for that, stay tuned for future inventions.
Speaker 1: We have some non photographic cinema cinematography episodes coming up.
Speaker 1: Uh that are that are in the works. We've been
Speaker 1: on the photographic history train and who knows if we'll
Speaker 1: ever get off. Yes, we'll reach the destination. We will
Speaker 1: reach the destination. In the meantime, if you want to
Speaker 1: listen to other episodes of Invention, check out what the
Speaker 1: shows all about. Head on over to invention pod dot com.
Speaker 1: That's the website. That's where you'll find all these episodes.
Speaker 1: But you can also find us anywhere you find a podcast.
Speaker 1: Wherever you get your podcasts, go there, find us, subscribe
Speaker 1: to us, rate and review the show, give us a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of stars, say nice things about it about us.
Speaker 1: That's the best thing we can do to support the
Speaker 1: show and help us moving forward. Huge thanks as always
Speaker 1: to our excellent audio producer, Try Harrison. We've already thanked
Speaker 1: Scott A bunch of times on this one. If you
Speaker 1: would like to get in touch with us directly to
Speaker 1: let us know feedback on this episode or any other,
Speaker 1: to suggest a topic for the future, or just to
Speaker 1: say hello, you can email us at contact at invention
Speaker 1: pod dot com. Invention is production of I heart Radio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from my heart Radio is the i
Speaker 1: heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.