Stanley Gifford — The Man Who Wasn’t There

He existed more as a shadow than a man.

In the golden haze of old Hollywood—where illusions were currency and identities were as fluid as the roles actors played—Stanley Gifford moved quietly through the machinery of the film industry. He was not a star. He was not a legend. He was a working man in a town built on dreams, tied to studios like RKO Radio Pictures, part of the unseen backbone that kept the illusion alive.

And yet, his greatest impact on Hollywood would come not from anything he did—but from what he refused to do.

Gladys Baker kept his photograph. 

That detail matters.

She wasn’t a woman given to sentimentality without reason. Life had already begun to unravel for her in ways that would only grow more severe with time. But the photograph of Gifford—well-dressed, composed, distant—remained. To her, he wasn’t just a passing relationship. He was a possibility. Stability. Maybe even escape.

And then came the child.

Norma Jeane Mortenson, who the world would later know as Marilyn Monroe, entered a world already fractured. Her birth certificate carried a name, but not a presence. A father, but not a man who would stand in the doorway, hold her, or claim her.

Gladys said Stanley Gifford was the father.

Gifford said nothing.

Or worse—he denied it.

There is a particular cruelty in silence.

Not the silence of absence alone—but the silence of refusal. Gifford was not a mysterious figure who vanished without a trace. He was alive. He was reachable. He made a choice.

He chose distance.

Whether it was fear, reputation, convenience, or simple indifference, the result was the same: a little girl grew up without him. No birthday cards. No acknowledgment. No quiet moments of recognition that say, you belong to someone in this world.

In later years, Norma Jeane would reach out.

She wanted confirmation—something simple, something human. Not money. Not status. Just truth.

She didn’t get it.

Absence is not empty. It fills space.

For Marilyn, that absence became a defining force. It shaped her relationships, her longing, her need to be seen and loved in a way that felt permanent. The world would come to adore her—millions of eyes, endless attention—but none of it replaced the singular thing she never had: a father who said, yes, you are mine.

And so, she built herself.

She became an icon. A symbol. A woman the world could not ignore.

But beneath that construction was always the unanswered question—the quiet, persistent ache of origin. Who was he? Why didn’t he want me? What did I come from?

Decades after both of them were gone, science did what Gifford would not.

In 2022, DNA evidence confirmed what had long been suspected: Stanley Gifford was, in fact, Marilyn Monroe’s biological father.

It should have been a moment of closure.

Instead, it feels more like an indictment.

Because the truth had always been there, waiting—not hidden by impossibility, but by choice.

Stanley Gifford never stood on a red carpet. Never gave an interview. Never told his version of the story in any meaningful way. History remembers him not for his life, but for his absence in someone else’s.

And that absence echoes louder than anything he might have said.

In the end, he is a reminder of something deeply human and deeply painful:

That sometimes, the people who shape us the most… are the ones who never show up at all.

The Hispanic Culture

When I worked in the Los Angeles area, I often judged Hispanic communities harshly. Much of my work exposed me to the worst parts of society—crime scenes, poverty, and the aftermath of difficult lives. Over time, that limited window shaped my perceptions in ways I didn’t fully realize at the time.

Since moving to New Mexico, my perspective has changed. Living here has allowed me to see a different side of the Hispanic culture and community. The people I meet are warm, family-oriented, and deeply committed to taking care of one another.

For example, I never truly understood Día de los Muertos until I experienced it here. Seeing how families honor their loved ones with remembrance, food, and stories made me realize it’s not a dark tradition at all—it’s a deeply loving one.

I also see how hard people work. In my neighborhood alone, crews have built nearly two hundred homes, putting up rock walls and doing physically demanding work every day. I’m not saying people in other places don’t work just as hard; I’m simply saying that I see it up close here.

Just in the past week, I’ve met two men who bought homes in our neighborhood specifically for their mothers and grandmothers so they could live safely and comfortably. That kind of devotion to family has left a strong impression on me.

Living here has helped me grow. I’ve come to respect the Hispanic culture and the values of family, hard work, and community that I see around me every day.

Anna Genovese, The Wife Of Mobster Vito Genovese Who Dared To Testify Against Him

Not only did Anna Genovese testify about Vito Genovese's criminal activities in open court, she also had multiple lesbian affairs — yet she lived peacefully into old age and was buried by her former husband's side. In the criminal underworld of 20th-century New York, men like Charles “Lucky” Luciano and Frank Costello ruled with iron fists. But among the top ranks, one woman carved out her own empire: Anna Genovese. A formidable force, Anna ran her own network of illicit gay bars in New York City, and even dared to testify against her estranged husband, Vito.

Even with her power, though, Anna Genovese faced serious challenges. Her marriage was tumultuous at best, and outright abusive at worst. And according to many, her involvement with New York’s gay scene extended far beyond just the business potential — adding just one more complex layer to the legacy of the Mafia’s most fascinating woman. Born Giovaninna “Anna” Petillo on October 28, 1905, to Italian-Catholic immigrants Aniello Vincenzo Petillo and Concetta Cassini Genovese (a cousin of Vito Genovese’s), Anna Genovese grew up in New York City. As she came of age, the American Mafia became gradually more powerful.

Not much is known about Anna’s early life, but when she was 19 she fell in love with Gerard “Gerry” Vernotico, a baker in New York City’s Little Italy. Speaking to Mob Queens podcast hosts Jessica Bendinger and Michael Seligman, Anna’s great-niece Kate Harmon said the union “was not looked upon kindly” by her family as Vernotico was a “young man of no means.” But Anna was in love, and she helped support her growing family with Vernotico by working nights at a club in Greenwich Village.

Unfortunately, the marriage would end in tragedy. Anna and Vernotico had had one baby, and were expecting their second, when Gerard was brutally strangled to death on a rooftop in March 1932. Just two weeks later, Anna agreed to marry the mobster Vito Genovese.

Indeed, the general consensus is that Vito — long obsessed with Anna — had put out the hit on her husband. Her great-niece told the podcast that Anna “hated Vito” but felt she had no choice but to accept. After all, Anna had suddenly found herself raising two children alone.

It was a whirlwind wedding — and Anna’s formal introduction to the Mafia. But Anna would soon make her own mark on the city’s criminal underworld.

Anna Genovese’s Network Of Gay Bars In New York City. As Vito Genovese became one of the most powerful Mafia bosses in the country, Anna Genovese largely stayed behind the scenes, as mob wives often do. But in 1934, just two years after their marriage, Vito was forced to flee the United States to escape a murder charge.

During this time, Anna began running a network of gay bars and drag clubs in New York City. She — and other mafiosos — were taking advantage of “Gay Prohibition.” Though actual Prohibition had ended, New York bars could get in trouble for serving alcohol to gay patrons. So the Mafia began to take over the business. The organization both protected gay patrons from law enforcement, by bribing local police, and collected the bars’ profits.

“I was the safest on the streets of New York that I had ever been,” one gay bartender recalled to the New York Post in 2014. “If anybody ever threatened me or intimidated me, I had recourse. I had been stopped by the police and… all I had to do was give them the name of my employer and they let me go, because we were both working for the same people. The law made the gay bars illegal. The Family made it operable.”

Indeed, Anna operated a number of gay bars in Greenwich Village and Lower Manhattan (and the Genovese crime family ultimately ran the iconic gay bar, Stonewall). Her first club, Club Caravan, opened in 1939 and hosted some of the era’s biggest drag queens. She also co-owned the 181 Club, which people referred to as the “homosexual Copacabana.” Anna Genovese thus played a key role in Manhattan’s drag bar scene in the mid-20th century.

Anna Genovese had taken advantage of a business opportunity, but her involvement with the gay community was about more than just profit. As the Daily Mail noted in 2021, Anna Genovese was bisexual, her lesbian affairs an open secret among the community. She created safe havens for queer people using her mob connections to keep the police away, and forked over some of the profits to the Mafia in exchange for protection.

But then, in 1945, Vito Genovese returned. Anna And Vito Genovese’s Shocking Divorce

After Vito got back to the United States, a number of crucial witnesses who’d promised to testify against him turned up dead, and the case against him collapsed. He then moved his family from New York to New Jersey, which meant that Anna could no longer run her clubs.

Their relationship grew increasingly acrimonious, and in 1950, Anna walked out on Vito. Being married to the mobster, she claimed in a court filing, had “endangered her health and made her life extremely wretched.” Then, seeking financial support in 1953, Anna agreed to testify against Vito in court.

This was a seismic event that sent shockwaves through the American Mafia, given that it was the first time a high-ranking mob wife publicly broke the code of omertà, the sacred vow of silence.

That March, Anna took the stand and delivered testimony that left the Mafia world reeling. She spoke bluntly about Vito’s cruelty toward her — and provided a blueprint of his criminal enterprise.

She named names, detailed methods, and explained the financial structure of her husband’s operation. She also testified that Vito controlled a vast network involved in narcotics trafficking, gambling, and labor racketeering, and claimed that he made $40,000 a week (more than $400,000 today).

It was a credible and incredibly detailed testimony that provided federal investigators with the roadmap they had been desperately seeking. And it was an extremely dangerous thing to do. Newspaper columnist Dorothy Kilgallen, who was close with mobster Frank Costello, even wrote: “If I were Mrs. Vito Genovese, I’d be awful careful crossing streets.”

This was seen as a thinly veiled threat toward Anna. But, in the end, Anna Genovese’s divorce case and Vito’s countersuit against her, were both dropped. And no one ever retaliated against Anna Genovese, who lived the rest of her life out of the spotlight.

She remained married to Vito, but the couple lived entirely separate lives. Vito took over the powerful Luciano crime family in 1957, establishing the Genovese crime family, but was convicted of narcotics conspiracy in 1959. He sentenced to 15 years in federal prison, where he died in 1969.

Anna, meanwhile, remained a ghost. For a time she worked at the Warwick Hotel — and purportedly even befriended Cary Grant, who was staying there as a guest — until she died of a stroke in 1982. By then, her name had largely faded out of the news. But her connection to Vito remained, and Anna was ultimately buried in the Genovese family plot. Today, she’s a footnote to the larger Mafia history. But Anna Genovese had proven that the Mafia’s code of silence could be shattered, even from within.

By Austin Harvey | Edited By Kaleena Fraga

All Things Interesting

Marilyn Monroe Musical

Over the past few months, a number of developments have taken place regarding the discussion surrounding Marilyn Monroe’s death. During this time, I have had conversations with author Larry Jordan and with Cornell Christianson, who is associated with the New York production Marilyn Exposed: The Musical.

Recently, a press release connected to the production included my name alongside several other individuals, including Raymond Strait and Fred Otash. I want to clarify that I have never supported or endorsed the claims attributed to them. Their accounts are based largely on hearsay and, in my view, lack credible evidence.

As someone who has spent many years working as an investigator, I believe strongly in evidence-based conclusions. Any position I take regarding Marilyn Monroe’s death is grounded in documented facts and firsthand investigative work, not speculation. I feel it is important to make this distinction clear so that my name is not associated with theories or claims that I do not believe are supported by proof. 

There are several authors that I also don't support based on their books.

The Murder of Marilyn Monroe by Jay Margolis & Richard Buskin

The "lethal injection" theory rests almost entirely on the testimony of James Hall. However, there is no contemporary ambulance log or medical record from that night confirming his dispatch at that hour. He waited decades to tell this story, and there is no physical evidence (like a discarded syringe or a witness who wasn't part of the "conspiracy") to back it up.
 
Bombshell by Mike Rothmiller

Rothmiller claims he saw the "real" files in a secret LAPD archive. The problem? He didn't (or couldn't) photocopy them. In the world of evidence, "I saw it once 40 years ago" is not evidence; it’s a memoir. Without the actual documents, his claims about RFK’s "poisoned drink" remain hearsay.

The Last Days of Marilyn Monroe by Donald H. Wolfe

Claims that Marilyn Monroe was murdered as part of a political cover-up involving powerful figures such as John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. However, most historians and Monroe researchers say the book does not provide verifiable evidence to support those claims. Much of Wolfe’s argument relies on hearsay, late witness statements, and sources that cannot be independently confirmed.

I'm not saying not to see the play, I am only stating my believe since these people are mentioned along side mine. I think everyone needs to look at the facts of the case, and not what others present. In some ways, these books provide the same thing, just written in a different way. Stay firm on your belief and I pray someday the truth comes out. Thank you so much for your support. 

Marilyn Exposed, the musical Press Release 

To Investors,

In our musical, we twice show JFK had nothing to do with Marilyn's murder.

Not true, say authors like Mark Shaw who say "JFK is the prime suspect in her murder".

Peter Lawford says "John wanted Marilyn dead" in his only confessions to Heymann and Rothmiller.

NOTE: U.S. public opinion gives JFK a current retrospective approval of 90%.

The highest of any modern president, higher than Reagan (69%) and Obama (63%).

In our musical, we show live on stage RFK killing Marilyn.

As claimed by eye-witnesses Lawford, Otash, Murray and Jeffries who were there.

As heard on bugged tape (recognized his voice) by our Technical Advisor Raymond Stait, 4 others.

Supported by authors Margolis, Buskin, Rothmiller, Shaw, Wolfe as well as P.I. Altringer, Joe DiMaggio,

and our Technical Advisor Larry Jordan.

NOTE: U.S. public opinion gives RFK a current retrospective approval of 61% with his son RFK Jr. a current approval of 33%.

So am I yielding to possible public criticism by whitewashing JFK, you bet I am.

I want people to come see this musical and get the movie made.

And I don't care about JFK or RFK, all I care about is Marilyn, vindicating her. --Cornell