SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (
-   Found City Photos (
-   -   noirish Los Angeles (

GaylordWilshire Jun 6, 2012 1:44 AM

:previous: Angeles Times, Sept 7, 1960
Some good stuff on this guy--great discovery, e_r. The Busch Gardens restaurant on Sunset is
mentioned as having been owned by his mother. The Psycho angle is a great twist:
Newsday, Sept 7, 1960; Los Angeles Times, June 7, 1962; at right: Busch lived at 1522 N. Marisposa... (GoogleSV)

rcarlton Jun 6, 2012 1:47 AM


Originally Posted by ethereal_reality (Post 5724181)
....and something a bit more 'noirish' than a puppet theater. ;)

Serial killer Henry Adolph Busch, circa 1960
found on ebay

above: I wonder what restaurant his father owned?
stamped 1960


People v. Busch , 56 Cal.2d 868
[Crim. No. 6853. In Bank. Nov. 22, 1961.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HENRY ADOLPH BUSCH, Defendant and Appellant.
Matthews and Stanley, Robert W. Stanley and Al Matthews for Defendant and Appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, and Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found Henry Adolph Busch guilty of murder in the first degree in one count, guilty of murder in the second degree in each of two additional counts, and guilty of assault with intent to commit murder as charged in a fourth count. The jury fixed the penalty at death as to the count of first degree murder, and as to each of the other counts defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for the term prescribed by law, sentences to run concurrently. Defendant's motions for a new trial and to reduce sentence as to the count of first degree murder were denied. The appeal is automatic. (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

Defendant lived alone in an apartment in Los Angeles, is 29 years of age and has no prior criminal record. He was regularly employed in an optical factory, and on occasions had coffee prior to commencing the day's work with a fellow employee, Mrs. Magdalena A. Parra. On the morning of September 6, 1960, the day following Labor Day, the place where defendant went for coffee was closed. He met Mrs. Parra nearby and asked her if she wished to ride in his automobile to another place for coffee. She accepted the invitation. After both were in the automobile defendant attacked Mrs. Parra with his hands, attempting to strangle her. She screamed, fought him off and escaped from the automobile. Defendant tried to start the automobile but flooded the engine. He abandoned his automobile and ran from the scene but was pursued by two truck drivers who caught him.police officers who arrived at the scene searched defendant and found a knife and a pair of handcuffs on his person.

After defendant was in a police car and on his way to the station, he volunteered that he had killed two other women, both during the preceding week end, and offered to lead the officers to their bodies. While the officers were investigating these crimes, defendant admitted killing a third woman in May of that year. All of the defendant's murder victims [56 Cal.2d 871] were elderly women who had been friendly to him. The following account of the killings is taken in large part from extrajudicial statements and confessions made by defendant to various investigating officers, and from three recorded confessions which were read into evidence at defendant's trial. No impropriety is claimed or appears in connection with receiving the confessions into evidence. Except for details hereinafter noted, the confessions and statements are generally consistent with each other. Defendant did not take the stand as a witness in his own behalf.

The defendant in his various statements to investigating officers told them that in the early part of May 1960 he paid a visit to the apartment of Mrs. Elmyra Miller, a woman in her seventies and a friend and confidante since his childhood. They talked for an hour, and watched television. When he arose to leave at 9 or 10 in the evening, Mrs. Miller was standing with her back to him. He states that he felt an impulse to kill her and, placing his left arm around her neck from behind, he strangled her to death. He left her on the floor, pulled her housecoat over her hips and tore her underclothing to make the killing appear to be a sex crime. He hoped that this would direct the attention of investigating officers to a possible sexual assault and thus avoid implicating himself. He locked the front door of the apartment and left by the rear. The body was found by Mrs. Miller's doctor on a regular call on May 2, 1960. The physical appearances at that time were consistent with the defendant's various accounts of the murder. For this killing defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree.

On Saturday or Sunday before Labor Day in 1960, in the late afternoon, defendant went to the apartment of his mother, a half sister who had adopted him. She was not at home, but at the door of the apartment defendant met Mrs. Shirley Payne, a woman approximately 65 years of age, who lived in the apartment above his mother's apartment. He invited her to attend a local theater where the film "Psycho" was showing. She accepted, and after viewing the motion picture defendant invited Mrs. Payne to his apartment, where they drank some beer and, according to defendant, engaged in sexual intercourse. As Mrs. Payne prepared to leave at about 8 p. m. he had an urge to kill her and applied an arm lock around her neck from behind her. He stated that she placed her hands in an attitude of prayer while he strangled her. He then placed a belt around her neck to stop some [56 Cal.2d 872] drainage from the mouth and wrapped the body in a bed sheet, intending to move it when it was darker. However, he went to sleep and did not awaken until the following morning. The body had been bleeding from the mouth and nose, and he became concerned that such bleeding would leave stains in his apartment. He purchased a waterproof sleeping bag, trussed the body up, placed it in the sleeping bag, and tied the sleeping bag with a rope. The body was trussed in a manner similar to that illustrated in a picture drawn by defendant at about the time of the killing. Defendant remained in the apartment with the body until late Monday evening when he left, and he did not return again until after his arrest for the assault. He was convicted of murder in the second degree for the killing of Mrs. Payne.

On Monday evening, September 5, 1960, defendant went to the apartment of Mrs. Margaret Briggs. Mrs. Briggs was a half sister of defendant's half sister (his adoptive mother), although the common parent was different in each case. He took with him the manacles which were in his possession when apprehended, and a knife. He regarded Mrs. Briggs as an aunt, and often sought her advice and counsel. He stated that he considered telling her about the killing of Mrs. Payne, but he did not do so. They watched television together until 2 a. m. Thereafter, while she was standing in the middle of the room, he grabbed her from behind with his left forearm across her throat and strangled her. She struggled more than the others, knocking over furniture. He stated that he was sorry to kill her, but that he could not overcome the urge which compelled him to take her life. Thereafter he cut the clothing from her body, cutting her breast in the process. There appeared to be some cigarette burns and other small wounds about the body which he did not explain, and there were numerous bruises about the body and scalp. Defendant remained in the apartment that night, and early the next morning, after examining the contents of Mrs. Briggs' purse, took her keys and station wagon and drove to his place of employment. Near there he met Mrs. Parra and the assault heretofore mentioned took place. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder for the killing of Mrs. Briggs.

As stated, defendant did not testify in his own defense, and no opportunity was presented to reconcile some inconsistencies in his various statements. Notably in this respect is a conflict as to whether he killed Mrs. Payne on Saturday [56 Cal.2d 873] or Sunday evening. The testimony of other witnesses would indicate that the killing occurred on Sunday evening, however.
Defendant stated in response to interrogations of a psychiatrist who testified thereto that often he would be possessed of an urge to kill another human being. This urge commenced with the killing of a prisoner of war entrusted to his care while in the military service. He normally would control these urges, he stated, and he knew in each instance when he had killed or had an urge to kill that it was wrong to do so. He stated further that he probably would have taken Mrs. Parra to some lonely spot, perhaps in Griffith Park, and killed her. He kept the handcuffs and a knife with him in order to make it possible to immobilize his victims and force them to keep quiet. He admitted that had he been successful in killing Mrs. Parra he probably would have continued to satisfy his "urge" to kill.
At the trial it was contended that defendant was mentally ill; that he did not act with deliberation on the occasions in question, and that he was motivated by uncontrollable physiological forces. In support of such contentions a psychologist who examined defendant following his arrest was of the opinion that defendant was of low intelligence, incapable of deliberating and reflecting upon his homicidal tendencies. A psychiatrist who studied defendant and his case history, diagnosed defendant as a schizoid personality with repeated schizophrenic outbursts. In his opinion none of the killings were accompanied by a clear deliberate intent to take life. It was stipulated that the physician who attended at defendant's birth would testify that defendant's mother had an epileptic seizure during delivery, and that defendant was anorexic and suffered from malnutrition for six weeks following his birth. Except as hereinafter appears there was no other expert medical testimony offered by either party concerning defendant's mental condition. His adoptive mother testified that in her opinion defendant had never been normal.

Defendant contends first that the deputy district attorney improperly sought to establish that defendant had beaten Shirley Payne about the face and head before killing her. In support of this theory the deputy district attorney sought to establish that defendant experienced a sadistic sexual orgasm as the result of such a beating, rather than the conventional sexual intercourse which defendant claimed. Such facts were sought to be established through hypothetical questions asked of one of the expert medical witnesses for the [56 Cal.2d 874] defendant on cross-examination. It is claimed that the questioning was improper because it was necessary to assume a fact not in evidence, that being the claimed beating about the face of Shirley Payne. In support of the prosecution's theory, the coroner had testified that there was no evidence that Mrs. Payne had engaged in a normal sexual act shortly before her death.photographs had been introduced showing a marked discoloration on her face and shoulders. However, the coroner had testified that in his opinion most of the discoloration was due to post-mortem decomposition and from the effects of the strangulation. The defense objected to the hypothetical questions, but the objections were overruled, and the photographs were exhibited to the jurors with reference to the question of whether they bore evidence of a beating of the victim by the defendant. At a later time the coroner was recalled and testified that in his opinion there was no evidence of a beating about the face. As previously stated, there was evidence of numerous bruises of recent origin about the body.

The hypothetical questions were preceded by testimony of the medical expert to the effect that the defendant had admitted to him that on some prior occasion he had beaten a man, had become sexually aroused and had continued the beating for half an hour. The witness testified that he was not certain how he should evaluate what the defendant had told him. The hypothetical questions were asked in reference to a possible sadistic motive for the murders on the part of the defendant, and to establish whether the doctor had attempted to test his evaluation of the defendant on such a theory. The pictures were exhibited to the doctor in this connection. The doctor testified that the pictures submitted to him exhibited nothing more than normal post-mortem discoloring and did not support the theory. He testified, however, that it was possible that the defendant could have been motivated by sadistic tendencies, assuming the hypothetical beating and sexual involvement.

[1] While it is generally held that a hypothetical question asked of an expert witness on cross-examination may not assume facts not in evidence, there is an exception where the purpose is to test the expert as to his accuracy or competency. (People v. Ryan, 140 Cal.App.2d 412 [295 P.2d 496]; McNutt v. Pabst, 25 Cal.App. 177 [143 P. 77].)
[2] In testing the credibility of an expert a wide latitude is allowed. (People v. Tallman, 27 Cal.2d 209, 214 [163 P.2d 857].)
[3] "While each hypothesis contained in the question should [56 Cal.2d 875] have some evidence to support it, it is not necessary that the question include a statement of all the evidence in the case. The statement may assume facts within the limits of the evidence, not unfairly assembled, upon which the opinion of the expert is required, and considerable latitude must be allowed in the choice of facts as to the basis upon which to frame a hypothetical question." (People v. Wilson, 25 Cal.2d 341, 349 [153 P.2d 720].)
[4] In the instant case there was some evidence, although meager, which supported the prosecution's hypothesis. In view of the defendant's sadistic tendencies, testified to by the defendant's own witness, it was not unreasonable to infer that he was motivated in the manner suggested in the hypothetical question, in an attempt to rebut the same witness' testimony that the defendant was incapable of deliberation to kill. No harm was done in exhibiting the photographs to the jury, as they had already been properly admitted in evidence.
[5] Furthermore, we do not perceive in what manner defendant was prejudiced by the claimed error, nor is any argument made that he was so prejudiced. (Const., art. VI, § 4 1/2.) It could not reasonably be contended, in view of other overwhelming evidence, that posing and answering the hypothetical question in any way was instrumental in bringing about the conviction of murder in the second degree in the case of Shirley Payne. (Pen. Code, § 187.) Had the jurors been persuaded by the testimony and believed that defendant beat Mrs. Payne for sadistic reasons prior to strangling her, a first degree conviction would have necessarily followed. (Pen. Code, § 189.)

Defendant's only remaining contention is that the proffered testimony of Dr. William J. Bryan, Jr., M.D., was improperly excluded. Dr. Bryan testified that he examined defendant on 13 separate occasions in respect to his mental condition at the time of the killings. In addition to the usual methods of examination, he used hypnosis as an analytical tool. The prosecution interposed objections as to questions asking for Dr. Bryan's opinion of the defendant's mental status at the times of the killings, and whether defendant could premeditate or deliberate on those occasions. The objections were made and sustained on the stated grounds that hypnosis is not a sufficiently scientific means of exploring the state of mind, that the witness was not qualified in this field, and that the opinions were formulated on the defendant's statements and constituted hearsay. The following offer of proof was then made, objected to and the objection sustained: [56 Cal.2d 876]
"That Dr. Bryan made an examination of the defendant, a medical examination, at the Los Angeles County Jail on the times that have previously been stated;
"That as a part of the examination he went into the medical determination of the mental condition of the defendant;
"That he used hypnosis as a method of enabling him to arrive at an opinion;
"That he did arrive at an opinion concerning the defendant's ability to premeditate, to form willful intent or to deliberate at the time that the killings which are the subject matter of this law suit were committed;
"That the doctor's opinion, based upon his examinations, was based partly upon the answers from the defendant that he received under hypnosis, together with his evaluation of all of the information that he received from the defendant, and that his opinion was that at the time that the defendant committed these particular killings that he was unable to form an intent to kill, that he did not deliberate nor did he premeditate."

In support of his qualifications, Dr. Bryan testified that he was a physician and surgeon, specializing in the use of hypnosis in medicine. He defined hypnosis as an altered state of consciousness in which there is increased concentration of the mind, increased relaxation of the body, and increased susceptibility to suggestion. Among other things, he stated that with hypnosis the subject can be taken back to a particular incident and the incident can be relived. He also related that under hypnosis there is always a certain part of the mind which is perfectly conscious and aware at all times of what is going on.

Dr. Bryan further testified that he was first licensed as a doctor of medicine in 1953 in California, and in Illinois and Nevada in 1954; that he was in the United States Air Force at the time he took his examinations; that he had a general practice of medicine in Nevada between 1955 and 1960; that he was not a psychiatrist, and that he became a specialist or commenced to specialize in the field of hypnosis on a full time basis in 1960, less than a year prior to his appearance as a witness. He acknowledged that he never had occasion to qualify as an expert witness in a criminal case on the subject matter of a defendant's frame of mind at the time he committed a crime, and that he knew of no other expert in this field who had become an expert witness by reason of a knowledge of hypnosis. [56 Cal.2d 877]
While sustaining the objections to the opinion evidence of Dr. Bryan, the court ruled that he was competent to testify as a medical doctor as to the defendant's mental condition, but that he was not competent to testify insofar as his opinions were based upon information dependent on the use of hypnosis.

Opinions based on hypnotic analysis have never been received in the courts of this state, or in any other jurisdiction to which defendant refers. In Cornell v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 99 [338 P.2d 447], an attorney sought to have his client examined under hypnosis for the purpose of gaining information in preparing a defense, and was successful in a mandamus action. There the basic issue was the scope of the right of one confined in a penal institution to consult with his attorney and otherwise prepare his defense. In People v. Marsh, 170 Cal.App.2d 284 [338 P.2d 495], a psychiatrist was permitted to testify concerning the effects of hypnosis, where a defense was interposed to the effect that the accused was acting under a hypnotic spell when he committed the wrongful act. Neither of these cases lend aid in resolving the questions here presented.

Closest in point, perhaps, are cases involving the use of sodium pentothal (truth serum), wherein we have held that a psychiatrist is not precluded from giving his expert analysis of a subject's answers to questions while under the influence of the drug, for the purpose of determining whether, in the expert's opinion, the subject was sane (People v. Cartier, 51 Cal.2d 590 [335 P.2d 114]), or not a sexual deviate (People v. Jones, 42 Cal.2d 219 [266 P.2d 38]) at the time of a crime charged. It was said in the Cartier case at page 601: "In People v. Jones ... this court held that although it is questionable whether results of an examination made while a person is subject to 'truth drugs' are admissible in evidence if the statements are offered for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted, the use of such drugs does not preclude a psychiatrist from giving his expert analysis of defendant's answers to questions while under the influence of drugs for the purpose of determining whether, in the opinion of the psychiatrist, defendant was sane or insane at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses." On the other hand the latest expression of this court as to the admissibility of expert opinion evidence formulated through the use of a lie detector is as follows: "Lie detector tests do not as yet have enough reliability to justify the admission of [56 Cal.2d 878] expert testimony based on their results. [Citations.]" (People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737, 752 [312 P.2d 665].)

[6a] In the instant case the witness conceded that this was his initial appearance in the role of an expert in a criminal case on the subject matter of an accused's state of mind; that he was not a psychiatrist and had engaged in the practice of medicine as a general practitioner until shortly before his appearance in the case at bar as an expert specializing in hypnosis. In laying a foundation for the introduction of opinion evidence of the state of mind of a defendant based upon the use of a technique not theretofore recognized by the courts as sufficiently reliable to form the basis for such an opinion, at the very least, some showing of its successful use in the examination of others than the defendant for the same purpose, either by the witness or by other experts in the field, would appear to be required. We are persuaded that under the circumstances herein narrated the trial judge did not act unreasonably in his determination that a proper foundation was not established as to the reliability of an analytical tool still seeking recognition in the field of psychiatry, or as to the qualifications of this particular witness to give an opinion on the state of mind of the accused on the occasion of the commission of the homicides herein. [7] It must be remembered, "... the general rule is that the trial court, in passing upon the qualification of a witness offered as an expert, has wide discretion, and an appellate court will not disturb its ruling in the absence of a manifest abuse of such discretion." (People v. Chambers, 162 Cal.App.2d 215, 220 [328 P.2d 236]; see also People v. Goldsworthy, 130 Cal. 600, 604-605 [62 P. 1074].) [6b] In the instant case no abuse of discretion is demonstrated and the trial judge justifiably sustained the objections presented by the record in this case to the admission of the offered opinion testimony based on the use of hypnosis.

No other contentions are advanced by the defendant. [8] In spite of expert opinion evidence to the contrary there is other substantial evidence in support of the implied finding of the defendant's ability to deliberate and premeditate, and such finding and judgment of conviction of first degree murder flowing therefrom in the case of Margaret Briggs cannot be upset on this appeal. Defendant conceded that he knew it was wrong to take the lives of all of his victims at the time of the homicides. In the case of Margaret Briggs he brought with him to her apartment a knife and handcuffs which he carried with him for the avowed purpose [56 Cal.2d 879] of subduing his victims. More than this in the instant circumstances need not be shown to sustain the conviction of first degree murder in her case. There is no contention that the elements of the other crimes were not sufficiently established, and the evidence thereof is overwhelming.

The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.
Gibson, C. J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., McComb, J., Peters, J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

In re Busch , 57 Cal.2d 536
[Crim. No. 7097. In Bank. Apr. 16, 1962.]
In re MAE E. BUSCH on behalf of ROGER ADOLPH BUSCH on Habeas Corpus. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HENRY ADOLPH BUSCH, Defendant and Appellant.
Al Mathews for Petitioner.
Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, John S. McInerny and Albert W. Harris, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.
[1] Henry Adolph Busch was found guilty of murder in the first degree for the killing of Mrs. Margaret Briggs, of murder in the second degree for the killing of two other women, and of assault with intent to murder a fourth woman. He confessed to the murders and did not take the stand in his own behalf. The jury fixed the penalty at death for the murder of Mrs. Briggs. On each of the other counts Busch was sentenced to imprisonment for the term prescribed by law, sentences to run concurrently. The judgment was affirmed in People v. Busch, 56 Cal.2d [57 Cal.2d 537] 868 [16 Cal.Rptr. 898, 366 P.2d 314], and he was ordered to be executed on March 14, 1962.

On March 13 Mae E. Busch, half sister and adoptive mother of Busch, applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus or a writ of error coram nobis. An order to show cause was issued, and the judgment of death was stayed.

The petition and supporting affidavits charged that the police knew that a certain witness could testify to facts material to the defense and that the evidence had been suppressed. The return and counteraffidavits establish to our satisfaction that neither the police nor the district attorney knew of the existence of the witness or the evidence, whereas defendant's attorney had sufficient information to put him on inquiry. In addition, the evidence which was assertedly suppressed appears to be consistent with the theory of the prosecution and was not such as would have prevented entry of the judgment. (Cf. People v. Tuthill, 32 Cal.2d 819, 821- 822, 827 [198 P.2d 505].)

The order to show cause is discharged, the petition is denied, and the stay heretofore granted is terminated. This decision is final forthwith.

Birth: Dec. 30, 1931
Death: Jun. 6, 1962

Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale)
Los Angeles County
California, USA
Plot: Wee Kirk Churchyard, Map A01, Lot 53, Space 4

GaylordWilshire Jun 6, 2012 2:20 AM cat

Turns out that Busch's Garden was a 5062 Sunset... just a couple of blocks from Busch's apartment on Mariposa.

Mayor Shaw Jun 6, 2012 2:51 AM

Wow! Thanks ER, GW, and RCARLTON. Very interesting posts. I hadn't heard of these killings before and love the follow up info. Great job!

GaylordWilshire Jun 6, 2012 12:06 PM

This great sign is obviously in need of restoration. Interestingly, it hasn't been fading away on top of a long-empty building. Safety
Cycles has continued in business since the '40s, according to its website here--at least since early 1948 at its current location. Its
phone number then was HILLSIDE 5765, which became HOLLYWOOD-4-5765 and is now 323-464-5765. I wish they'd restore the sign,
but then part of the firm's longevity might be that it doesn't live in the past. Not much is made of its having been able to weather
the demograhic storms in Los Angeles--it just rolls on. I haven't been able to dig up any vintage shots of it. Can you?

MichaelRyerson Jun 6, 2012 2:00 PM

A face only a mother could love
Los Angeles Motor Coach 3100-series bus, dated 1942

Considering the destination/service placard, this guy served my old neighborhood. We lived on Descanso Drive.
Los Angeles Motor Coach bus 3107, dated 1942

At first, I thought these two were images of the same bus with the destination/service placard simply rotated, but then I noticed the license numbers and the very slightly different parking spot.
Los Angeles Motor Coach 1924 mod. Fageol Double Deck no. 604

'58 passengers, yellow top, red middle (PE), yellow body. Photo taken about 1932, Morgan Hotel shown at 629 W. 8th Street.' I just noticed in this image, you can see the back of another LAMC double-decker headed in the opposite direction just to the right of no. 604. You can make out the back of the upper deck and the elegantly curved stairwell going up.
Los Angeles Motor Coach, Fremont Place and Wilshire Blvd II

These gates may look familiar.
Los Angeles Motor Coach Double Decker

A 'Safety Coach' posed in front of a lovely and as yet unidentified building.
Los Angeles Motor Coach 732 Virgil, 1938

'LAMC 732, a Fageol double-decker, seen in a 1932 photo, ran on Wilshire Blvd in the late '20's and the 1930's, was built in 1926.'
Los Angeles Motor Coach 1010

'LAMC no. 1010 was a 1928 model Z-AAAM-354 from YellowCoach. Shown here at Pershing Square in downtown L.A. for many years the terminus of the Wilshire Line.'

images from the Metro Transportation Library and Archive

GaylordWilshire Jun 6, 2012 5:12 PM



Originally Posted by MichaelRyerson (Post 5724678)

I've seen the shot of the bus coming through the what I think is the west gate of Fremont Place before. The idea of buses ever entering the private street is odd enough, even just to be photographed, but maybe the owner of the bus company lived there.... Anyway, the house seen here is the Aronson house, which was moved in pieces from 3325 Wilshire Boulevard to the northeast corner of the east drive of Fremont Pl and 8th street (and later demolished)--I wrote about it recently in this post. It looks like the same bus may have entered the west gate, hung a right on 8th, turned left on the east drive back toward Wilshire, pausing in front of the Aronson house for another pic--or, who knows, entered the east gate, made a U-turn, etc. But then again, once moved, the Aronson house stood set back at an angle facing the corner... so maybe this is before the house's 1924 move and the bus is shot in front of the Wilshire site, where the house sat parallel to the curb, and the Fremont gate shot is just a coincidence. (How's this for wildly overthinking things??) Any idea what year these bus pics were taken?

MichaelRyerson Jun 6, 2012 5:38 PM

I was sure the gates would bring you out. Yes, I also think the house is sitting parallel to the street which puts the pic in 1924 or earlier? Neither photo carried a date of any kind, unfortunately, although, if I see it correctly the bus(es) appear to be a slightly earlier model than the plentiful 1924 vintage so that would square with the pics predating '24.

MichaelRyerson Jun 6, 2012 8:39 PM

Monkey Island:The gift that just keeps on giving
I wish the resolution were better but still a heck of a sign...
Monkey Island, the largest animated neon sign west of Chicago

image from LAist

GaylordWilshire Jun 6, 2012 9:16 PM Garcia Jr.

MichaelR... Here's an interesting version of the Fageol Safety Coach in L.A. Railway livery.

What is that in the right background... anyone know?

ethereal_reality Jun 6, 2012 9:34 PM


Originally Posted by GaylordWilshire (Post 5724294) cat

Turns out that Busch's Garden was a 5062 Sunset... just a couple of blocks from Busch's apartment on Mariposa.

Thanks for digging up the details on serial killer Henry Adolph Busch rcarlton and G_W.
It's all so extremely interesting...the 'Psycho' connection...the restaurant on Sunset....etc.

MichaelRyerson Jun 6, 2012 9:50 PM

First, G-W, ain't that a beaut? Hard to describe really: grotesque, muscular, unpre-possessed? Just a piece of industrial machinery, perhaps, but somehow beautiful. As to the background of (I'm assuming) a symmetric group of columns which seem to get larger as they rise and the hint of a latticework of wires or cables holding them together(?) Weird, huh? I swear we've seen this before in this thread. Some sort of a commercial enterprise with a retail stand on the street/sidewalk, south of downtown. Figueroa? South Main? Are those halfseen cars parked under or nearby them? An outdoor dance floor? I'm just reaching now, kind of free-associating. Anyone?

ethereal_reality Jun 6, 2012 9:54 PM

'Touring Bureau' Automobile Club of Southern California.

Paddles for a side trip?

Moxie Jun 6, 2012 10:13 PM

Looks sort of like paddles that are strapped to a collapsible boat, actually. If that is what it is, I'm not sure I'd trust it.

ethereal_reality Jun 6, 2012 11:57 PM

A snapshot found on ebay of the Los Angeles Public Library.

I have a question...which street (with the wide sidewalk) is seen in the lower right hand corner?
It appears to be going uphill & is slightly curved.

MichaelRyerson Jun 7, 2012 12:09 AM

Pretty much has to be 5th Street, no? Early am shot. The 'curve' may be an optical illusion and the hill or slope would make sense as the library lies at the southern terminus of Bunker Hill astride Hope Street. I think.

ethereal_reality Jun 7, 2012 2:02 AM

The Hyperion Treatment Plant, aka 'Sewage Pier', in the early 1920s.

below: Fishing off of what was known as 'Sewage Pier' circa 1925. Note the original Hyperion Treatment Plant on a hill in the background.
Who in their right mind would fish off this notorious pier?

below: Sewage flowing from the Hyperion Treatment Plant circa 1937.
I am confused by this photo. What happened to the 'sewage' pier?

below: The Hyperion Treatment Plant circa 1952.

below: The modern Hyperion Treatment Plant completed in 1998.

below: Map showing the Los Angeles wastewater treatment system.


How it all began.


ethereal_reality Jun 7, 2012 2:34 AM

"The old palms of San Pedro Street."
cabinet card found on ebay

Anyone know where these twin 'giants' were located?


sopas ej Jun 7, 2012 2:56 AM


Originally Posted by ethereal_reality (Post 5725417)

I have a question...which street (with the wide sidewalk) is seen in the lower right hand corner?
It appears to be going uphill & is slightly curved.

The street no longer exists. It's the street that the Engstrum and Edison Building was on, though the Edison Building still exists, of course.

ethereal_reality Jun 7, 2012 2:57 AM

:previous: Thanks sopas_ej.

Dick Powell rolls the dice in this wonderfully 'noirish' still from Johnny O'Clock, circa 1947.

Anyone recognize the woman?


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.