Question about Long Halloween

[Tacit Ronin]

I hate Loeb and TLH, but Dark Victory is pretty decent.

 

[RustyCage]

A more thorough analysis can be found here.

I got some time to read through this today, and I like the amount of attention they put into things. I'd also be inclined to believe them if they didn't ignore two potentially large obstacles in their theory: Two-Face telling Batman and Gordon that there were two Holiday killers, and Gilda actually destroying evidence (such as the hat).

 

[The Navigator]

I got some time to read through this today, and I like the amount of attention they put into things. I'd also be inclined to believe them if they didn't ignore two potentially large obstacles in their theory: Two-Face telling Batman and Gordon that there were two Holiday killers, and Gilda actually destroying evidence (such as the hat).

Neither of those points are particularly damning:
-Batman himself says that "in the end, Harvey was Holiday too," because he killed Falcone on Halloween. Additionally, Harvey was mentally compromised at this point and obsessed with the number two--his point of view is rather untrustworthy.
-It's a hat. Gordon wore one. Even the gun is explained as the evidence he brought home ("I do it all the time.") rather than one last secret she's trying to hide.

The arguments they make regarding motives and opportunities for each of the murders are far more convincing than the confession of someone who only reveals things that have been made public knowledge after the fact--nothing she says is something "only Holiday could know."

Not to mention the night Holiday kills the Irish gang (if her testimony is to be believed, her last murder before Holiday took over), would require her to sneak out of an intensive care unit away from her husband who's spending the night by her side to effortlessly murder an entire room full of gangsters.

"Holiday can always get up close. Suggesting the killer knows his or her victims." Gotta be Alberto.

 

[RustyCage]

Didn't she say she did sneak away while he was sleeping? And why would she just happen to have the same hat and be burning evidence? They were all mentally compromised, the three of them. Even Alberto.

While I agree that Alberto is most obviously guilty here, as we actually saw him commit a murder, I'm still not convinced he was the only killer, and filling in plot holes with what amounts to fanfiction isn't satisfying or convincing to me. Less so do I understand why anyone is under the impression that there can only be one Holiday.

Further, directly addressing your point, Batman stories have shown us that you don't have to know a big time crook to get close to them. TLH itself expresses this several times with various characters/villains, all of whom waltz right in and make fools of their targets, so yeah, that's hardly evidence against Gilda's capabilities. One could as easily assume that she was insane enough to go that far, just like Harvey and Joker were, to learn how to do what was necessary. Saying she was incapable is an unfounded assumption, not a fact. Considering practically every other character in the book was breaking into high security places (Falcone's place was invaded multiple times, and then there was Arkham Asylum) like it was no problem, I find it a particularly weak argument.

You basically have to fabricate an assumption of her capabilities to make that solution work, and that's dishonest to me. What we do know for sure is that suspicious things were said and done by Harvey and Gilda. That's what the book leaves us with.

Hell, there could have even been 3 Holidays. For all we know, maybe Harvey thought it was just him and Alberto, and didn't realize Gilda had been involved before he lost it and started up. The possibilities are, frankly, endless. I see no reason to go with one assumption over another.

 

[The Navigator]

Didn't she say she did sneak away while he was sleeping? And why would she just happen to have the same hat and be burning evidence? They were all mentally compromised, the three of them. Even Alberto.

Yeah, she did. But she's also in a hospital from an explosion that took her two months to fully recover from. I don't think the evidence supports that she's physically incapable (or the hospital staff that inattentive) of doing what she claims.

And she burns the hat because that's Harvey's hat. He wears it all the time, along with that coat. She's burning Harvey's things, not necessarily evidence proving she's Holiday.

Further, directly addressing your point, Batman stories have shown us that you don't have to know a big time crook to get close to them. TLH itself expresses this several times with various characters/villains, all of whom waltz right in and make fools of their targets, so yeah, that's hardly evidence against Gilda's capabilities.

One could as easily assume that she was insane enough to go that far, just like Harvey and Joker were, to learn how to do what was necessary. Saying she was incapable is an unfounded assumption, not a fact. Considering practically every other character in the book was breaking into high security places (Falcone's place was invaded multiple times, and then there was Arkham Asylum) like it was no problem, I find it a particularly weak argument.

The people that break in (sans Holiday) are Batman, Catwoman, and the Joker--all of whom know big time crooks, one of which has ninja training, another an expert thief, and the last a serial killer with a long, storied history of doing so (and no doubt killed whoever tried to stop him). Not just average joes off the street.

(And then, I guess the entire rogue's gallery at the end, but at least two of them have metahuman/supernatural abilties.)

I'll give you Arkham, but that place gets broken into/releases "reformed" bad guys practically once a week.

You basically have to fabricate an assumption of her capabilities to make that solution work, and that's dishonest to me. What we do know for sure is that suspicious things were said and done by Harvey and Gilda. That's what the book leaves us with.

Hell, there could have even been 3 Holidays. For all we know, maybe Harvey thought it was just him and Alberto, and didn't realize Gilda had been involved before he lost it and started up. The possibilities are, frankly, endless. I see no reason to go with one assumption over another.

You also have to fabricate a history for her to make what she says true--essentially invent a backstory of her learning to use guns and becoming an accomplished killer when the book doesn't give us any evidence for that. While I agree dismissing her out of hand because she appears to be only a housewife is biased, her just claiming she was Holiday without anything really substantive deserves to be examined more closely. And given the evidence from the book alone--that Holiday can get in close where "normal" people can't, that he/she can slaughter a roomful of gangsters while they're still drawing their guns, and that in at least one instance, Alberto is definitively shown to be Holiday--seems to suggest that Gilda, repeatedly stressed and abandoned throughout the book, has had more of a breakdown than a revelation.

 

[RustyCage]

Yeah, she did. But she's also in a hospital from an explosion that took her two months to fully recover from. I don't think the evidence supports that she's physically incapable (or the hospital staff that inattentive) of doing what she claims.

I'll have to re-read and look into this more deeply, but I imagine you may be right here. Although, we know that Harvey convincingly faked his own death based on the same explosion, so anything is possible still. If I recall correctly, we only see one panel of her laying in the bed, so there isn't much to go on.

Also, I don't remember if her injuries were noted in the text, but I do know that often people will be kept for months in the hospital to ensure recovery from rather minor things (a temporarily delicate elbow or neck, etc) that a crazed killer could certainly continue to operate through. We have no evidence of this being the case, obviously, we only have what she says.

And she said she did - but then, all the suspects say lots of puzzling things, and none of them seem to know everything we know. And all of them are decidedly nuts.

And she burns the hat because that's Harvey's hat. He wears it all the time, along with that coat. She's burning Harvey's things, not necessarily evidence proving she's Holiday.

That's what I'm saying, it's suspicious. If she didn't simply wear those things to act as the killer, why would she burn Harvey's things? She wouldn't burn it just to burn it. She said she believes in him. Plus, as she was doing so, she was explaining her supposed involvement, as well as her idea of Harvey's. So it could also be evidence of his involvement that she's burning.

You know what's strange though? If there are multiple killers, why do they all dress exactly the same if they shouldn't even know that that was the killer's signature outfit? Does everyone just own the same coat and hat in Gotham?

The people that break in (sans Holiday) are Batman, Catwoman, and the Joker--all of whom know big time crooks, one of which has ninja training, another an expert thief, and the last a serial killer with a long, storied history of doing so (and no doubt killed whoever tried to stop him). Not just average joes off the street.

What about Harvey? You see, all three of the examples you mentioned, they learned to be so good at breaking in because of their obsessions and insanity. Just like Harvey eventually did. It didn't take being personally close to Falcone and knowing him/being a family member, etc. So I don't see why it's such a stretch that Gilda could teach herself similarly. She goes into explaining that she was reading Harvey's case files to educate herself on how to be successful at serial killing, so yeah. She would be covered there.

I'll give you Arkham, but that place gets broken into/releases "reformed" bad guys practically once a week.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Everything is basically accessible to anyone with enough drive to try and access it in Gotham. Nuts are abound, and frequently break into whatever place they want, no matter how much ninja training, or how many gadgets, they've got.

You also have to fabricate a history for her to make what she says true--essentially invent a backstory of her learning to use guns and becoming an accomplished killer when the book doesn't give us any evidence for that.

Well, we don't have to fabricate anything in that she tells us about those things. We only have to figure out whether or not she's the one fabricating things (as I didn't make any of that up myself), or if she's telling the truth. I haven't been convinced of the former yet, while I do agree it's possible.

And yes, you're right that some sort of fabrication is necessary either way, that was part of my point. My last sentence in the previous post was expressing so. Hopefully something conclusive will spring to our attention.

While I agree dismissing her out of hand because she appears to be only a housewife is biased, her just claiming she was Holiday without anything really substantive deserves to be examined more closely. And given the evidence from the book alone--that Holiday can get in close where "normal" people can't, that he/she can slaughter a roomful of gangsters while they're still drawing their guns, and that in at least one instance, Alberto is definitively shown to be Holiday--seems to suggest that Gilda, repeatedly stressed and abandoned throughout the book, has had more of a breakdown than a revelation.

This is possible, but it doesn't rule her out - or Harvey. The only solid evidence I know of is that Alberto definitely killed Maroni, and had clear motives for a couple of other killings. But not all of them. Every suspect had clear motives, though.

Like I said, I like the article you posted, it's close to being satisfying, but there are still some holes left unfilled by fact.

 

[The Navigator]

I'll have to re-read and look into this more deeply, but I imagine you may be right here. Although, we know that Harvey convincingly faked his own death based on the same explosion, so anything is possible still. If I recall correctly, we only see one panel of her laying in the bed, so there isn't much to go on.

Also, I don't remember if her injuries were noted in the text, but I do know that often people will be kept for months in the hospital to ensure recovery from rather minor things (a temporarily delicate elbow or neck, etc) that a crazed killer could certainly continue to operate through. We have no evidence of this being the case, obviously, we only have what she says.

Her head was bandaged and she left in a wheelchair (although I think that's pretty standard). It's really more the fact she survived a huge explosion that makes me doubt her.

And she said she did - but then, all the suspects say lots of puzzling things, and none of them seem to know everything we know. And all of them are decidedly nuts.

No argument there.

That's what I'm saying, it's suspicious. If she didn't simply wear those things to act as the killer, why would she burn Harvey's things? She wouldn't burn it just to burn it. She said she believes in him. Plus, as she was doing so, she was explaining her supposed involvement, as well as her idea of Harvey's. So it could also be evidence of his involvement that she's burning.

You know what's strange though? If there are multiple killers, why do they all dress exactly the same if they shouldn't even know that that was the killer's signature outfit? Does everyone just own the same coat and hat in Gotham?

Pretty much--Bruce, Harvey and Gordon even wear the "coat and fedora" combo. Sandard Sale noir fare, dontchaknow.

As for the burning--moving on, I guess? The whole Holiday thing unraveled their relationship (so much so that Harvey only intermittently remembers her in Dark Victory) and in the complicit history she relates it represents both of them, so...I don't know. She's nuts.

What about Harvey? You see, all three of the examples you mentioned, they learned to be so good at breaking in because of their obsessions and insanity. Just like Harvey eventually did. It didn't take being personally close to Falcone and knowing him/being a family member, etc. So I don't see why it's such a stretch that Gilda could teach herself similarly. She goes into explaining that she was reading Harvey's case files to educate herself on how to be successful at serial killing, so yeah. She would be covered there.

Obsessions, insanity, and years of practice. Harvey only got in with the help of the entire rogue's gallery, since he had a tower full of mobsters to deal with (as we see disposed of by Ivy, Joker and Scarecrow, who have been doing this for some time at this point).

I don't deny that with time, effort and the right amount of obsession any Gothamite can do this, but for her very first murder, she waltes into a mobster's bathroom and shoots him dead. For her second murder, she waltzes into a mobster's penthouse and shoots an entire room[/] of them dead (with one gun, I just noticed). It's...ambitious, to say the least.

Putting it into perspective, in this same universe, Batman (who's had years of training) had his first outing assaulting some crooks breaking and entering--he didn't break into Falcone's house right away.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Everything is basically accessible to anyone with enough drive to try and access it in Gotham. Nuts are abound, and frequently break into whatever place they want, no matter how much ninja training, or how many gadgets, they've got.

Can't argue with that, either.

Well, we don't have to fabricate anything in that she tells us about those things. We only have to figure out whether or not she's the one fabricating things (as I didn't make any of that up myself), or if she's telling the truth. I haven't been convinced of the former yet, while I do agree it's possible.

I guess my biggest obstacle to believing her is that for the entire book, she's kind of this troubled waif and then in the last two pages, after everything's been pretty satisfactorily explained, she's all, "oh by the way, I was the killer too." It's literally out of nowhere and more of a "goddamnit, not another twist" than the lynchpin I think Loeb was hoping for.

Possible personal frustration overriding clinical examination? Must investigate further. [/hurm]

This is possible, but it doesn't rule her out - or Harvey. The only solid evidence I know of is that Alberto definitely killed Maroni, and had clear motives for a couple of other killings. But not all of them. Every suspect had clear motives, though.

Like I said, I like the article you posted, it's close to being satisfying, but there are still some holes left unfilled by fact.

Fair enough. It's a good mystery.

 

[RustyCage]

Her head was bandaged and she left in a wheelchair (although I think that's pretty standard).

Yeah, people are put in wheelchairs for surprisingly small things - even just for concussions (she had head bandages.. hm), something I've witnessed (recently volunteered at a hospital for a few months). Even so, faking the severity or longevity of her unspecified injuries is still a possibility.

She suggests that she was able to sneak out in spite of what happened to her, so we come back to the seemingly unanswerable question of: 'Is she making it up?'

I think it might be somewhat telling to look at Harvey in this scenario (which I'll address after the next quote).

It's really more the fact she survived a huge explosion that makes me doubt her.

This is something else that catches me as off. She and Harvey both survived it. They went into the house together just before the explosion, remember? And he came out completely unscathed as far as I can tell, used his apparent death as an advantage against the mob. It would have been advantageous for Gilda's anonymity similarly.

Their whole house was flying in all directions, so isn't it weird that he was completely fine but she was stuck in a hospital?

Pretty much--Bruce, Harvey and Gordon even wear the "coat and fedora" combo. Standard Sale noir fare, dontchaknow.

As for the burning--moving on, I guess?

Hmm.. I guess this could be so, but considering her attitude about him, I would expect her to keep everything of his, be protective of it until he returns. Her final line is, after all, 'I believe in Harvey Dent'... Someone who feels that way isn't terribly likely to burn everything memorable about the person they believe in.

The whole Holiday thing unraveled their relationship (so much so that Harvey only intermittently remembers her in Dark Victory)...

Really? That sounds tragic.. I do have to pick that book up soon.

(Would you recommend Haunted Knight as well? I was eying that, but I know literally nothing about it.)

Harvey only got in with the help of the entire rogue's gallery, since he had a tower full of mobsters to deal with (as we see disposed of by Ivy, Joker and Scarecrow, who have been doing this for some time at this point).

Harvey got into Arkham and let those guys out though. Surely he has some idea of what he's doing.

I don't deny that with time, effort and the right amount of obsession any Gothamite can do this, but for her very first murder, she waltzes into a mobster's bathroom and shoots him dead.

Hm, well, are we ever given an idea of how secure this particular mobster is?

For her second murder, she waltzes into a mobster's penthouse and shoots an entire room of them dead (with one gun, I just noticed). It's...ambitious, to say the least.

I doubt the killer often waltzed in anywhere, we're never shown how easy or hard it is for them. But certainly, Alberto is in a position of advantage as far as this goes - in some of the killings, at least.

But the gun thing surprised me too. That little .22 can pull that off, really? I guess you never know. If you catch someone off-guard, a lot is possible (see Batman).

Putting it into perspective, in this same universe, Batman (who's had years of training) had his first outing assaulting some crooks breaking and entering--he didn't break into Falcone's house right away.

The killer wasn't trying to clean up Gotham's streets though, their interest would have been focused on specifically figuring out how to get at the intended victims. We can't really look at it from Batman's perspective, it has to be from a serial killer's.

I guess my biggest obstacle to believing her is that for the entire book, she's kind of this troubled waif and then in the last two pages, after everything's been pretty satisfactorily explained, she's all, "oh by the way, I was the killer too." It's literally out of nowhere and more of a "goddamnit, not another twist" than the lynchpin I think Loeb was hoping for.

I can understand people feeling that way about it, yeah. I personally didn't - dunno why, maybe I'm just used to the unexpected thanks to my love for Sherlock Holmes and the like. It did feel very sudden and shocking, and I liked that, cause it's hard to surprise me. Hence my interest in investigating it now.

Possible personal frustration overriding clinical examination? Must investigate further. [/hurm]

Hm. That could be, yeah. (Rorschach ftw.)

Fair enough. It's a good mystery.

It's strange, I should be happy with this and just accept that it was left off as answerless intentionally, but I read that Loeb said that the clues and the answer are in the book. It's unusually compelling.

 

[The Navigator]

This is something else that catches me as off. She and Harvey both survived it. They went into the house together just before the explosion, remember? And he came out completely unscathed as far as I can tell, used his apparent death as an advantage against the mob. It would have been advantageous for Gilda's anonymity similarly.

Their whole house was flying in all directions, so isn't it weird that he was completely fine but she was stuck in a hospital?

Yeah, with the size of that explosion, I figured they would both be dead.

Maybe she happened to take the brunt of the (visually exaggerated?) explosion when they opened the package?

Hmm.. I guess this could be so, but considering her attitude about him, I would expect her to keep everything of his, be protective of it until he returns. Her final line is, after all, 'I believe in Harvey Dent'... Someone who feels that way isn't terribly likely to burn everything memorable about the person they believe in.

Ah, well...I can't really respond to this until you read DV, unless you don't mind being spoiled:

Spoiler

Gilda disappears, never to return. So it seems more like she's packing up forever in TLH, and abandoning him--another example of her conflicting dialogue/actions.

Really? [/I]That sounds tragic.. I do have to pick that book up soon.

(Would you recommend Haunted Knight as well? I was eying that, but I know literally nothing about it.)

Oh, my bad, I thought you'd read it, didn't mean to spoil anything. It's a superb follow-up (a little more straight-forward, but not in a bad way).

Haunted Knight is okay, it's a collection of short stories rather than a series.
The last one is probably the best.

Harvey got into Arkham and let those guys out though. Surely he has some idea of what he's doing.

Yeah, but he's probably been there a few times, being a District Attorney and all. He at least has a basic layout of the place, it's security--maybe nothing elaborate, but with a little foresight and breaking out the right people first, he could do it.

It's information that Holiday would need to possess (unless he/she/they have superpowers or intense training) to get into some of the places he/she/they does/do.

Hm, well, are we ever given an idea of how secure this particular mobster is?

Bruce Wayne explains at the beginning how Falcone tried to assassinate Johnny Viti before he got married. If I were Viti, I'd beef up my security--or hell, lock the damn bathroom door...

But the killings only escalate as the story goes on, to the point where Holiday effortlessly wipes out everyone in an open foyer by shooting through a closed door, so I guess whoever this is has supernatural gun skills.

And how does he/she/they get through all of these killings completely unscathed? No one has time to fire back and wound him/her/they (damn multiple suspects) and even Maroni's dogs (who are HUN-GRAY) can't catch this guy?

Maybe Batman's the one doing the killing, Tyler Durden style...

I doubt the killer often waltzed in anywhere, we're never shown how easy or hard it is for them. But certainly, Alberto is in a position of advantage as far as this goes - in some of the killings, at least.

The one thing that bothered me about Alberto's revelation was how he got "killed" on New Years--would he have fired the gun over the side, or was Harvey/Holiday (according to Gilda) that bad of a shot?

But the gun thing surprised me too. That little .22 can pull that off, really? I guess you never know. If you catch someone off-guard, a lot is possible (see Batman).

Even Batman re-imagines this scene with two weapons.

The killer wasn't trying to clean up Gotham's streets though, their interest would have been focused on specifically figuring out how to get at the intended victims. We can't really look at it from Batman's perspective, it has to be from a serial killer's.

Good point.

I can understand people feeling that way about it, yeah. I personally didn't - dunno why, maybe I'm just used to the unexpected thanks to my love for Sherlock Holmes and the like. It did feel very sudden and shocking, and I liked that, cause it's hard to surprise me. Hence my interest in investigating it now.

The part that really surprised me was Batman lurking in the basement of Gilda's house. How terrifying would that have been?

It's strange, I should be happy with this and just accept that it was left off as answerless intentionally, but I read that Loeb said that the clues and the answer are in the book. It's unusually compelling.

I'll bet it's Gordon.
-Years of gun training and experience with homicidal maniacs.
-Has a vigilante in his employ already.
-Already has shifty district attorney to throw the blame to if things go south.
-Visits Arkham regularly and can probably handle security.

He creates a villain to wipe out the mobsters and secures himself a promotion to Commissioner, all the while protecting his family and the new baby boy that his wife brought into the world. Plus, look how Batman's viewpoint shifts from beginning to end of the book--from "I believe in Gotham City" to "I believe in BATMAN." Whereas Gordon, realizing the wheels of his machine are well-oiled, believes "in Gotham City," knowing he can rule de facto over this hellhole with no one the wiser.

Spoiler

 

[RustyCage]

Hmmmm, considering some oddities we've pointed out, I'm beginning to think we may be trying to apply too realistic a ruleset to this mystery. I'll re-read the book (was wanting to anyway!), grab a copy of Dark Victory, and ponder further. If I come up with anything interesting, I will definitely post it here.

Oh, and, I was really happy with Gordon's portrayal in this book compared to Year One, so don't break my heart like that!

I flipped back to the final Gilda scene - she dropped the Holiday gun in the fire (do guns.. burn?) with the hat and jacket. I guess that could be pegged as 'moving on' as well, since she thought he was Holiday. But my assumption (which I admit it is) is still that she was burning evidence. It just seems more in line with the dialogue. Maybe DV will give some whisper of a hint at her logic.

 

[souloffire]

There is no way Holiday would have been classified as a serial killer. I always felt that TLH made Batman and the police look very incompetent. They knew what days the killings would take place and who the victims would be and still couldn't solve the thing.

 

[The Joker]

How did they know who the victims would be?

 

[RustyCage]

How did they know who the victims would be?

That's what I was going to ask.

 

[The Navigator]

How did they know who the victims would be?

They read the script.

 

[souloffire]

The victims were members of the Falcone and Maroni crime families and the world's greatest detective still couldn't stop the killer.

 

[The Joker]

The victims were members of the Falcone and Maroni crime families and the world's greatest detective still couldn't stop the killer.

There have been many stories where a villain would announce they were going to kill someone specific, and Batman and the Cops still failed to stop them.

The Joker in his first appearance, for example, managed to kill two wealthy socialites, after announcing he was going to do so a day in advance.

Are you really criticizing the fact that Batman and and Gordon didn't predict who out of the big Falcone and Maroni organizations were going to be targeted next?

 

[souloffire]

Are you really criticizing the fact that Batman and and Gordon didn't predict who out of the big Falcone and Maroni organizations were going to be targeted next?

Yes.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

I think the difference is the stories Joker refers to usually take place over a couple of nights, rather than a year. The murderer over this period who was not a master criminal like Joker but a rookie who was committing them for attention. For the supposed World's Greatest Detective to never solve a case that goes for a bit over a year until the criminal is simply caught in the act is utterly ridiculous, and in keeping with the enormous leaps in logic, plot-holes, awful characterisations and shoddy themes of TLH.