Saturday, May 28, 2022

The Valentino Bill

On August 30, 1926, palm decorations, 2 vases of roses "beauties" and a scarf/drape of roses were delivered to Campbell's Funeral Home, charged to the name of "Valentino Bill". Renato did the currency rate of inflation calculation as of today and this would have been an expense of $9,602.03. 


 My visit to Campbell's contributed so many valuable documents, especially proving George Ullman paid the bill. I included those documents in Affairs Valentino...and proudly so. 

18 comments:

  1. More evidence of the outstanding Zumaya research. Were you the first to closely examine these documents from Campbell's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The last person to access the Campbell's documents before I did was Robert Oberfirst, whose Valentino bio was published in the late 1970's.

      Delete
  2. Folks, this is forged (a few clues...one being the invoicing standard).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, hahaha how desperate. This is still on file with Campbells. So head on over and see it for yourself. The "Evelyn forged it" defamation is long over as an argument. I have never forged a document, never altered any and have had no reason to do so. Why would I sit about forging receipts for floral deliveries back in 1926. Go away with the tired old forgery statements. I have been accused by you 5:01 of forging everything I have discovered...all of the court documents which are publicly housed, forging everything from complicated studio contracts to household records to court testimony. This is without a doubt the most ridiculous of all their lies about me. Laughable really. Hilariously sad. An invoice for flowers? Really troll, you are out of gas. Push your car back to the station and give up.

      Delete
    2. All of the invoices and records I shared in Affairs Valentino are still on file at Campbells.... just saying.

      Delete
    3. I posted your comment 5:01 because it made me laugh out loud. What next? That was a new one and if you will pardon my saying so, really grasping.

      Delete
    4. 5:01 PM continues to beat the drum that anything Ms. Zumaya discovers and presents is a complete hoax and should be dismissed as such by the "Valentino Studies Community". Such pathetic hogwash.
      The VSC members are not engaged in any continuing scholarship simply because there is no capability within their membership to do so. Terhune sets the extremely narrow "intellectual" parameters for these dullards....and it shows in stupid claims like this.

      Delete
    5. Well said 5:49. "Stupid claim" and "hogwash" indeed. An invoice booklet used by some florist in 1926 has a recognizable "Standard" which they claim to know all about? It is especially stupid when these things are publicly available.

      Delete
    6. Each time I see a comment from a poster such as 5:01 I get the same mental image - a bed ridden mess half clad in a stinking bathrobe, a beer can resting on her gut, surrounded by garbage and a thousand feral cats. What in God’s name is her investment in obsessively pleading for the attention of Evelyn Zumaya and Renato Floris? Her sole message seems to be that the Floris’s have never done a worthwhile thing and, to boot, no one pays attention to them. If the poster is so confident in these beliefs, why does she spend her hours stalking people of no consequence? Surely the care of her own fragile psyche is more worthy of her time. Her real quarrel should be with the Greater Valentino Studies Community, which has shat upon and shunned her. She apparently doesn’t have the cojones to take them on though.

      Delete
    7. The most surreal thing about this is the description, according to the distant cousin, of how Evelyn falsified the documents she presented. Nothing could be more false, trivial and nonsensical. I suggest to just take an Amtrack ride and tour the archive of the court of appeals library in San Francisco to verify the authenticity of the documents found and presented to the intelligent public. When I suggested this to this very person long ago, she told me it was too much effort to go to the library and she preferred to just look in an old chest in an attic. Whatever that means.

      La cosa più surreale di tutto questo è la descrizione, secondo la lontana cugina, di come Evelyn avrebbe falsificato i documenti che ha presentato. Niente potrebbe essere più falso, banale e senza senso. Suggerisco di fare un giro su Amtrack e visitare l'archivio della biblioteca della corte d'appello di San Francisco per verificare l'autenticità dei documenti trovati e presentati al pubblico intelligente. Quando ho suggerito questo a quella persona, molto tempo fa, lei mi ha detto che era troppo scomodo andare in biblioteca e preferiva semplicemente frugare in un vecchio baule dimenticato in una soffitta. Posto vi sia una buona ragione per fare questo.

      Delete
    8. 😄😄😄😄😄

      Delete
    9. Lucille McGillicuddyMay 28, 2022 at 10:33 PM

      Coco Puffs, your delightful description of Madame Harpy was dead on, although I think you caught her on a good day. I would throw in a B & W TV in the corner with a wire hanger antenna and Oreo crumbs all over the chenille bedspread. The forgery accusation has always been her go-to wail toward Ms. Zumaya's research. The jealousy just drips from every word she writes. I still await the first book, podcast, or published article from Miss Susie Creamcheeze. Until then, her comments will remain nothing more than wretched pleas for attention. I don't think she cares what people say about her, as long as they say something. That is some kind of miserable desperation.

      Delete
    10. The invoicing standard? What does that mean? Hate to break it to Comment 5:01, but pads of invoices have been around since the 1800s. If you are so positive that invoice is forged, then provide your evidence. It's that simple.

      Delete
    11. Is 5:01 claiming to be a student of the history of invoice pads? Do people collect antique invoice pads? What a bizarre hobby that would be. But I think 5:01 is just doing their job, pushing the nonsense about to chum the waters.

      Delete
  3. It sounds like 5:01 has got nothing better to do but post stupid comments like that. Really!! This is a piece of history , at least I think so. But thanks that you did it gave us a laugh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! This and all the other documents are history and all the more reason why it is deplorable these people, while feigning expertise, reject, lie about and censor it all. They are the true forgeries.

      Delete
  4. Desperate to get Terhune's approval.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I say we put this troll on ice and push her out to sea. She's probably orgasmic at all this attention. She's not worth talking about.

    ReplyDelete