One of the stranger revelations in my 2008 book "Deconstructing Sammy" was the relationship between Sammy Davis, Jr., his wife Altovise and Donald Rumsfeld. I mention this because Rumsfeld recently released his own memoir, and every time I see his photo I still can't, to this day, understand their relationship. Clean cut, American flag waving Rummy, the sex, drugs, mob owned yet super cool Sammy and his beautiful but pathetic and tragic wife Altovise.
I first heard about the connection during my initial interviews for the book in 2006. As the story goes Sammy was long gone and Altovise was living in poverty in Pennsylvania fielding calls from “the President's guy."
"Donald Rumsfeld," I repeated incredulously after first hearing his name, "calling here, in Pennsylvania?" 
It didn't make sense at the time, but I learned later about Sammy's ties to the Nixon White House, his introduction to Rummy, and how the two maintained a long lasting friendship. 
Then came Rummy's dinner with Altovise following Sammy's death, and his calls to Pennsylvania in the 1990s. 
Of course, everyone has asked if Sammy ever shared Altovise sexually with Rumsfeld, something Sammy did with his other pals. 
While Sammy's friends intimated Rumsfeld and Altovise shared more than deep conversation, I really can't say for sure if it went beyond that. 
If they weren't intimate, then it didn't make sense, and still doesn't, as to why Rumsfeld would have paid much attention to someone like Altovise, a broken shell of a woman with nothing to really offer aside from her figure (though she knew how to take advantage of her physical gifts). 
I don't know if Rumsfeld addresses in his book his relationship with Sammy and Altovise, but I do plan on reading it. I'll let you know. 

I spoke with one of the federal investigators who put Franklin Floyd in prison in 1995 (for kidnapping Michael Hughes) and passed along the tidbit from one of Sharon's classmates about hearing a toddler in the background during phone calls with Sharon.
His first thought was that perhaps it was Sharon's child. Then he thought again and suggested that the boy was another of Floyd's victims, stolen from his mother and headed for destination unknown.
There's really no way to know, but it does open a door into Floyd's world and prompts discussion as to whether he was even more of a monster than we believed.
As it stands he's still rotting in a Florida prison. Anyone hoping he'd get zapped into oblivion anytime soon will be disappointed to know some of the evidence from his trial was lost and he'll most likely avoid the executioner and live out the rest of his days on the taxpayers dime behind bars.
I've heard from a good number of readers who want to visit with Floyd hoping a passionate appeal would somehow lead him to divulging Sharon's origins. Forget it. You'd have better luck trying to talk a banana into peeling itself. I spent six hours with the man during prison interviews and came to the (quick) conclusion he was more than a sociopath - he was a vicious killer. That opinion was quickly formed after Floyd showed me disturbing photos he took of a severely beaten, nearly unconscious Cheryl Commesso. He obtained the photos while representing himself during his murder trial, and they revealed how he had burned the young woman with cigarettes throughout her body. He also left her bloodied and near death before shooting her twice in the head.
We'll keep everyone posted when new leads come in.

I haven't had much to report over the last few months on the search for Sharon's identity. The trail had run cold with no new leads, until yesterday, when I spoke with Joe Stegall, a high school classmate of Sharon's at Forest Park. Joe reached out to me about a month ago, and we finally connected on the phone.
Joe had a crush on Sharon and relayed many of the similar experiences others described in their releationships with Sharon, especially her quick exit from phone calls whenever Floyd was around. But it was during those calls to Sharon's home that Joe said something interesting - he could hear a toddler in the background.
When Joe asked Sharon who it was she said it was her "little brother." According to Joe, the child was there in the house for some time, perhaps weeks, since he could hear him whenever he was on the phone with Sharon. I have no idea who the boy was or why he was in the home. It wasn't Michael, who was born two years later in 1988. Could the child have been another one of Floyd's victims and awaiting transfer or sale to someone else, much like Floyd sold Sharon's other children? I dont' know. It's just a guess. 
Joe also mentioned that Sharon's son, Michael Anthony, was most likely named after Michael Anthony, the bassist in Sharon's favorite band, Van Halen. 


 

In 2005 I received an unsolicited email from Andrew Jarecki, who introduced himself as a film director pursuing a movie about Robert Durst. He wrote that he had read my book "A Deadly Secret" and  wanted to talk to me about optioning the book.
We had a couple of phone conversations and he sent me a copy of his critically acclaimed documentary "Capturing the Friedmans."  I watched it, liked it, and after a few more pleasant phone calls I met with Jarecki at a diner off Route 3 in New Jersey just outside Manhattan. With him were his co-producer Marc Smerling and screenwriter Marcus Hinchey. We spent three hours at that diner talking about Durst, my book, his movie, his plans and how much he wanted to see my two years worth of research. He wasn't convinced that Durst was a serial killer, but he thought the book was the deepest, most complete study of Durst and the various investigations that surrounded him.
I left the diner believing his next call would be to my agent to option the book. I previously met with reps from CBS and Showtime in Los Angeles in 2002 when producer Gary Smith owned the rights, but nothing materialized so I thought this could work out. I was intrigued. Jarecki called my agent, but not to buy the book. Instead, he threw us a curveball saying he wanted to hire me as a short term "consultant." In Hollywoodspeak, it was a far cheaper way for Jarecki to gain access to all my research, including the NYPD files on the Kathie Durst investigation, without having to credit the book or pay for the privilage (consider this is a guy who made a few hundred million in 1999 when he sold Moviefone to AOL).
Of course I said no.
Fast forward to 2010. Jarecki's thinly disguised Durst movie, "All Good Things," is now available on pay per view ahead of a theatrical release in December. The film was finished a couple of years ago but has been in film-hell waiting for a distributor. I heard all sorts of rumors as to why the long wait but hoped the film would eventually see the light of day. After all, a successful film would regenerate interest in the Durst story and perhaps help tie a few loose ends, maybe even draw additional interest from law enforcement. I also figured you couldn't really screw up a story that featurers three murders, two investigations, a super-wealthy New York real estate family and a cross-dressing protagonist who dismembered a guy and chucked his body parts in to Galveston Bay, right? 
Wrong.
I ordered "All Good Things" last night, sat down with my wife and when it was over we were both somewhat disappointed, and puzzled. Jarecki did a very good job humanizing a pedophile in "Capturing the Friedman's" but his attempt at adding depth to someone like Robert Durst missed the point entirely. You can't explain away Durst's horrific actions because he smoked pot and was browbeaten by his powerful father, whom Durst blamed for the suicide of his mother. And in trying to humanize Durst, Jarecki ignored his truly terrifying secrets. Though fictionalizing the Durst story (using different names) he did follow the basic script, particularly his early relationship with Kathie. But there's little character development, a lot of stretching of the truth (Morris Black DID NOT kill Susan Berman) and an unsatisfying ending.  Knowing Jarecki and his partners read the book from cover to cover (and marked it up with a few thousand Post-Its) I  figured there would be a few scenes taken directly from the book (I already had conversations with my attorney). Yes, there were plenty of those, and my reporting on the death of Durst's mother was hijacked, but at the end of the day this is less a Durst movie and more of a sensationalized two-hour version of Law and Order. Jarecki also took liberties with Seymour Durst, portraying the real esate powerbroker as a silent partner in prostitution and porno houses.  The Durst family owned buildings that were home to porn theaters, but I never heard anything about them getting payoffs from them. The Durst's weren't thrilled with the portrayal and have threatened a law suit.  
Given the all-star cast "All Good Things" will probably generate a little more attention and buzz during its most likely very brief theatrical release in December (supposedly for Oscar consideration). 

My advice? Skip the film. Read the book.