Rosemary LaBianca was born Ruth Kathryn Elliott December 15,
1925 in Bisbee AZ to William Oyston Elliot and Emmabelle Elliott nee Rolf.
William and Emmabelle married March 18, 1918 in Tucson AZ.
Emmabelle and William went on to have five children. On the
1930 census they were named Betty 11, Dorothy 5, Ruth 4, William 1. The fifth
child was Francis, a boy born in 1932.
Betty’s birth name was Emma Belle, she went by Betty perhaps to
distinguish her from her mother Emmabelle. There is only a birth certificate
for the youngest child, Francis, who apparently died as an infant.
We know that Ruth was adopted and her name was changed to
Rosemary Harmon. Her brother William was also adopted and he became William
White. It looks like the two older girls eventually went back to live with their
father.
So, why were Rosemary and her brother William put up for adoption?
We were given some documents that go a long way to explain
why it happened.
Many thanks to Daniel Hale for the documents.
12 comments:
Thanks for this. Excellent document find that explains so much about Rosemary.
Nice work Daniel
Nice to see a post involving genuine historical research as opposed to the pointless speculations offered up here by others (I'm thinking of one "other" in particular).
Thank you for sharing this. I hope it helps others in their research - Daniel
Ain't that the truth!
You know, for a few years I've been taking knocks on this and other sites because I've made the point that the victims of the murders and their families don't rate anywhere close to the interest of the actual murderers themselves and should be left alone. Part of my thinking has always been that the victims were essentially that, and, but for the fact that they were murdered in a bizarre set of crimes, few would honestly have any real interest in them; I mean, why would anyone have any interest in Steven Parent or Gary Hinman or Rosemary LaBianca other than their friends or family members ?
I know that sounds harsh; it's not meant to be. It's also said with the intention of protecting the victims {and by extension, their families} from the kind of intrusive sensationalizing that is all but inevitable in a case like this one. It's different when it comes to the killers and their associates ¬> knowing something about their background can be a great assistance in seeing how they came to the point that they did, in killing. But the victims ? Should their lives be made to become 'dirty laundry' that gets paraded abroad for all and sundry to see ?
The documents in this thread only convince me further of what I've felt for the longest while. And I would bet high stakes that the only reason anyone in 2025 or whenever these saw the light {I've seen them somewhere before, but I can't quite recall}, has the slightest interest in this, basically unknown woman, Emmabelle {or Emily Belle}, is because of what happened 36 years later to one of her daughters.
Grim, I'm sorry you feel that way. I see the documents as adding another demension to who Rosemary was. She had a tragic childhood. She was separated from her siblings and her father took the two oldest children to live with him but allowed the two youngest to be adopted. The rejection Rosemary must have felt is unimaginable. Not only that, her new parents changed her first name taking away the last thing she could call her own.
You're right probably no one really cares about Emmabelle but many do care about how Emmabelle's actions had a profound effect on Rosemary's life. If not for Emmabelle's acts Rosemary's life most certainly would have been very different and in all likelyhood she never would have been so viciously murdered.
Hi Deb,
I hope you're doing well and want you to know that when I saw the result of Daniel's research, I thought you'd put it up and was considering telling him so. That would have been the highest compliment I could have paid him.
Daniel,
I hope you read my message to Deb.
Thanks for the information and for solving the adoption mystery.
Hi DebS,
I hope you're doing as well as can be expected. As ever, though unsaid, props to you !
DebS said:
I'm sorry you feel that way
Yeah, it's a strange one. It wasn't a criticism of the post, the researcher or the decision to run the post. Yet, in a roundabout way, I suppose it is. Well, you know me, I deal in paradoxes and nuanced matters all the time. There's way more in everyday life than many of us care to acknowledge.
I'm clearly in the minority here, because, off the top of my head, I don't recall coming across any measure of agreement on this.
I see the documents as adding another demension to who Rosemary was
But that's the heart of my point. Once we start looking into the territory of who a murder victim was, the door is forever opened to whatever one finds, be it good, bad or ugly. And unlike the perps whose lives one may be looking into, the victim is not there to rebut or explain anything. And then their relatives have to face, in addition to coping with what has happened to them {because they are victims too}, being put in the position where they are having to defend someone they loved ~ even though that which they are having to defend turns out to be, or can be spun in ways that a great slice of the population find, pretty ugly. I've long felt that Peter Folger had the right idea when he, if it is true he did this, got heavy with any writers that were going to write anything negative about his daughter. But he couldn't do it forever.
If not for Emmabelle's acts Rosemary's life most certainly would have been very different
Undoubtedly. But that's true of every human being on the planet. For better or for worse. And who is to say that Rosemary had a worse life than it would have been if she had stayed with her Mum ? Many might see it the other way, that actually, by getting away from Emmabelle, she had a chance at a much better life. Ironically, one could apply that argument to Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, Bruce Davies, etc.
and in all likelyhood she never would have been so viciously murdered
How so ? That's somewhat fatalistic, is it not ? I'm curious to hear an explanation of any possible connection between the two events.
@grimtraveller....I'm going to take a shot at responding to your response to "and in all likelihood she never would have been so viciously murdered". I think Deb S. was saying that, had not Emmabelle put Rosemary up for adoption, the latter would have (at least potentially) had a stable upbringing and wouldn't have spent all those years drifting and scrounging and enduring bad marriages and then, ultimately, ending up with Leno and living at Waverly Drive in 1969.
SixtiesRockRules, yes that is correct. But I would go on to say that the underlying cause of Rosemary's troubles was rejection by both of her parents.
Post a Comment