CA CA - Farren Stanberry, 18, San Francisco, 24 Apr 1980

[Ciriii57]

I have sent the questions over to Sgt Rand and will let you all know what he has said.

I also have the email to the Bay Area Reporter...but I have decided to sit on it until next week as this last weekend was San Francisco Pride and I have a feeling it will be one of their busiest times. I want to maximise the the chances of getting a response. I am going to use the basic template to email any other news outlets too, you never know.

 

[Ciriii57]

I didn't find anything in The Bay Area Reporter ads that stood out to me as particularly relevant.
An example of jobs that were being advertised in the 8th May 1980 edition are below:

A few jobs in bars in most of the editions and as can be seen in the middle of the above ad there were always ads for modelling and erotic work. I can't say whether Farren would have gone in for anything like this but it's always a possibility. A jobs a job when you need one, but whether it could have led to his demise...who knows? It has revealed a quite shady side of SF and I wonder if Farren had become a part of this world of vice?

I also found this ad for the National Hotel from 1976 (only 4 years before Farren stayed there) in a different publication called "Kalendar" which seems to be mostly articles about the film and theatre industry taregted at gay men. The National Hotel refers to itself as "Wildest in the West". Does anyone have a clue as to what this might be referencing coz to my mind it makes it sound really sleazy! Was that the intention?

https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/sfbagals/Kalendar/1975_Kalendar_Vol04_NoL26_Jan09_.pdf

Since so much of the hotel's advertising strategy was focused towards gay men I am now almost certain that Farren was gay. I can't see anyone who wasn't gay in 1980 choosing to stay at a specifically gay hotel. It may be relevant in where he was working and where and with who is was socialising with. (JMO)

ETA-Link to Kalendar article

 

[summergirl1]

I really think that if it could be identified where he was working that would be a very important (and new) avenue to look into, although issues like missing and old records and people being deceased or hard to find ( the same issues surrounding his time at the National Hotel) are bound to be issues too with his workplace after this much time.

It's too bad CH is either deceased or can't be found. Now that he no longer works at the hotel, he may be more informative than he was to Farren's uncle back in the 1990s. He may (to some extent understandably) been most concerned about protecting his long time job at the time. Or maybe it had been a long time and he didn't remember much or know anything beyond Farren walked out the door and never came back. I'm guessing Farren's uncle probably came across The Bay Area Reporter at some point in time as he was the one doing a lot of research into Farren's disappearence in the 1990s.

 

[Ciriii57]

Something has been rolling around at the back of my mind for ages. It's regarding CH (Hotel manager) and something is just way "off". Either what he said was wrong or we are missing something vital...let me try and explain (please excuse me if this is rambling and doesn't make sense, it all wants out of my head at once haha..) :

So, as we know, in 1980 Farren's grandma is told that "Farren left leaving an unpaid bill and all his belongings behind" and as per Sgt Rand "the people he was living with stated he left for work and never came back. Farren left what few belongings he possessed where he was staying".
Fast-forward 10 years and Uncle Richard drops into the hotel to be told that "Farren was visiting a gay man" at the time. But the gay man has since died of AIDS so can't be questioned. Now this is either a very tragic coincidence OR a very convenient story. Either way, it occurs to me that CH must have known more than he let on. Let me try and work this out below:

• Why did CH remember Farren a whole decade later? In those 10 years literally thousands of transients and tourists must have stayed at The National, I doubt he remembered them all, so what made Farren stand out? Could it be because Farren went missing so he remembered him...BUT NO! Nobody is SF knew that Farren was missing, for all anyone knew he had just returned home or moved on. As far as CH was aware Farren was probably just another young kid that had skipped on paying his bill, this probably happened alot in a hotel that catered to transients. Yet CH remebered Farren well enough to know where he had been going. WHY?
• SF was a big city and ALOT of gay men died of AIDS. Did CH know them all, no, not possible. Yet CH not only knew that Farren had been visiting this guy, but also knew that the guy had later died of AIDS - so the logical conclusion is that CH knew this guy and also continued to know him after Farren disappeared (he had to know him after to know he had died). If CH knew that Farren was visiting this guy then it seems INCONCIEVABLE to me that there wouldn't have been a conversation about it, eg: "Oh hey, Farren never came back to the hotel and he owes us some money, he was last visiting you, what happened"? I have to conclude that CH knew this guy and by extension knew more about what happened in the lead up to Farren's disappearance.
• Why the new story? I'm thinking Farren's Grandma probably left her number with the hotel in case Farren came back. So why no mention of the gay man during this phonecall or if he remembered later, why not call to say "Oh yeah he was visiting John Doe, you should speak to him". I assume the family asked for Farren's belongings to be returned to them at some point (since LE knew he had "..few belongings")...no mention then either?

These things really bother me. Something about it just doesn't add up in my mind and I can't square his story and the original account of going to work. This all of course only applies if the story of the gay man is correct. I have mentioned it to Sgt Rand a couple of times and he hasn't referenced it at all, he only knows that "Farren left for work" according to his roomates, so maybe we shouldn't place too much credibility in the gay man comment. But then...why would CH even brig it up?
I know some of you have said that maybe CH was covering for Farren, not wanting to out him to his family. But this doesn't make sense to me, if that were the case then just don't mention the fact that the man was gay, just say he was visiting a man, not a gay man. Or claim you don't remember.
Or maybe CH was worried about his job...nah I don't buy that either. He had worked there for at least a decade, I don't think he was going to get sacked because someone went missing 10 years ago.

So...what do I think it all means...well I'm not sure but a couple of ideas would be:

• Farren did indeed voluntarily disappear. He started a new life and cut ties to his family. He had a boyfriend and this was the "gay man". CH knew this and knew Farren, maybe they were friends. Uncle Richard showing up at the hotel panicked him...he told him the truth that Farren was visiting a gay man, but when asked about this man he said he had died of AIDS so that no one could contact him. He was covering for a still alive Farren. What this doesn't explain is why his roomates said he left for work nor why he left all his belongings. Also, I still don't believe Farren would cut ties with his grandma.
• CH was just mistaken. The person he remembers as visiting a gay man wasn't Farren at all.
• CH knew what happened to Farren all along. He knew the gay man, he knew Farren was visiting him and he also knew what went on.

What I am certain about is that if there was a "gay man" then CH knew him at the time Farren was visiting him. Either Farren or the gay man had to have told him this information-it is not usual for a hotel manager to know where you are going and who with unless you specifically tell them. This suggets he was friendly with one of them. I am also pretty sure that CH knew this gay man after Farren disappeared-otherwise he wouldn't have known he'd died of AIDS (I'm pretty sure people weren't advertising the fact they had AIDS in the 80's and I doubt there were lists of AIDS vistims being published-so I figure they must have been acquaintances at least).
That's of course IF this guy did actually die. It seems like it would be quite convenient for this person to be dead so that they cannot be questioned by family or LE if they knew something that they didn't want found out. In this scenario I can't understand why CH would cover for them though, unless he was in on something too and he also had something to hide.
Or...could CH know exactly what happened to Farren and the gay guy story was just a cover up?

<modsnip>

 

[Ciriii57]

Thank you Marin County! (Just reciebed the below email):

Good morning,

Please accept my apologies for my delayed response as I was away from the office on vacation having returned and am in receipt of your email request for information. Please allow me to introduce myself; I am Roger Fielding, the Chief Deputy for the Coroner Division of the Marin County Sheriff’s Office. I will gladly investigate the information you have provided to see if we may locate a possible match or any pertinent information and get back to you shortly. Your information request will be investigated by the Coroner Division staff and myself secondary to present caseload, so I expect to hopefully have some information and / or an update for you in the coming week.

 

[Mfleish]

He was covering for a still alive Farren.

I like this stream of consciousness. Here's an additional thought. What if CH wasn't covering for Farren, but himself? What if he was the gay man and wanted to throw Farren's uncle and investigators away from the hotel? Maybe he remembered him because he had something to do with the disappearance?
<modsnip>

 

[Ciriii57]

What if CH wasn't covering for Farren, but himself? What if he was the gay man and wanted to throw Farren's uncle and investigators away from the hotel? Maybe he remembered him because he had something to do with the disappearance?

BBM : YES! Of course!
That would definitely explain why he remembered him! Either CH was the gay man, or he knew him. And, if this story of the gay man is true, I believe CH may be the key- he knew more!

<modsnip>

 

[Auntie Cipation]

The part that seems to me too vague to be meaningful is the claim he was "visiting a gay man". 'Visiting' is just not a narrow enough word:

It could mean he stopped by to chat with a friend for an hour.
It could me he was staying with the man for multiple days.
It could mean Farren was caregiving for the man (though AIDS wasn't known yet at that time, but people did have other ailments).
It could also mean Farren was visiting him in the sense of being a sex worker or a "kept boy".

Side note: As unappealing as it might be to consider Farren in this way, I think we have to remember, as the risque newspaper ads showed, that much of gay male SF culture in that era was oriented around anonymous sex, bath houses/glory holes etc. Not the fight for equal rights and monogamous relationships we might think of today.

 

[summergirl1]

I think the manager may have meant that that the gay man was the person who drew Farren to the hotel in the first place and was why he rented a room there, although Farren was staying in another room with other room mates. He wasn't living with him, and it was a hotel where men often came and went so the manager used the term "visiting". It would help to know how he acted when contacted by Farren's uncle. Was he helpful? Evasive? Or did he seem bothered or busy? There is context we don't have. Maybe it was a busy day and he had other things to attend to than talking in depth about someone who had been a short term tenant long ago. It would be helpful to know the context. Also, LE would likely have been more observant than Farren's uncle about how CH acted when contacted or they would have gotten more of a reaction, perhaps. A missing person's relative is more easily dismissed or not taken seriously by some people anyway than LE. I get the impression Farren's uncle visited the hotel and didn't just call them on the phone? At least that's what I had thought.

On another note, for whatever reason, I think at the moment anyway, based on what Sargeant Rand has said recently that the key to finding more info on Farren's disappearence is finding out where Farren worked. That's my instinct anyway.

 

[Satch]

I get the impression Farren's uncle visited the hotel and didn't just call them on the phone? At least that's what I had thought.

@Ciriii57

What is known about Farren's Uncle in terms of visiting the hotel, or was this just a phone call? From what I recall, your research indicated that Uncle Richard was collecting information on a story for the local paper? (I assume a John Day paper at the time.)

Satch

 

[Ciriii57]

I think the manager may have meant that that the gay man was the person who drew Farren to the hotel in the first place and was why he rented a room there, although Farren was staying in another room with other room mates

I too had wondered if this was the case but I can't really make it work for me. JMO but I don't think it makes sense for Farren to stay in a different room if he already knew someone at the hotel? And I can't figure out how he would have met this person and then arranged to have met up in a city he'd never been to in the days before internet/cellphones? There's no evidence that he had contact with anyone in SF beforehand or I am sure the family would have called them first, nor is there any mention that he had previosly stayed anywhere other than The National.
It's possible one of the roommates was also the gay man, but again, I dont think that makes sense either--since Farren was definitely renting a room at the hotel, then saying the word "visiting" still doesn't make sense in my mind if he meant visiting The National. I am sure you would say "he was staying here with a gay man" rather than visiting?
JMO but I personally think he meant visiting elsewhere.

 

[Ciriii57]

The part that seems to me too vague to be meaningful is the claim he was "visiting a gay man". 'Visiting' is just not a narrow enough word:

It could mean he stopped by to chat with a friend for an hour.
It could me he was staying with the man for multiple days.
It could mean Farren was caregiving for the man (though AIDS wasn't known yet at that time, but people did have other ailments).
It could also mean Farren was visiting him in the sense of being a sex worker or a "kept boy".

Side note: As unappealing as it might be to consider Farren in this way, I think we have to remember, as the risque newspaper ads showed, that much of gay male SF culture in that era was oriented around anonymous sex, bath houses/glory holes etc. Not the fight for equal rights and monogamous relationships we might think of today.

You're right on both counts. It could have been all or none of the above. Personally my money is on CH meaning that Farren went somewhere else (away from the hotel) to visit the man, otherwise it seems such a strange way to describe a paying guest. That is, of course, if CH is telling the truth about this. And on that, I am not so sure at all. Certainly I think there is more to the story anyway.

Yes, we must always keep in mind that Farren may have been working as a rent boy/escort/prostitute/model etc. It is a possibility and wouldn't have been that unusual to get into back then in SF. As well as caring for someone, this is the only other way that I can think of that "went to work" and "visiting a gay man" can equate to the same thing. Of course, it could well have been a normal job as well.
I am still inclined to think that Farren did set off to go to work that day. And I think there is more to the comment by CH, at least if his comment is true then I think CH and this gay man had to know what became of Farren.

 

[Ciriii57]

Ok...well they didn't find Farren, but at least they checked AND we can at least discount him being found in Marin County.

Good afternoon ;
We have reviewed our unidentified DOE cases from this time period to date and do not have any missing persons / cases with similar described biometric information, etc. The nearest DOE case with similar biometric characteristics was in 2006, and this subject’s biometric information has been excluded as not matching.
Should additional information be developed, we will gladly update you. I wish you the best of luck in your search efforts, but regrettably cannot be of additional assistance at this time.
All the best,

 

[Mfleish]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed> I totally forgot about the bowling! I went back through the Bay Area Reporter and found two pieces, the first from April 1980 and the second from June 1980 about the Tavern Guild Bowling League. I wonder if we could figure out if Farren was involved.
I also found the GLBT Historical Society which I will check out more and see if they have any records that could help us.

 

[Ciriii57]

I totally forgot about the bowling! I went back through the Bay Area Reporter and found two pieces, the first from April 1980 and the second from June 1980 about the Tavern Guild Bowling League. I wonder if we could figure out if Farren was involved.
I also found the GLBT Historical Society which I will check out more and see if they have any records that could help us.

Wow some of the team names! Leather ambush, blue balls, out of the closet! Does the Tavern guild Bowling League still exist? The timing would be spot on. He said he'd contacted the bowling association but that doesn't mean they knew everyone's name. If that League still exists it's just possible there are still members who were playing back then too.

Does the GLBT Historical Society have a publication or journal? Perhaps they could publish something for us as well? I will add them to the list!

On a side note, a question to those in The US...I held off sending the email to news outlets because of Pride to maximise someone reading it and not having too much else to do. Now I realise July 4th is coming up ...should I hold off again? Is it a media frenzy too?

 

[Ciriii57]

Does the Tavern guild Bowling League still exist?

To answer my own question, Yes it does! It lists leagues, names and has contact info and a Facebook. It's an LGBT league. One of the teams is called "senior moments" so there are some old timers still playing!

Definitely worth sending something, probably with a photo of Farren and see if any members remember. Perhaps they could put a flyer on their noticeboard or something? Anyone want to make contact?? I can but it won't be until Friday now.

Just gave myself another idea too....might it be worth making a missing persons flyer and, like Richard Colbeth did, blanketing San Francisco? Any place it gets sent would just need to print it and put it up? It can't hurt right?

 

[Auntie Cipation]

@Ciriii57 not that it matters in the grand scheme but just so you know -- San Francisco and Sacramento are more like 90 miles apart and even back then the rush hour traffic didn't move for hours.

In 82-83 I was working in San Francisco and had a weekly 7pm class in Sacramento. I experimented with driving schedules. If I left SF at 2pm, I would arrive in Sac around 4 pm and sit around with nothing to do for three hours before my class. But if I waited until 3pm before leaving SF, I would be late for class, having been stuck in Bay Area traffic long enough to still be on the road at 7pm even though it wasn't too crowded near Sac. Of course that was in the easterly direction, wouldn't have been so bad going west (everyone worked in the city and lived in the suburbs, probably different now).

Anyway, like I said probably not related to Farren's uncle's travel decisions, just wanted to clear up the distance issue.

 

[Ciriii57]

@Ciriii57 not that it matters in the grand scheme but just so you know -- San Francisco and Sacramento are more like 90 miles apart and even back then the rush hour traffic didn't move for hours.

In 82-83 I was working in San Francisco and had a weekly 7pm class in Sacramento. I experimented with driving schedules. If I left SF at 2pm, I would arrive in Sac around 4 pm and sit around with nothing to do for three hours before my class. But if I waited until 3pm before leaving SF, I would be late for class, having been stuck in Bay Area traffic long enough to still be on the road at 7pm even though it wasn't too crowded near Sac. Of course that was in the easterly direction, wouldn't have been so bad going west (everyone worked in the city and lived in the suburbs, probably different now).

Anyway, like I said probably not related to Farren's uncle's travel decisions, just wanted to clear up the distance issue.

Thank you! Please do correct me or I'll never learn!
I calculated the distance from John Day to Sacramento and John Day to SF and used the difference as the distance! How silly! Haha

 

[Satch]

Here is the website for the Tavern Guild Bowling League. It says it was founded in 1997, so it might have been known under a different name in 1980. Was it? This is the current one that I can find in California. It is LGBTQ league, so right up Farren's alley! Hahaha! Their contact info is Studio City California. But this organization seems to be huge!

Tavern Guild Bowling League

However, their Twitter page says they were founded in 1977!!! So that 1997 might be a misprint!

https://twitter.com/tavernguild?lang=en

Satch

 

[Ciriii57]

It surely

Here is the website for the Tavern Guild Bowling League. It says it was founded in 1997, so it might have been known under a different name in 1980. Was it? This is the current one that I can find in California. It is LGBTQ league, so right up Farren's alley! Hahaha! Their contact info is Studio City California. But this organization seems to be huge!

Tavern Guild Bowling League

However, their Twitter page says they were founded in 1977!!! So that 1997 might be a misprint!

https://twitter.com/tavernguild?lang=en

Satch

It surely must be a typo....we know they existed under that name in 1980 coz of the newspaper articles that @Mfleish found.
Deffo worth dropping them a line.