Processing "The Long Halloween" [SPOILERS]

[shaxper]

Believe it or not, I just now read "The Long Halloween" for the first time. I absolutely loved it, but I'm left with a few questions, some of which I think can be answered by readers that are better observers than I am, and some that will probably come down to a matter of opinion.

1. Was Gilda planning to perform a New Year's murder before Alberto faked his own death? If not, why did she decide to stop then? It seems like too much of a coincidence that Alberto chose to take over at the exact same time that Gilda decided to quit. How could he be sure that Holiday wouldn't murder someone else on the other side of town at the exact same time? Is there some rational explanation for all of this, or is it a plot hole?

2. Why didn't Gilda take out The Roman right away and be done with it?

3. When did Harvey figure out that it was Gilda? Was that why he was bringing the guns home (for her to use)? Is that why he was so upset when she asked if he was (also) Holiday?

4. What caused Harvey to snap? Sure, he was upset about The Romans and Gilda, he'd been making veiled references to the number two for a while, and he got acid thrown in his face just when he thought he was finally making progress, but how does that add up to stabbing your surgeon, running away, and setting super villains lose from Arkham Asylum?

5. Going along with #4, why would freeing super villains seem like a reasonable alternative to allowing The Roman to continue living? Isn't that like trying to get rid of spider webs in your basement with a flame thrower?

6. Can someone explain Alberto's motivations in becoming Holiday to me? I get that daddy never paid any attention to him. Beyond that, was he trying to say that super villain crime was the direction of the future as opposed to organized crime? I guess that's a satisfactory explanation, but something feels incomplete about it.

7. What evidence was there linking Thomas Wayne to The Roman's father? Sure, he saved his son's life one night, but why would there be a file about that in the GPD's records? Furthermore
, why would that lead Dent to believe that Bruce was working for The Roman in the present?

8. Did Calender Man know who the two Holidays were? It would explain his very knowing way of referring to Holiday as both a he and a she, especially in his first discussion with Batman, but didn't Calender Man also make it clear that he wanted Holiday to be caught because Holiday was upstaging him?

9. Anyone else see a parallel between Jean Loring in Identity Crisis and Gilda Dent in Long Halloween? Seems like blatant theft to me.

10. How good is Dark Victory compared to Long Halloween? Can I expect the same level of intrigue and strong characterization?

I think that's everything. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Bodach]

1. No she had nothing to do with Alberto. It was all his idea to fake his death. She was done I think.
2. she prolly couldn't get close to the man himself without getting busted.
3. I don't think Harvey figured it out until the very end.
4. Apparently his family had a history of mental illness. His father was mentioned in the story who was in a mental institution. Thats where he got the double sided coin. He was also under a tremendous amount of pressure from his work. All these things drove him mad.
5.See #4.
6. You pretty much answered the question there.
7. They were reaching for a suspect and Wayne had that connection. Thats pretty much it.
8. I don't know much about Jean Loring. I would like to see more Gilda Dent though.
I think this is accurate. I haven't read The Long Halloween in a while though.

[caboose]

Believe it or not, I just now read "The Long Halloween" for the first time. I absolutely loved it, but I'm left with a few questions, some of which I think can be answered by readers that are better observers than I am, and some that will probably come down to a matter of opinion.

1. Was Gilda planning to perform a New Year's murder before Alberto faked his own death? Also, how could she be confident that the new Holiday would continue her work each month if she stopped?

2. Why didn't Gilda take out The Roman right away and be done with it?

3. When did Harvey figure out that it was Gilda? Was that why he was bringing the guns home (for her to use)? Is that why he was so upset when she asked if he was (also) Holiday?

4. What caused Harvey to snap? Sure, he was upset about The Romans and Gilda, he'd been making veiled references to the number two for a while, and he got acid thrown in his face just when he thought he was finally making progress, but how does that add up to stabbing your surgeon, running away, and setting super villains lose from Arkham Asylum?

5. Going along with #4, why would freeing super villains seem like a reasonable alternative to allowing The Roman to continue living? Isn't that like trying to get rid of spider webs in your basement with a flame thrower?

6. Can someone explain Alberto's motivations in becoming Holiday to me? I get that daddy never paid any attention to him. Beyond that, was he trying to say that super villain crime was the direction of the future as opposed to organized crime? I guess that's a satisfactory explanation, but something feels incomplete about it.

7. What evidence was there linking Thomas Wayne to The Roman's father? Sure, he saved his son's life one night, but why would there be a file about that in the GPD's records? Furthermore, why would that lead Dent to believe that Bruce was working for The Roman in the present?

8. Anyone else see a parallel between Jean Loring in Identity Crisis and Gilda Dent in Long Halloween? Seems like blatant theft to me.

9. How good is Dark Victory compared to Long Halloween? Can I expect the same level of intrigue and strong characterization?

I think that's everything. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

1. No.

2. She had no real access to him. The characters Gilda kills are much lower level than Falcone, and thus easier to take out.

3. I don't think Harvey knew Gilda was 'Holiday'. He simply figured out that Alberto had not done it alone.

4. Poor writing aside. The stress of his life as DA, frustration at the Gotham Legal system and his scarring down the middle pushed him over the edge I guess.

5. Read Dark Victory.

6. Again Loeb isn't the greatest character writer ever, but I guess Alberto did think becoming a serial killer in the way of the growing Rogues Gallery would see him remembered more so than even his father. Of course there is the notion that Batman's appearance in Gotham triggered the dormant lunacy (and encouraged it) in a lot of Gotham citizens. This goes for Harvey too.

7. Got me on the first part, but if you remember that Bruce, (under the influence of Poison Ivy), changes his vote as it concerns Falcone using Gotham City Bank couple this to a link between Falcone and Thomas Wayne.

8. Are you talking about both being linked by poor writing and the need for a shocking ending?

9. I actually prefer Dark Victory quite a bit. It is similar in structure to Long Halloween and the art is as good as ever. The story is tighter and remains satisfying upon multiple readings unlike Long Halloween. But as you can probably tell I don't think a lot of Long Halloween.

[Captain Jim]

Believe it or not, I just now read "The Long Halloween" for the first time. I absolutely loved it...

I read it a long time ago, but I liked it too. Now you need to read Dark Victory (the sequel).

[Lorendiac]

1. Was Gilda planning to perform a New Year's murder before Alberto faked his own death? If not, why did she decide to stop then? It seems like too much of a coincidence that Alberto chose to take over at the exact same time that Gilda decided to quit. How could he be sure that Holiday wouldn't murder someone else on the other side of town at the exact same time? Is there some rational explanation for all of this, or is it a plot hole?

It does seem too much of a coincidence, just as you say. My own preference is to believe that Gilda never killed anybody; she's just getting delusional at the very end of "The Long Halloween." I think Jeph Loeb wanted us to take her "confession" seriously, but it strikes me as being full of holes, so I don't take it seriously. (Especially since he never followed up on it.) I see no real proof that Gilda ever committed a murder in her entire life.

If you've only just read the story arc, then you're probably not aware that the question of "Was Gilda really the first Holiday killer?" has been a fiercely debated one, on various online forums at various times. There is no "solid consensus of opinion" regarding the subject. As I suggested above, my own feeling is:

"No, logically she wasn't, because that would make no sense -- but I have a terrible feeling that Jeph Loeb wasn't too worried about the logic of the situation when he wrote that final scene to shock us!"


2. Why didn't Gilda take out The Roman right away and be done with it?

Well, in my interpretation, Gilda didn't kill The Roman because she didn't kill anybody in the first place . . . ;)

3. When did Harvey figure out that it was Gilda? Was that why he was bringing the guns home (for her to use)? Is that why he was so upset when she asked if he was (also) Holiday?

I'm fairly sure that Harvey wasn't bringing home guns just so Gilda could borrow them.

I have never quite made up my mind regarding whether or not he ever feared she was running around committing some of the Holiday murders. (And even if he did fear that, it wouldn't mean he was right! We never saw any solid evidence to support such a belief, did we?)

4. What caused Harvey to snap? Sure, he was upset about The Romans and Gilda, he'd been making veiled references to the number two for a while, and he got acid thrown in his face just when he thought he was finally making progress, but how does that add up to stabbing your surgeon, running away, and setting super villains lose from Arkham Asylum?

Some writers have suggested that he'd been terribly abused as a child, and that the shock of the acid, etc., awoke a long-submerged alternate personality that had been a result of the abuse . . . basically, however, Jeph Loeb was working with the fact that since the 1940s, it's been official doctrine that Harvey got acid splashed on his face, looked in the mirror, and went nuts. The details may vary from one retelling to the next, but it's basically just taken on faith that the acid was the thing that tipped him over the edge . . .

5. Going along with #4, why would freeing super villains seem like a reasonable alternative to allowing The Roman to continue living? Isn't that like trying to get rid of spider webs in your basement with a flame thrower?

I'm having trouble remembering the details of what you're referring to. Something Two-Face did? (Been some months since I last read that story arc.) If it was something Two-Face did, then he probably flipped his coin and the result told him it was time to be very, very evil . . .

6. Can someone explain Alberto's motivations in becoming Holiday to me? I get that daddy never paid any attention to him. Beyond that, was he trying to say that super villain crime was the direction of the future as opposed to organized crime? I guess that's a satisfactory explanation, but something feels incomplete about it.

Batman offered the opinion in the final issue of the series that surely "The Roman must have known" -- in other words, Batman thought it was possible that Alberto had only been killing people The Roman specifically wanted dead --some of them people in The Roman's own organization who were considered extremely expendable, and the others being people in rival organizations that The Roman wouldn't exactly be heartbroken to see die.

An alternate theory goes that Alberto was killing people he thought The Roman would want dead, although he may well have guessed wrong in some cases, if he wasn't actually talking it all over with his daddy in secret conferences . . .

7. What evidence was there linking Thomas Wayne to The Roman's father? Sure, he saved his son's life one night, but why would there be a file about that in the GPD's records? Furthermore, why would that lead Dent to believe that Bruce was working for The Roman in the present?

Well, I think part of the reasoning behind that trial sequence was to suggest that Dent was getting extremely fanatical/self-righteous/paranoid/whatever, in order to make it more plausible that he'd go completely around the bend later on. (This relates to your Question #4.)

I don't know, offhand, what sort of "evidence" there was to link Bruce's daddy with Carmine's daddy . . .

8. Did Calender Man know who the two Holidays were? It would explain his very knowing way of referring to Holiday as both a he and a she, especially in his first discussion with Batman, but didn't Calender Man also make it clear that he wanted Holiday to be caught because Holiday was upstaging him?

My considered opinion is that Calendar Man was bluffing.

I have read his scenes again and again, and I don't see any clear sign that he knew anything worth knowing. He was just jumping back and forth between male and female pronouns at random, as far as I'm concerned. Remember, he was basically sealed off from the outside world, except for whatever newspaper clippings and stuff they showed him -- I don't think there was any reason for him to strongly suspect Gilda Dent in the first place on the basis of anything reported in the media, and even if he suspected her anyway, I don't see how he could possibly "know" anything the police didn't! (Likewise, I don't see any way for him to know that Alberto's death had been faked, just on the basis of reading a news story about Alberto's death on New Year's Eve.)

9. Anyone else see a parallel between Jean Loring in Identity Crisis and Gilda Dent in Long Halloween? Seems like blatant theft to me.

I hated "Identity Crisis" in general -- didn't even worry about possible parallels. You could have a point, though!

10. How good is Dark Victory compared to Long Halloween? Can I expect the same level of intrigue and strong characterization?

I'd say it's very similar. One thing I'll warn you about for free: It doesn't "clarify" anything at all about Gilda Dent -- such as whether or not she really killed anybody in "The Long Halloween."

[shaxper]

If you've only just read the story arc, then you're probably not aware that the question of "Was Gilda really the first Holiday killer?" has been a fiercely debated one, on various online forums at various times. There is no "solid consensus of opinion" regarding the subject. As I suggested above, my own feeling is:

"No, logically she wasn't, because that would make no sense -- but I have a terrible feeling that Jeph Loeb wasn't too worried about the logic of the situation when he wrote that final scene to shock us!"


Interesting. I can see why it would be appealing to believe that, but I don't see any suggestion that Loeb wanted us to take Gilda's confession as anything less than gospel. It sounds like this long-running debate is really just an attempt to write off some bad plot holes in an otherwise well done story. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on this, though. It's nice to know that other people found the same kinds of problems in the story that I did.



Well, in my interpretation, Gilda didn't kill The Roman because she didn't kill anybody in the first place . . . ;)

Right. And, had it been Alberto all along, not killing The Roman would have made sense.


I'm fairly sure that Harvey wasn't bringing home guns just so Gilda could borrow them.

I have never quite made up my mind regarding whether or not he ever feared she was running around committing some of the Holiday murders. (And even if he did fear that, it wouldn't mean he was right! We never saw any solid evidence to support such a belief, did we?)


I don't know. He was clearly unstable and clearly one step away from becoming Holiday, himself. Perhaps, even if some small subconscious part of him knew it was Gilda, he'd be doing little things like bringing these guns home in order to help her. Why else would he be bringing evidence home?



Some writers have suggested that he'd been terribly abused as a child, and that the shock of the acid, etc., awoke a long-submerged alternate personality that had been a result of the abuse . . . basically, however, Jeph Loeb was working with the fact that since the 1940s, it's been official doctrine that Harvey got acid splashed on his face, looked in the mirror, and went nuts. The details may vary from one retelling to the next, but it's basically just taken on faith that the acid was the thing that tipped him over the edge . . .

Of course. I guess I just expected a more logical character development in such a mostly well-crafted story. There's clear and logical development in both the characterizations of Batman and Jim Gordon. I wanted to believe the same was true for Harvey and I'd just somehow missed it. I guess I didn't.


I'm having trouble remembering the details of what you're referring to. Something Two-Face did? (Been some months since I last read that story arc.) If it was something Two-Face did, then he probably flipped his coin and the result told him it was time to be very, very evil . . .


Well he busts an army of super villains out of Arkham in order to take down The Roman. He does flip the coin in order to decide which ones to break out, but the whole fiasco just seems absolutely devoid of reason. This goes back to my whole issue of Harvey flipping out arbitrarily. This doesn't fit the character that was teetering on the edge of losing it throughout the rest of this story. It's more fitting of someone like the Joker who does things for the sake of causing chaos with no further goal or motivation.


Batman offered the opinion in the final issue of the series that surely "The Roman must have known" -- in other words, Batman thought it was possible that Alberto had only been killing people The Roman specifically wanted dead --some of them people in The Roman's own organization who were considered extremely expendable, and the others being people in rival organizations that The Roman wouldn't exactly be heartbroken to see die.

An alternate theory goes that Alberto was killing people he thought The Roman would want dead, although he may well have guessed wrong in some cases, if he wasn't actually talking it all over with his daddy in secret conferences . . .


I interpreted Batman's observation as meaning that The Roman was sure it was Alberto, but chose not to intervene because he didn't want to admit it was true and also didn't want Alberto to stop since it was clearly benefiting his business. In my mind, I saw a parallel between The Roman and Harvey, both knowing on some level that the most important person in their worlds was committing these atrocities and hesitating to confront them because they didn't want it confirmed and also didn't exactly want it to stop.


Well, I think part of the reasoning behind that trial sequence was to suggest that Dent was getting extremely fanatical/self-righteous/paranoid/whatever, in order to make it more plausible that he'd go completely around the bend later on. (This relates to your Question #4.)

I suppose. And another poster reminded me that Bruce had made that deal with The Roman while under Ivy's influence. I'd forgotten about that part. It probably would have made more sense to me if Harvey had pointed to that transaction as his primary piece of evidence instead of the Thomas Wayne incident.


My considered opinion is that Calendar Man was bluffing.

I have read his scenes again and again, and I don't see any clear sign that he knew anything worth knowing. He was just jumping back and forth between male and female pronouns at random, as far as I'm concerned. Remember, he was basically sealed off from the outside world, except for whatever newspaper clippings and stuff they showed him -- I don't think there was any reason for him to strongly suspect Gilda Dent in the first place on the basis of anything reported in the media, and even if he suspected her anyway, I don't see how he could possibly "know" anything the police didn't! (Likewise, I don't see any way for him to know that Alberto's death had been faked, just on the basis of reading a news story about Alberto's death on New Year's Eve.)


I no longer have the issue in front of me (I borrowed these from a friend), but Calender Man goes into very concrete specifics when Batman first interrogates him, talking about "him" in relationship to "her" when asked who Holiday is. It sounds a lot more like Calender Man knows something than when other people refer to Holiday as "him or her" throughout the rest of the story. He seems particularly confident that there is both a him and a her, not one or the other.

I do agree that I don't see how Calender Man would have known this, though. Especially since he's wrong about Holiday striking on all of the holidays of the year. There's only one death in February. Calender predicted one for Ground Hog's Day, one for Washington's Birthday, one for Lincoln's Birthday, etc.


I hated "Identity Crisis" in general -- didn't even worry about possible parallels. You could have a point, though!


That twist was pretty much the only part of Identity Crisis that I respected, even though I had issues with it. Seeing the disturbing similarities between Jean Loring and Gilda Dent has taken that away from me. Now Identity Crisis just fully pisses me off instead of only partially doing so.


I'd say it's very similar. One thing I'll warn you about for free: It doesn't "clarify" anything at all about Gilda Dent -- such as whether or not she really killed anybody in "The Long Halloween."

Didn't expect it to, but thanks for letting me know.

[shaxper]

I answered part of question #1 on my way to work this morning. I forgot that Harvey purchased the new house right before New Year's. Gilda later said to Barbara Gordon that she thought the new house was a sign that Harvey was ready to start investing more time and energy into the family. So that explains why Gilda stopped when she did. It still doesn't answer why Alberto chose to take over at the exact same time, nor how he could be sure that the real Holiday wouldn't commit a murder at the same time.

[Infernorhythm]

Gilda never killed anyone. She, like Harvey, snapped. Wacko, nuts, bongo, bats in the bellfrey, that sort of thing. Alberto was the ONLY Holiday killer (Ok, Harvey was at the end, but Alberto was the main one).

Holiday was a plan set up Carmine and Alberto Falcone to put the Falcone mafia back on top. Carmine constantly refers to Alberto as the only one he can trust, despite claiming to keep Alberto out of the family business. Falcone's nephew had ratted him out, the "Freaks" were on the rise, and many members of their mafia were becoming untrustworthy. Alberto, under orders from his father, kills the shady members of their mob, fakes his death to remove suspicion, and then it pointed in the direction of the Maroni mafia, Falcone's main enemy.

As for Harvey, well the stress was getting to him, and the attack on him just made him snap. Shock and all that. As for why he set the supervillains free, well, I have no idea.

[carabas]

It's a Jeph Loeb story. Looking back, I think that most of the people who read the Long Halloween put a lot more thought into the story than Loeb ever did. Just enjoy the pretty art and ignore any plot holes and inconsistancies. The writer did.

9. Anyone else see a parallel between Jean Loring in Identity Crisis and Gilda Dent in Long Halloween? Seems like blatant theft to me.People in glass houses...
The ending of The Long Halloween is shamelesly ripped from the Harrison Ford film 'Presumed Innocent'. Almost line for line.

[shaxper]

The ending of The Long Halloween is shamelesly ripped from the Harrison Ford film 'Presumed Innocent'. Almost line for line.

Interesting. Thanks for the info!

[Lorendiac]

Interesting. I can see why it would be appealing to believe that, but I don't see any suggestion that Loeb wanted us to take Gilda's confession as anything less than gospel. It sounds like this long-running debate is really just an attempt to write off some bad plot holes in an otherwise well done story. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on this, though. It's nice to know that other people found the same kinds of problems in the story that I did.

Here's a link to one of the first things I read when, some years ago now, I was reading up on what had gone before in the debates on the subject of Gilda's "confession" . . .

http://www.vacuumboy9.com/tlh/alberto.html

I myself have been involved in other, more recent arguments, on one forum or another, within the last 3 years or so, but I'll spare you all the details right now. Reading that link I just gave will provide you with a decent summary of the "Albertist" school of thought. The "Albertists" is a name I've seen people use for those fans who say Alberto killed everybody until he was captured, and Gilda never did anything wrong. Their principal rivals are the "Gildists," who take Gilda's confession at face value. :)

I don't know. He was clearly unstable and clearly one step away from becoming Holiday, himself. Perhaps, even if some small subconscious part of him knew it was Gilda, he'd be doing little things like bringing these guns home in order to help her. Why else would he be bringing evidence home?

I simply have no idea how "normal" it is for a D.A. to take evidence home with him for further study.

I interpreted Batman's observation as meaning that The Roman was sure it was Alberto, but chose not to intervene because he didn't want to admit it was true and also didn't want Alberto to stop since it was clearly benefiting his business. In my mind, I saw a parallel between The Roman and Harvey, both knowing on some level that the most important person in their worlds was committing these atrocities and hesitating to confront them because they didn't want it confirmed and also didn't exactly want it to stop.

I don't know. I don't think I mentioned this before, but I personally have never been convinced that The Roman knew the truth about what Alberto was up to. Even though Batman seemed positive that The Roman must have known something about it. (But then, if we accept Gilda's confession at face value for the sake of argument, that just highlights the point that in Jeph Loeb's view, Batman is an easy man to trick into jumping at wrong -- or incomplete -- answers to the complicated mysteries he tries to solve!)

I don't say that I'm absolutely certain The Roman didn't know anything for sure until after his "dead" son was caught in the act! I just say that I'm skeptical on that point.

I no longer have the issue in front of me (I borrowed these from a friend), but Calender Man goes into very concrete specifics when Batman first interrogates him, talking about "him" in relationship to "her" when asked who Holiday is. It sounds a lot more like Calender Man knows something than when other people refer to Holiday as "him or her" throughout the rest of the story. He seems particularly confident that there is both a him and a her, not one or the other.

I do agree that I don't see how Calender Man would have known this, though. Especially since he's wrong about Holiday striking on all of the holidays of the year. There's only one death in February. Calender predicted one for Ground Hog's Day, one for Washington's Birthday, one for Lincoln's Birthday, etc.

Hang on. I have my copy of "The Long Halloween" TPB right here. Let's take a look at his dialogue, the first time he's asked to be a consultant on the subject. It's toward the start of #3, the "Christmas" issue. We're told in a caption that this scene at Arkham is set on Christmas Eve. I'll quote dialogue from several panels, without bothering to list which panel each sentence was in.

GORDON: Our feeling is with your interest in committing crime to coincide with the calendar -- you might have some insight?

CALENDAR MAN: Tomorrow is the big day. She'll be killing again.

BATMAN: What makes you think it's a woman?

CALENDAR MAN: Because he likes it. The attention. No one knows who she is and already he has made a name for himself. Or herself. You've been lucky so far. In February. Lincoln's Birthday. Washington's Birthday. And Presidents' Day.

GORDON: February. Surely we'll have caught the killer by then.

CALENDAR MAN: Groundhog Day. Ash Wednesday. Secretaries Day. Earth Day. Flag Day. Boxing Day. Hanukkah!

BATMAN (already turning away, obviously unimpressed): Let's go.

Now, to my eyes, it seems clear that Calendar Man is simply jumping back and forth between "she" and "he" in order to cover all the possibilities, rather than referring to two specific people, one of each gender.

Especially given the timing! This was December 24, Christmas Eve! Milos, the Roman's bodyguard, hadn't even been killed yet (his body is found at the very end of this chapter), and it would be another week or so (New Year's Eve) before Alberto was reported dead. (If we buy the idea that Gilda's confession at the end is largely true, then Alberto probably didn't really kill anybody until the Valentine's Day chapter!)

So even if I could grant the very dubious assumption that Calendar Man could somehow deduce the guilt of Gilda Dent (not just thinking it was "a woman" from some subtle clue, but "knowing" it was Gilda in particular) on the basis of whatever he'd been allowed to read about the Halloween and Thanksgiving killings, it's even harder for me to believe that he could somehow "anticipate" that another person, a man this time (Alberto), might already be planning to fake his own death about a week later, and then after that might be planning to "continue the proud tradition" of the Holiday Killings by starting up his own killing spree in the future! How on earth could Calendar Man possibly know anything about that before it happened?

(Unless -- just for the sake of argument -- he was secretly in cahoots with Alberto all along and had somehow conspired with him in planning out the whole thing? But I don't believe that for a moment. If Alberto had been hanging around Arkham Asylum to visit Calendar Man for strategy conferences on days when the man was allowed to have guests, I'm sure someone would have noticed and mentioned it to Batman and Gordon.)

So no, given that Calendar Man was already jumping back and forth between male and female pronouns when there had only been two Holiday incidents so far, both of which were presumably committed by the same person (Gilda if we believe her confession, or Alberto if we believe his own willingness to confess to being Holiday all along), then I figure Calendar Man was just amusing himself and didn't know any secrets about the Holiday killings that had recently happened or any more that might be planned for the future.

[Infernorhythm]

A, the vacuumboy9 argument for Alberto. That's what convinced me that Alberto is the killer, and it makes one heck of a case for it.

[caboose]

The thing is if you look at the panels of each of the 'Holiday' killings, the hand holding the pistol changes more than once.

'Holiday' is right handed upto and including christmas day.

On New Year's the Holiday's hand is unseen.

On Valentines Day and St. Patrick's Day, 'Holiday' is left handed.

Holiday switches back to right for April Fool's Day.

Then left-handed for Mothers/Fathers Day.

Unclear for Independence Day.

Finally Holiday is right handed for Roman Holiday and Labor Day.

As a side note, once Harvey becomes Two-Face he holds his gun in his left hand.

Alberto is holding the Gun in his right hand when he kills Maroni and then proudly proclaims "I am Holiday".

Gilda picks up the gun when she finds it the Dent's basement and she holds the handle with her right hand.

There you go, if Artist error is not the cause, Holiday appears to be two people switching several times OR one of Alberto/Holiday/Gilda/Harvey are ambidextrous.

[shaxper]

I never watched which hand was holding the gun but (I'd totally forgotten this until now), I did notice that the hand was big and hairy, which originally led me to suspect The Roman. In this respect, I'm far more open to the idea that it was Alberto all along, now. That certainly didn't look like Gilda Dent's hand.

Lorendiac,

Nice analysis on the Calender Man dialogue. I'm 100% behind your reasoning.

And I do think it's unconventional for a DA to bring evidence home and leave it lying around. I know they didn't have the little plastic baggies to keep evidence in back then, but leaving it out like a regular household item still feels like tampering.