Gangster's Relative Fights For Rights To Mame

San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | January 13, 2004 | Ryan Lenz

[Scenic Sounds]

INDIANAPOLIS – Jeffrey Scalf is looking out for No. 1 – Public Enemy No. 1, that is.

Scalf is fighting over the rights to the name and image of his distant relative John Dillinger, the Depression-era bank robber who was gunned down by G-men nearly 70 years ago.

He has sued – or threatened to sue – those making money off the gangster and those who portray him as a murderer, saying he wants to protect Dillinger's reputation as an asset for future generations.

"It's kind of like owning an automobile and then someone steals it," said the 46-year-old employee of the NBA's Indiana Pacers. "If you don't report it and go after it, it's unlikely that they're going to drive it back."

Scalf, who lives in Mooresville and whose grandmother was Dillinger's half-sister, claims he inherited 75 percent of the rights to the outlaw's name. He has employed a 1994 Indiana law that keeps the rights to a celebrity in a family for 100 years after that person's death.

Scalf has sued a museum housing $400,000 in Dillinger memorabilia and a gangster theme restaurant called Dillinger's in Hudson, Ind. He said he has spent about $100,000 defending Dillinger's name but has won only a few cases and has so far received nothing.

"Everyone has accused me of gold-digging, but they've never stopped to look at themselves," Scalf said. The lawsuit against the restaurant has been resolved, but neither party would discuss the details.

In his 2001 lawsuit against the Lake County Convention & Visitors Bureau, which runs the John Dillinger Museum in Hammond, Ind., Scalf said his family's reputation was tainted by displays portraying Dillinger as a murderer. The case is awaiting a trial date.

The Indianapolis-born Dillinger was one of America's most notorious criminals. He and his gang pulled off a bloody string of bank robberies across the Midwest, and Dillinger was blamed for at least 16 killings.

[Scenic Sounds]

[AppyPappy]

I think the title is supposed to say "name" not "mame"

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

I think the title is supposed to say "name" not "mame"

That's a relief. I thought Carol Channing was involved somehow.

[SpinyNorman]

That's better than what I was thinking: maim!

[rabidralph]

Or Pearl Bailey!

[billorites]

[Scenic Sounds]

I think the title is supposed to say "name" not "mame"

LOL. You're absolutely right. Good catch.

[EggsAckley]

Is that the museum that has Dillinger's Johnson?

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

Ooops! Forgot about Pearly Mae, one of my all-time faves.

[Scenic Sounds]

I don't know. It's time, though, that we restored to his family all of his anatomy and his once good reputation. He was just another victim of the dominant media.

[gridlock]

How do you protect the reputation of a man who was responsible for a string of bloody bank robberies and the murder of 16 people? I mean, he's not quite Saddam Hussein, but he isn't going to be elected Man-of-the-Year by the local Rotary Club either...

[Sloth]

Is that the museum that has Dillinger's Johnson?

Dunno, but judging by this picture it's bound to be a doozie.

[Scenic Sounds]

How do you protect the reputation of a man who was responsible for a string of bloody bank robberies and the murder of 16 people? I mean, he's not quite Saddam Hussein, but he isn't going to be elected Man-of-the-Year by the local Rotary Club either...

When Dillinger was about 21, he was framed for a robbery and unjustly incarcerated for nine long years. All of the rest of the stories about him are merely myths conjured up by the dominant media. He was never convicted of the "murder" of anyone. They shot him in the street like a dog because they knew that a trial would expose the truth!!

[steve8714]

Someone wrote a dictionary for Dillinger?

[Mr. Bird]

Would this fall under the same law that prohibits criminals from profiting on their reputations as criminals?

[Scenic Sounds]

Would this fall under the same law that prohibits criminals from profiting on their reputations as criminals?

Good point, but I think that those laws only apply to people who were actually criminals.