The Short Version
Remus’s business depended on more than a supply of whiskey. Stocks, medicinal permits, warehouses, transport, money and political contacts had to work together. Bob Batchelor’s biography helps reconstruct that system—and shows why a colorful participant’s account still needs checking.
The Source and Where to Look
Bob Batchelor, The Bourbon King: The Life and Crimes of George Remus, Prohibition’s Evil Genius (Diversion Books, 2019), ebook ISBN 9781635765854.
Locators below count sheets in the 479-page digital copy consulted, not the printed edition or the reading app’s displayed page count. The original book is not reproduced here.
Topic | PDF sheets |
Family, pharmacy and legal work | 19–25 |
Stocks, ownership and staged thefts | 78–80 |
Dobrats and the Kentucky Drug Company | 85–86 |
The Death Valley distribution site | 101–103 |
Reported payments, protection and pardons | 121–123 |
Informants, investigation and courtroom evidence | 151–154 |
The killing, statements and trial | 254–257; 269–271 |
The verdict and subsequent proceedings | 309–314 |
Selected source notes | 443–446; 451–454; 470–471 |
How the Whiskey Network Worked
Batchelor follows Remus from pharmacy and law into a business that exploited the difference between lawful possession and unlawful distribution. Buying whiskey stocks or controlling a distillery did not mean producing new whiskey. The value often lay in existing inventory and the paperwork governing its release.
His account of the Dobrats businesses and Kentucky Drug Company describes pharmaceutical fronts and permit access. The Death Valley operation at the Dater farm supplied storage, bottling and dispatch infrastructure. A warehouse, a driver and a usable permit were parts of one distribution system.
The corruption passages need careful verbs. Batchelor reports payments and promises of protection or a pardon, and also an offer that Morgan refused. These are not interchangeable outcomes. Money changing hands, someone promising influence, and an official actually intervening are different claims.
Violence, Trial and Public Memory
Remus killed Imogene in 1927. Batchelor discusses statements to police and the press, competing testimony and the trial’s public performance. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity on December 20, 1927; further proceedings and custody followed. An acquittal on that basis was not a finding that the killing never happened, and it did not mean immediate, unconditional freedom.
A dramatic narrative can make the perpetrator dominate the story. Imogene’s death should remain visible as a human loss, not merely a colorful episode in whiskey history. Nor does a retrospective account let us confidently diagnose Remus or treat his description of motives as established fact.
What the Evidence Can and Cannot Establish
The endnotes lead to trial and probate testimony, contemporary reporting, investigations and later scholarship. Some important passages depend on Remus’s own testimony or retrospective newspaper accounts. Those are evidence of what was said in a particular setting; they are not neutral recordings of every event described.
Use this biography to find people, transactions, dates and documentary leads. For a contested allegation, follow its specific note and compare independent evidence. Two modern books agreeing does not supply independent corroboration if both draw on the same interested witness.
Try Separating the Claims
A witness says he paid a middleman who promised a pardon. Which part is established merely by finding that statement in a transcript?
Continue exploring: George Remus · 
Prohibition and Repeal