The Black Dahlia: Is This the Solution?

[Abby Normal]

Re the Black dahlia and torso case. Not related.

IMHO the probable Cleveland butcher was Dr. Sweeney.

Wilson is a nebulous suspect at best-a modern suspect as a result of a Black dahlia suspect book, in which many basic facts are wrong. typical BS.

[Pcdunn]

Originally Posted by RockySullivan

Thanks Pcdunn, yea I've heard of him before but the claim that he was a suspect in the Cleveland torso murders before the black dahlia was what I'm skeptical of. It's on the unc.edu link you posted. " He was originally a suspect in the Cleveland Torso Murders case" Which doesn't mean it isn't bullshit either but also makes me wonder

Hi, Rocky,

The Wiki article said he was never suspected in the Cleveland Torso Murders case, until a book was written claiming this, which is what Abby also says.

Usually I'd tell our patrons to rely more on websites with ".edu" domains as more likely to have better information-- but as your example shows, perhaps not so much.

[barnflatwyngarde]

A while ago I said that I would post a quick review of “Black Dahlia, Red Rose” by Piu Eatwell when I had finished it.

Well, I’ve now finished it, so, here we go.

I will resist the temptation to try and do a full review, but rather to give a thumbnail sketch of the book. I am sure that Paul Begg will probably review the book in a forthcoming “Ripperologist”, and I for one will be keen to hear what he make of Ms Eatwell’s book.

It becomes very clear early on in the book, that Eatwell has started from the premise that the murderer is Leslie Dillon, and works backwards from there.
Never a good move in a true crime book.

One of the major problem in the Dahlia case is the fact that the official autopsy report has never been officially released.
There are various documents on the web which claim to be official report, but they vary widely in their style and content, so we are whistling in the dark with regard to what injuries were inflicted on Elizabeth Short.

Some reports claim that the body was covered in cigarette burns, some make no mention of this. Some reports say that Elizabeth was forced to eat excrement, likewise this is debated on other sites and in other books.
The author refers to the murderer having shaved the victims pubic hair, and later in the book she makes the claim that the murderer had torn out the victims pubic hair.
The problem with this claim is that according to photographs of the body, it appears that Elizabeth Short's pubic hair was untouched.

There is a ludicrous scene where Dillon was asked by police and police psychologist Dr Paul de River to drop his trousers and pants in order that they could examine his genitals.

The police and Dr de River then comment on his “juvenile penis” and speculate that this made him a “sadist type” of murderer.
This ridiculous comment is never followed up, it just sits there like a bad smell.

With regard to the location of the murder, the author tells us that shortly after the murder, the owner of a local motel discovered one of their rooms was covered in blood and excrement.

With the Dahlia murder dominating all the press media at the time, the logical thing to do would be to contact the police and alert them to the situation.

The owner and his wife however, decided to clean up the mess and carry on regardless!

The author does provide some support for this claim by other people who claim to have seen the bloody room, but surely this just makes the premise more unlikely.

Rather than having two people who may just have stumbled on the location of the murder, we have four or five people who all say absolutely nothing, while the whole city is in a state of panic at the thought of having a sadistic murderer in their midst.

The author briefly mentions a few of the other Dahlia suspects but because of her absolute certainty of Dillon’s guilt, they are quickly dismissed.

It’s all a bit of a shame, because there is still a need for a well balanced and nuanced book about the Black Dahlia murder, and indeed the Zodiac case.
Unfortunately this book isn’t it.

I would welcome views from other posters who have read the book, but personally I found it a wasted opportunity.

[jmenges]

Originally Posted by barnflatwyngarde

I am sure that Paul Begg will probably review the book in a forthcoming “Ripperologist”, and I for one will be keen to hear what he make of Ms Eatwell’s book.

I'll be the one reviewing both this and ' The Man from the Train' in the next issue of the Rip. Similar books that deal with innocent people talking themselves into the center of murder investigations.

JM

[barnflatwyngarde]

Originally Posted by jmenges

I'll be the one reviewing both this and ' The Man from the Train' in the next issue of the Rip. Similar books that deal with innocent people talking themselves into the center of murder investigations.

JM

Thanks JM.

I look forward to reading your review.
As I said in my post, I wasn't doing a review, I was just giving a thumbnail sketch.

I will leave reviewing the experts.

Cheers

[jmenges]

It doesn't take an expert to pick up on some of the things you mention that are problematic when it comes to Dillon as a suspect. Like you said, the fact that two years passed before the supposed eyewitnesses to perhaps maybe possibly Dillon, Hansen and Short being at the motel maybe or maybe not close to the right time period, and there might or might not have been a bloody motel room, is pretty much all the evidence there is to point to Dillon being involved. And then when you consider the source De River and all that went on to rope in Dillon and bring him back to Los Angeles, plus the tenuous at best motive for a police cover up, the whole theory seems to be a house of cards.

JM

[barnflatwyngarde]

Originally Posted by jmenges

It doesn't take an expert to pick up on some of the things you mention that are problematic when it comes to Dillon as a suspect. Like you said, the fact that two years passed before the supposed eyewitnesses to perhaps maybe possibly Dillon, Hansen and Short being at the motel maybe or maybe not close to the right time period, and there might or might not have been a bloody motel room, is pretty much all the evidence there is to point to Dillon being involved. And then when you consider the source De River and all that went on to rope in Dillon and bring him back to Los Angeles, plus the tenuous at best motive for a police cover up, the whole theory seems to be a house of cards.

JM

A very good and concise summation of some of the major problems, JM.

It seemed to me that the more the authors main points re Dillon's guilt were scrutinised, the weaker they became.

Roll on the next issue of Ripperologist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have to admit to knowing less about the Dahlia case than others on here. I’ve read 2 books on the case I think and those were many years ago so my opinion carries little weight but I thought Dillon seemed a decent suspect? He insinuatedhimself into the investigation by mentioning his ‘friend’ who could have been the killer. He appeared to have an ‘interest’ in sexual sadism. The book claimed that he knew two things that only the killer could have known (I can only recall ‘pubic hair in the anus.’) I read the book a week ago and don’t have it with me (my memory is a bit vague) but there appeared to be quite a few witnesses confirming the ‘motel room’ story. Then there’s the police corruption angle and Hansen and how the investigation appeared to have been dropped.
As a ‘Dahlia novice’ does no one see any merit in Dillon’s candidature?

[jmenges]

Some people do see merit in Dillon as the killer.
I don't, and taking your points, here are my reasons. I admit I'm no expert either.
He insinuated himself into the investigation by mentioning his ‘friend’ who could have been the killer He did this two years after the murder and after many hundred of members of the public also attempted to involve themselves in the investigation. And his 'friend' existed, much to the disappointment of Dr. De River.
He appeared to have an ‘interest’ in sexual sadism. The book claimed that he knew two things that only the killer could have known (I can only recall ‘pubic hair in the anus.’) These items come from the mouth of De River, who conned Dillon -essentially kidnapping him- and held him incommunicado handcuffed naked to a motel radiator for a few days while interrogating him. What did De River tell Dillon? What exactly did Dillon say and under what context? How much is true and what is fiction? It all boils down to the credibility of De River and since he lied about his education, his experience and credentials as basically went 'rogue' in his investigation, finding a person in Dillon who he believed conformed to his profile of who the killer would be (including putting blame on a fictional friend, who turned out to be very real)...I have issues with him. So did the LAPD.
there appeared to be quite a few witnesses confirming the ‘motel room’ story. Witnesses found and interviewed two years after her murder who never thought to come forward at the time. Vague on their identifications and unable to definitively place everyone there on the correct dates. One of the women the witnesses said was Elizabeth Short at the motel room turned out to be a waitress whom the police later located. The motel witness were again discovered by De River and a member of the Gangster Squad, not the homicide detectives assigned to the case.
Then there’s the police corruption angle and Hansen and how the investigation appeared to have been dropped.
The reason Eatwell gives for Hanson directing Dillon to murder Short is laughable. He was tired of her cleaning his bathroom? She was being a pest? Really? And then by all accounts when Hanson was informed of Short's murder he expressed genuine shock and surprise. Well what did he expect to happen? The book fails in my opinion in making a plausible case that Dillon was working in some capacity for Hansen. Its speculation.

Like I said, there are people who post on various BD forums that do believe Dillon was the killer and have for years. Ms Eatwell was not the first to gain access to the complete case files as she claims, so none of her information about Leslie Dillon or Hansen is new. I really believe that J Paul De River's lack of credibility puts much of what Dillon really said in question and that, plus the fact that it cannot be proven that he was even in Los Angeles when Beth Short was killed, makes Dillon a weak suspect, for now.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for that JM. I take all your points.