The Black Dahlia: Is This the Solution?

[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]

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.

[Roy Corduroy]

Yes, barnflatwyngarde this is the solution, in my opinion. Finally there is a good book on the case, Black Dahlia, Red Rose by Piu Eatwell. It is thoroughly researched and well written and I'm satisfied with the author's conclusions. Five stars.

Roy