Elizabeth Short (The Black Dahlia)

[Natalie Severn]

Food for serious thought there Ap.I am a bit preoccupied with parties at the moment but will return to this with renewed zeal Sat or Sun!Fascinating.

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm off to old Jamaica for the weekend, and will not be back until Monday night... so I'll see you then, Natalie.
Meanwhile anyone know of the mutilation murder of Lucille Kietaman, or that might be Kietzman?

[Toofew]

Somebody Knows-Unsolved Murder of Elizabeth Short

A radio show, Somebody Knows, features this broadcast about the Elizabeth Short murder case. An early version of America's Most Wanted.

http://ia311018.us.archive.org/2/items/Singles_And_Doubles_Singles_O-S/50-08-24epxxxxSomebodyKnows-UnsolvedMurderOfElizabethShort.mp3

Be good,

Billy

[Esther Wilson]

Saw this article online this morning. Thought some of you might like to read it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272640/Black-Dahlia-case-Cadaver-dog-discovers-death-scent-Hollywood-home-suspect-66-years-murder.html#axzz2JqG1tHoV

[RivkahChaya]

There's a new thread just for the cadaver dog article here.

Maybe the mods can merge the threads.

[sdreid]

Wow! There sure are a lot of banned guys on this thread

At any rate, that cadaver dog business doesn't mean much to me even if it's true. How certified was this dog? I don't remember much missing from Short other than blood and some small bits of tissue that could have easily and safely been disposed of by flushing down the toilet.

[kidtwist]

It's hard to believe a dog could find any traces after all these years.

[Ausgirl]

This is one of a short list of crimes I take particular interest in. I am pretty sure none of the Daddy-did-it books so far have pegged the killer, though I am not disputing that those writers had awful men as fathers. Rather than looking at this via potential suspects, however, I have tended to look at the killer's actions for understanding of what he did, and why. Probably not all that useful for solving it, but then I don't expect to.

Ligature marks and the draining of blood strongly suggest the killer had a secure place to keep Betty while he did his thing, with little chance of discovery. He took his time, and so I am thinking he had a privately owned residence or access to an abandoned building with running water, the former being what I lean towards presently.

He kept her there for a time, and she was probably alive when he cut her face up and bled her out. So torture of a living victim was part of his 'thing' as opposed to primary concern with post-mortem mutilation alone. This suggests a sadistic personality with an active hatred of living women, as opposed to the passive necrophile, who vents on the dead. I highly doubt his aggression and contempt was something he could hide in the long term. BTK did so, admittedly, but this was a bit beyond even his level of violence. If this killer had a wife, I would think she was utterly passive. I don't think he did, though it's not impossible.

I strongly doubt this was his first and only crime. It's too neat, too cleanly executed. First timers don't leave a perfectly drained body with just a few drops of watery blood, guts neatly tucked away and so on. So there'll be others, not necessarily in the general area but possibly so. I doubt any of them were this refined, though. To me, this seems like a parallel to JtR's Mary Kelly - for various reasons, but I suspect this was the pinnacle of a series, and he was proud of it.

I also doubt this was his first act of dismemberment. It may have been his first bisection, but likely he'd cut up a body before. The neat, clean lines demonstrate comfort and control in the act.

Prior victims may have initially been hidden, but the ones immediately prior to Betty could have been left where somebody'd find them.

The display of the body was most important to the killer. He didn't just dump her - he posed her just so, entrails tucked neatly under her buttocks, bisection absolutely neat and tidy, arms bent just so, legs in a V, in a place where she would be discovered by a random passer-by, all designed for maximum impact.

He was probably extremely narcissistic. I am pretty sure the letter that accompanied Betty's belongings was genuine. So he was an attention-seeker, as if the body didn't illustrate that enough.

He had access to a vehicle, obviously. Unless bloodletting was a part of his particularly psychopathology, he did so to prevent evidence and facilitate ease of movement for the display. He was also very careful to thoroughly scrub the body down prior to removal to the display site. No smears, no drips. So perhaps he was extremely concerned with keeping up an appearance of normalcy, ie, he wouldn't allow his car to get all bloody and mucked up, so he wasn't hopelessly insane and sloppy. Perhaps his car was regularly seen by others, neighbours, work place people, so he couldn't let it smell or look bloody. He was probably very proud of how he managed to fool people into thinking he was like them. Seeing as how he was probably a narcissist, I think he'd come across as a tad 'superior' and smug in general demeanour, rather than pathetic or timid.

I have a feeling, based on the display and the narcissistic note, that every gesture made in the display carried a 'message' or a particular meaning to the killer. By this, I mean the removal of lumps of flesh and insertion of this into the vagina, along with grass. I don't think it's a coincidence the lump of flesh contained Betty's rose tattoo. Rose, grass - a garden? I would not put it past him to leave cryptic 'clues' (possibly not clearly apparent to anyone but himself, in reality) that would make him feel even more superior and clever when nobody could work them out.

I feel he planned the display very carefully indeed - it cannot be easy to transport a bisected body without getting guts everywhere.

But - and this is a question I am currently putting a lot of thought to - was Betty completely bisected at the display site, or not? He did spend a bit of time with the body (risky.. very risky.. so he must have placed the display over the risk of discovery in order of importance) - it took time to tuck the entrails in, time to arrange her just so, cut bits off, insert them... His vehicle must have been parked quite close, perhaps hiding his activity from passing traffic if there was any. I'd say right in front of the display site.

But did he transport the halves with the open bits carefully wrapped, or did he bisect her at the display site? He spent time.. but that would take too much time. Too much time - and mess, with tools and whatnot. I am thinking the former - he bisected her in situ at the murder site, wrapped her carefully and then moved the halves from car to roadside and tidied her up for discovery.

So, he likely had a building to himself and a car he took care to keep clean. Not a transient, not a destitute, likely not a traveller, he had some means and probably a job.

He had committed some sort of violent anal penetration, definitely with a foreign object and probably post mortem (the anus was traumatised and 1 and 1/4 inches dilated). This was not a sex act or even particularly sexually motivated in a direct way, in my opinion -- this was degradation and humiliation of the victim that he wanted others to know about.

I find it hard to believe that the link between the property he chose for display and Betty's childhood was sheer coincidence. Tentatively, I'm saying he knew her prior to the murder, enough that she was relaxed with him and spoke about herself. Possibly, she mentioned the connection as they'd driven past the site at one point. Maybe not, but the link exists and shouldn't be dismissed, based on sheer probability.

So perhaps he had been seen with her, as many men were. A risk but not a huge one. He was probably careful to present himself well, and sheer guesswork here but he could have been a little OCD, a little too natty.. He was certainly concerned with details in the murder. Given my theory that he was narcissistic, I'd venture so far as to say he might have been more inclined to take her about boldly and visibly rather than engage in furtive meetings. Guesswork: he was a sharp dresser.

I don't think he was a sweaty laborer of limited education, for these reasons.

I have no firm clue nor even a sure guess as to the killer's actual identity.

And should probably quit typing for now. Long rambly posts R us