This is a different sort of subject for me. It was prompted because as I walked past the TV two days ago, they were doing one of those Top Tem or Tem Most things they do such as the World’s Ten Best Beaches. This time it was about Unsolved Murders I guess because all I caught in passing was “Number 4 - the Black Dahlia”.

I have seen stories on that case repeatedly and have absorbed quite a bit of details. There is a Black Dahlia website:

http://www.bethshort.com/

If you are able to handle the macabre and gross, you might want to check it out.

Here’s the deal; the corpse of Elizabeth Short Age 22 was found in mid- January, 1947 not far from Hollywood, California just off a sidewalk along a series of undeveloped lots. Presumably her body had been deposited there as recently as the previous night. Had she not been murdered she would now be 82.

Who did this to her has never been solved. There is a possibility that the killer is still alive. However; if the killer were to be found out, what good would it do other than close the file? If the killer is still alive, and if put on death row or given life imprisonment, it would be very little justice served at this late date.

But, it seems to me that determining who did this is not beyond the realm of possibility. Proving it might be a different matter. Probably a confession would do the trick - however; several people over the years have already confessed to it.

The scene was a unkempt grassy area just a few feet off the side walk. But being that it was not a highly developed area at the time, not many would have chanced upon her body. Apparently a woman and her very young daughter (or grand-daughter) from the area were out for a walk and discovered the body which was first thought to be a mannequin.

Elizabeth had been cit completely in two at the waist and both halves been lefy not far from each other. The story that who-ever did this placed the top and bottom sorta so they were back together is untrue. The claim that he or she “posed” her seems unlikely. It does seem likely that the killer intended for the body to be discovered pretty quickly - either that or he or she simply deposited it where it was most convenient.

Obviously (or so I think) the killer was somewhat familiar with the site. It suggests to me that the killer may have also lived somewhere near that area or possibly was one of the developers along that street or maybe even one of the owners of one of the vacant lots - but probably not that one.

The scene: Elizabeth was completely naked. She had been cut completely in two at the waist. Her upper torso was just beyond her lower torso. Her cheeks had been cut from each corner of her mouth all the way back to her ears. Her arms were arced beond her head, her lower torso was maybe 2 feet away with the legs spread as far apart as the killer could spread them (spread eagle) and her vagina was stuffed with bunched-up grass. Her body had been completely drained of blood before she was taken to that spot. And here and there patches of skin had been cut away. Both parts of her were laid on her back so she was fully exposed.

Couple of facts to remember: they did not have plastic bags or sheets of plastic or plastic tubs and buckets in those days. So draining the body of blood (no doubt in the killer’s bathtub) would have kept blood evidence from leaking out of the car trunk.

Cars did not have overly large trunks in those days. You had mostly just the space between the wheel wells, about 30 inches to 3 feet from the trunk lid to the rear seat back, and maybe 30 inches of height tapering to nothing. So cutting the body in two would make it easier to arrange in the trunk. Stack the body parts on blankets so that no mess would get on the trunk floor and that’s probably how her body was transported.

Cutting her in half was NOT part of mutilating her. I suggest to you that although a known weight for her had earlier been 115 pounds; that at the time she was murdered she was more fleshy than that - I am guessing about 128 pounds. Removing all her clothing and draining her blood would have probably reduced her weight to about 112 pounds.

Cutting her in half would result in the heaviest half weighing maybe 65 pounds tops. To me this suggests that the killer was slight of build and could not carry her full weight so he or she made it possible to carry her by making two trips.

The police said she was “posed” with her arms above her head. I say not - I think the upper part of her torso was wrestled out of the trunk and dropped on the other side of the sidewalk. The killer then drug the upper part by her wrists to where it was found - and that is why her arms were in that position.

Then the lower portion of her torso was removed from the car and perhaps the killer did intend to more or less re-loin the two halves but simply didn’t have the strength left to do it.

The puzzling part is why did he or she spread her legs like that and why was grass stuffed into her vagina? I cannot imagine what kind of a statement that would make. My question is: Was the grass in her vagina ever compared with the grass at the scene? Quite possibly the grass was put there at the killer’s home.

It is presumed that a man did this but I think there a few things that suggest that a woman may have been the killer. Why was Elizabeth’s mouth cut like that? Quite possibly because she was “mouthy” and said something that really angered the killer.

Why would anyone stiff grass into her vagina? This is a bit gross but maybe it was a stop-gap measure to prevent leakage. Otherwise I cannot imagine any motive that would ,ale sense. It doesn’t seem like the sort of thing a man would have done - but maybe a woman.

Reportedly, she had multiple bruises but nothing is reported as being the cause of death. Several patches of skin had been removed on both the upper and lower torso. It appears to me from what I can make of the pictures that her nipples and skin on her breasts were removed also. Elizabeth may have been alive when some of these things were done to her. If so, then she had to have been tied down.

The question is: Why were these things done to her? By all accounts, she was not a prostitute. She dated a number of men. She worked as a waitress and made extra money as a paid dinner date. You would think that those familiar with her would have had their suspicions as to who did this. But the case is now over 61 years old and apparently no progress has been made in solving it.

My conclusion is that the killer was small of build - robust maybe; but not robust enough to carry the body out and put it in the trunk of a car. Before leaving the body, the killer took the time to spread her legs as far as possible - I’m not sure why.

And there’s a few things as I mentioned that suggest to me that the killer might have been a woman - or maybe a small man - but very definitely a sick-o in either case.

Shalom,

Searl Miller