Staring at the crime scene pictures of Elizabeth Short taught me this one thing: what a hypocrite I am, if I bawww outrage over the mangled bodies of victims, yet heap scorn on women like her while they live. Thanks, Betty, for that wisdom. I hope you are in peace.
Just some thoughts on the crime scene:
- The exsanguination and bisection says to me this guy probably had a vehicle other people saw or traveled in, and he could not risk having blood or a body-shaped lump in it. Possibly a company vehicle, that sort of thing. Not a family vehicle, for reasons given below.
- This tells me, in turn, that he probably lived close to or worked among people, and so was good or at least adequate at masking himself. Incredible self control, fastidious, definitely - to OCD levels. maybe, which would enable him to appear normal - except where he felt safe to let loose.. But like I said above, his madness would have to 'leak' sooner or later. Somebody would have seen it. He may have had an 'aura' about him that made people feel uncomfortable, despite his efforts to look normal. Maintaining his mask through normal relationships would be extremely difficult for this man. I highly doubt he lived in family situation.
- He had a safe place to handle Elizabeth, all of her blood and her body. He could have lived alone, or used an empty building.
- He spent a long time with her, a really long time. So he had a means of accounting for that time, or nobody to answer to.
- If he did share a home at all, it would be with a mother or wife who was completely submissive by nature. Somebody who would not, or dared not, question him.
- I don't think this was a simple crime, a hit. It's too far from simple for that. The killer took risks to make his point that go far beyond that a 'businessman' would take. This guy was a sadistic, sexual psychopath, I have no doubt of that.
- He cut her half, probably for convenience and lessening of risk (taking her out of a building where there were passersby and neighbours, maybe) but put her 'back together' at the crime scene. This was very deliberate and important to his 'message', part of what he wanted to get across. This killer was 'shouting' something, here. Every element of the crime scene is, I think, a very carefully placed part of that.
- If he'd killed before, and I really think he had and that there ARE other victims, other bodies - he may not have bisected his victims, but they would be mutilated and/or degraded in some way. Probably nothing like Betty, though - like Mary Kelly was to the Ripper, he would have built up to that over time - she was probably the pinnacle of what he wanted to achieve, the greatest moment of release or expression for him. Or yeah, we'd likely know about it...
- The matter in her stomach - was that fertiliser? The rose tattoo and the grass in her vagina .. that is way symbolic of -something- for the killer. A garden, maybe?
- The crime scene was his greatest moment of risk. He spent time there, too.. a lot of time, arranging things just so. He would have been excited, exhilarated, not totally cool as he would be otherwise. I think the cement bags could have been his one 'mistake', for that reason.
- I find it very hard to believe that the link between Betty and the crime scene was sheer coincidence. It wasn't a 'dump site' - Betty was not 'dumped' she was arranged with infinite care. Therefore, I don't discount that the killer knew her, possibly very well. Well enough to know she grew up around these people who owned that land, anyway. I am seeing it as a very deliberate choice.
Just some thoughts that circle around in my mind, whenever I ponder this crime. Sorry for the rambling.
