Identified! CA - Laurel Canyon, WhtFem 358UFCA, 20-23, Nov'69 - Reet Jurvetson

New Posts

Georgia8 said:
I assume this is a DNA case correct? And I assume they know for sure NO offender DNA is on the bra? So for sure there is still hope in solving the case even if the offender is dead.

As for that physical item that according to division procedure should have been destroyed: how did it get there? WHEN did it get there? Why is it not soaked in blood? I don't have the knowledge of a coroner or a forensic detective but some things seem weird. Stabbed 157 time many in the neck? Now in the W5 video they briefly show what is either a police 'map' of the body from behind with stab wounds marked I count 10 - none to the neck. We cannot see the lower body. So she was stabbed 147 times or so front? Do they mark side wounds I wonder separately? Now in the post mortem photo they have obviously NOT shown her actual neck which in that photo is unscathed and I read they had to draw in the eyes as well which were closed (though open when she was found).

Were the first wounds more 'scientific' in other words going for the artery in the neck that would kill you? And the others added either due to rage or as a disguised of motive? Or psychotic of course if the person they believes they are killing a devil in Reet or whatever.

The parents supposedly hired the detective. Anne said she would offer hear them repeat at home "but the detective found nothing." You are absolutely right again I need to get the timeline exact but I think her brother went to L.A. not long after they lost contact with her - again supposedly - he should have found something. They had a supposed address maybe Jean I at least would still be there. There would be a landlord. Who wouldn't try at least to get a name of who lived there?
Click to expand...
 
Georgia8 said:
I assume this is a DNA case correct? And I assume they know for sure NO offender DNA is on the bra? So for sure there is still hope in solving the case even if the offender is dead.

As for that physical item that according to division procedure should have been destroyed: how did it get there? WHEN did it get there? Why is it not soaked in blood? I don't have the knowledge of a coroner or a forensic detective but some things seem weird. Stabbed 157 time many in the neck? Now in the W5 video they briefly show what is either a police 'map' of the body from behind with stab wounds marked I count 10 - none to the neck. We cannot see the lower body. So she was stabbed 147 times or so front? Do they mark side wounds I wonder separately? Now in the post mortem photo they have obviously NOT shown her actual neck which in that photo is unscathed and I read they had to draw in the eyes as well which were closed (though open when she was found).

Were the first wounds more 'scientific' in other words going for the artery in the neck that would kill you? And the others added either due to rage or as a disguised of motive? Or psychotic of course if the person they believes they are killing a devil in Reet or whatever.

The parents supposedly hired the detective. Anne said she would offer hear them repeat at home "but the detective found nothing." You are absolutely right again I need to get the timeline exact but I think her brother went to L.A. not long after they lost contact with her - again supposedly - he should have found something. They had a supposed address maybe Jean I at least would still be there. There would be a landlord. Who wouldn't try at least to get a name of who lived there?
Click to expand...

Adding years after Reet lost touch with her family her Mom put an ad out in LA asking Reet to call her WIDOWED mother. So perhaps it was the father with whom Reet had difficulties. And as I have said after Reet's brother died the discovery is supposedly made that Reet is the Jane Doe. Both are interesting timing
 
I don't get the impression Montreal or Quebec police are doing much to help. Or media. The best articles were in Coolopolis a culture mag. It is fine to look for the Jeans but they need to talk to anyone who knew Reet back then not just G.G. and Anne.
 
Georgia8 said:
Taking methadone if she did take it is not like smoking a few joints here and there. If Reet was hooked on heroin that would be VERY unusual in Canada in the 60's so I don't know what G.G. meant - maybe she got the drug wrong maybe methamphetemines (then called speed) which was a common drug.
Click to expand...

I agree -- methadone isn't a recreational drug, someone trying to use it for such isn't going to get high. It also would not have been widely available in 1969 -- it wasn't approved for use as a maintenance drug to alleviate opioid cravings/withdrawals until 1973, and there is absolutely nothing that mentions that Reet had any sort of addiction issues with heroin/opiates. (Fifty years after landmark methadone discovery, stigmas and misunderstandings persist - News)

I also feel that it may have been methamphetamine/"speed" to which she was referring -- doctors prescribed it freely during the 1950s and 1960s for weight loss. I have a friend who took it for years, she says it really curbed the appetite and put some "pep in your step", she could go 2-3 days at a time without eating more than the olives in her martinis. Better living through chemistry and all that...
 
deadfoot13 said:
I agree -- methadone isn't a recreational drug, someone trying to use it for such isn't going to get high. It also would not have been widely available in 1969 -- it wasn't approved for use as a maintenance drug to alleviate opioid cravings/withdrawals until 1973, and there is absolutely nothing that mentions that Reet had any sort of addiction issues with heroin/opiates. (Fifty years after landmark methadone discovery, stigmas and misunderstandings persist - News)
Click to expand...
Methadone actually was being widely used for several years before 1973 for maintenance therapy under IND status. But your point about no known addiction issues for her is a good one.

"Most of the treatment centers using methadone operated under Investigational New Drug (IND) applications issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and thereby claimed exemption from the policies of the Bureau of Narcotics..... From 1967 to 1970, the FDA liberally issued INDs for methadone research."

https://www.academia.edu/download/70423653/s0376-8716_2803_2900055-320210928-28362-42pm5s.pdf
 
Curious_in_NC said:
Methadone actually was being widely used for several years before 1973 for maintenance therapy under IND status. But your point about no known addiction issues for her is a good one.

"Most of the treatment centers using methadone operated under Investigational New Drug (IND) applications issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and thereby claimed exemption from the policies of the Bureau of Narcotics..... From 1967 to 1970, the FDA liberally issued INDs for methadone research."

https://www.academia.edu/download/70423653/s0376-8716_2803_2900055-320210928-28362-42pm5s.pdf
Click to expand...

It just hit me that she was living in Canada, not the US, so availability would be based on their regulations. Although it may have been a little more difficult to have access to methadone in Canada during that time, either way it would be administered by a treatment center and not readily available on the streets. I honestly believe that her friend misspoke when she mentioned methadone use, or what she said was misquoted.

"Methadone maintenance treatment, which prevents opioid withdrawal and reduces or eliminates drug cravings, was first developed
in the 1960s. For many years, Canadian regulations around the prescription of methadone were so restrictive that few doctors offered
the treatment. People who wanted methadone treatment often had to wait months or years."

https://www.camh.ca/-/media/files/guides-and-publications/dyk-methadone.pdf

MOO
 
Was there any drug available at that time that:
a) would fit Reet better than possible, but seemingly unlikely methadone,
b) was/is called very similar to it?

If her friend wasn't herself a drug user or a pharmacist, it would be imo, incredibly easy to either:
- hear Reet mentioning that she's taking "metolazone",
- see that drug name at her place
and misread or misremember it as "methadone", just cause she heard of methadone before, but never heard of metolazone before.

It would be a different story if similar hints would come from other sources or if we could reasonably expect from Reet's friend having enough experience to be sure that it was 100% sure a methadone.

I'm no expert, but it seems highely unlikely.

So young girl manages to get addicted to some hardcore drugs, while living in area where they aren't that big of a thing yet (possible - obviously), keeps it a secret from everyone/most people around her (still possible) then decides or is forced to try rehab with methadone, and side effects of that aren't manifesting itself in noticeable way (doable, possible, but bit far fetched)...
Or, cause of the market, that methadone is the drug, only available for her and she's taking it to get high (possible)...
But then, she moves to Los Angeles, where lots of drugs is available, where hippies are everywhere, where she is, being young and pretty, very likely able to get access to it, invitations to parties... and somehow resists? Stays sober? Or takes drugs for some time, but keeps herself in perfect health?
Possible, but what are the odds?

IMO much, much lower than chances that her friend ended up with false information: either misremembered, misheard or learned that from source that she assumed could be trusted but that wasn't the case.
 
Further back here Rodney Alcala is discussed. I am fully convinced he is the perpetrator of this crime. Everything fits. His looks (how they describe him looking, etc), his whereabouts (New Hampshire and New York is not very far from Montreal), name he used while in northwestern part of North America (John).

The killer is 100% Rodney Alcala.
 
InternetDetective said:
Its the man who killed Reet Jurvetson, and it is astonishing that they interviewed Charles Manson but not him!
Click to expand...

Was Alcala imprisoned at that point though? He assaulted the young girl and served time for that crime, when, sometime in the '70s? So LE just didn't see a connection at that point. But I certainly see the connection and also believe there is a high possibility he was in her area at this time and did this murder.
 
SurrealisticSlumbers said:
Was Alcala imprisoned at that point though? He assaulted the young girl and served time for that crime, when, sometime in the '70s? So LE just didn't see a connection at that point. But I certainly see the connection and also believe there is a high possibility he was in her area at this time and did this murder.
Click to expand...
They interviewed Charles Manson in 2016; they could and should have interviewed Rodney Alcala instead.
 
SurrealisticSlumbers said:
Was Alcala imprisoned at that point though? He assaulted the young girl and served time for that crime, when, sometime in the '70s? So LE just didn't see a connection at that point. But I certainly see the connection and also believe there is a high possibility he was in her area at this time and did this murder.
Click to expand...
... I don't understand what you mean by that point? When?
 
SurrealisticSlumbers said:
Was Alcala imprisoned at that point though? He assaulted the young girl and served time for that crime, when, sometime in the '70s? So LE just didn't see a connection at that point. But I certainly see the connection and also believe there is a high possibility he was in her area at this time and did this murder.
Click to expand...
No, he wasnt imprisoned then, he was supposedly attending school in New York, avoiding arrest but as far as we cant be sure what exactly he was doing, he could be whenever then.
 
beubeubeu said:
No, he wasnt imprisoned then, he was supposedly attending school in New York, avoiding arrest but as far as we cant be sure what exactly he was doing, he could be whenever then.
Click to expand...

Alcala almost always strangled his victims. That obviously doesn’t mean he never used other methods because I know he’s suspected of more murders than he admitted to, but it gives me pause
 
Last edited:
taramarie said:
Alcala almost always strangled his victims. That obviously doesn’t mean he never used other methods because I know he’s suspected of more murders than he admitted to, but it gives me pause
Click to expand...
This could be, if Reet was one of his victims, it was still at the time when he could not have any preffered method of killing yet but...
He escaped Cali to avoid conviction. Would he go back so fast? Also no idea how much attendance that NY school required and if he could be just not-there in October, but that could happen.

I don't see that happening thou. He was a big guy, and he knew that he has pending conviction in Cali. Would he go for pocket knife stabbing of a tiny girl? Would he bother to dump her body in a spot of another big LA's murder case? Part of it could be accidental, but so many people remembered meeting Alcala after years passed, and none remembered him from LA then. And what about crossing the Canadian border? Wouldn't he found it risky?
I thought that Manson was point of interest for LE cause he for sure was in LA at the time, for sure knew many young women there, and about many things. Even if he or his cult members weren't involved in it, he could still, realistically have some info, or some idea about this crime. Alcala would be a long shot, but it's a shame that he wasn't asked about it. To the very least... he was attending film school, and knew movie-making crowd, Reet lived in the area of movie production companies. That tiny bit of chance that he knew something was definitely there... in handsight.
 
InternetDetective said:
... I don't understand what you mean by that point? When?
Click to expand...
Nevermind; didn't know Manson was interviewed as late as 2016 about this case. (Not that he would have remembered anything even if he'd done this crime.) I was talking about how when Reet's body was first discovered they didn't make the connection to Alcala yet. Which is quite a shame because this killing and choice of victim closely fits his style.
 
beubeubeu said:
No, he wasnt imprisoned then, he was supposedly attending school in New York, avoiding arrest but as far as we cant be sure what exactly he was doing, he could be whenever then.
Click to expand...
Part of what I have tried to say... He is in the northeastern part of North America. Montreal is not far from NH and NY.

But this was in regards to when they interviewed Charles Manson about this case, which was in 2016 after they had her identity confirmed.
 
taramarie said:
Alcala almost always strangled his victims. That obviously doesn’t mean he never used other methods because I know he’s suspected of more murders than he admitted to, but it gives me pause
Click to expand...
Almost always... And those are in the 70s. Here we talk 1969, when he left California and LA. Then ofcourse he came back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 74 more.
Total: 3,303 (members: 75, guests: 3,228)

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
3,228
Total visitors
3,303
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,621
Messages
17,972,031
Members
228,846
Latest member
butiwantedthatname
Back
Top