Author Topic: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings  (Read 825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40959
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2019, 03:10:PM »
Well that's put me off me marinated chicken ! Ugghhh. Yuk.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #31 on: October 20, 2019, 03:12:PM »
According to a BBC article "Prof Busuttil told the court there were "major similarities".

The biggest difference is the corpse is not cut in half. The common sense dictates that Luke would not have carried the apparatus to cut a body in two. Hence the dissimilarity.

Unless you upload Busuttils evidence in chief and cross examination. I am essentially debating this topic with my hands tied behind my back.

So, you've got the man himself, there on film, stating quite clearly that there were "major dissimilarities" yet you choose to quote "an article" (with no link) to claim he said exactly the opposite?

One difference is that Jodi's body was not cut in half. Neither was her body drained entirely of blood elsewhere before moving her. She was not washed and her body was not posed in a sexual position. Jodi was tied, Elizabeth Short was not. Elizabeth Short's throat was not cut. The facial cuts are similar only in that they are facial cuts - length, depth, position and number are different. Jodi was not raped. There is no suggestion that a head injury killed Jodi (cause of death for Elizabeth Short is cerebral haemmorhage.)

Which brings me to another point raised earlier. You said "the killer needed to kill her quickly" (on the basis of zero factual evidence) - he could have done so by hitting her over the head - no knife required.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11256
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #32 on: October 20, 2019, 03:30:PM »
Do you think the crime was premeditated, whoever the perpetrator?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7412
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #33 on: October 20, 2019, 04:56:PM »
So, you've got the man himself, there on film, stating quite clearly that there were "major dissimilarities" yet you choose to quote "an article" (with no link) to claim he said exactly the opposite?

One difference is that Jodi's body was not cut in half. Neither was her body drained entirely of blood elsewhere before moving her. She was not washed and her body was not posed in a sexual position. Jodi was tied, Elizabeth Short was not. Elizabeth Short's throat was not cut. The facial cuts are similar only in that they are facial cuts - length, depth, position and number are different. Jodi was not raped. There is no suggestion that a head injury killed Jodi (cause of death for Elizabeth Short is cerebral haemmorhage.)


You are putting this in the wrong context. Its never been claimed that the murder is similar to the murder Elizabeth Short. The argument is that the murder is similar to Manson's paintings of the murder.
Thus in the correct context the fact Elizabeth Shorts body was drained entirely of blood elsewhere before being moved is not at all relevant. Because one could not gather that information from Manson's painting alone.

Elizabeth Short was not only drained of blood but also amputated with surgical technique. So yes  Busuttil gave a correct answer there are "major dissimilarities". The person doing the interview asked the wrong question. The question should have been does the murder resemble Manson's paintings. Because that is what the prosecution alleged. 

You do not even need a pathologist to answer this question. If its argued that a killer has been inspired by a painting. That question can be answered by anyone doing a visual comparison of the two.

Which brings me to another point raised earlier. You said "the killer needed to kill her quickly" (on the basis of zero factual evidence) - he could have done so by hitting her over the head - no knife required.

Common sense would tell us that its not a good idea to kill someone slowly in public (specially near a path) You would want to get it done as soon as possible. No "factual evidence" required to work that out. ::) 

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14967
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #34 on: October 20, 2019, 05:02:PM »
You are putting this in the wrong context. Its never been claimed that the murder is similar to the murder Elizabeth Short. The argument is that the murder is similar to Manson's paintings of the murder.
Thus in the correct context the fact Elizabeth Shorts body was drained entirely of blood elsewhere before being moved is not at all relevant. Because one could not gather that information from Manson's painting alone.

Elizabeth Short was not only drained of blood but also amputated with surgical technique. So yes  Busuttil gave a correct answer there are "major dissimilarities". The person doing the interview asked the wrong question. The question should have been does the murder resemble Manson's paintings. Because that is what the prosecution alleged. 

You do not even need a pathologist to answer this question. If its argued that a killer has been inspired by a painting. That question can be answered by anyone doing a visual comparison of the two.

Common sense would tell us that its not a good idea to kill someone slowly in public (specially near a path) You would want to get it done as soon as possible. No "factual evidence" required to work that out. ::)

and how can he be inspired by a pianting that he hasnt  seen.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #35 on: October 20, 2019, 07:51:PM »
Do you think the crime was premeditated, whoever the perpetrator?

In some respects, yes - in others, no!

I think the killer had to be armed with a substantial weapon and the mental capacity to carry out such an attack. I don't think it's a "crime of passion" type murder, more likely someone with an intention to attack and kill already in place (and perhaps some mental construct of how those would be carried out).
I'd say the killer had to have knowledge of the area and potential escape routes in particular, although it was still a risky attack, in terms of being caught.

I don't know, however, that this was a premeditated attack with Jodi, specifically, as the target. It's possible she happened upon someone already "looking for" a victim (in however loose a sense that can be interpreted - either someone set out with an intention to kill and wanted a particular "type" of victim, or someone had been harbouring an intention to kill for some time and seeing or talking to Jodi triggered that intention into action).

But then there's the mystery of how Jodi came to be behind the wall. She wouldn't have gone there voluntarily with someone she'd never met before, I'm pretty sure about that. She may have decided to cut through the woodland strip, rather than walking down the path and come into contact with her attacker that way. But I think it's highly unlikely she was attacked on the path and then bundled or coerced through the V Break - as risky as the actual attack was, taking the chance of attacking Jodi out in the open on the path and then having to get her over the wall into the woodland strip would seem to be a step too far, in terms of the chances of being caught.

So if Jodi was already in the woodland strip, entirely by chance, then the attack wasn't premeditated in terms of Jodi being the intended victim.

There's only really one scenario where it could have been premeditated with Jodi as the intended victim and that is if the murderer knew that Jodi was going to be on the path at a particular time and was confident he could get her into the woodland strip without a fuss, or that she was going to already be in the woodland strip at a particular time.

We know the "grounding" story is incorrect so in reality, the murder could only have been premeditated, in this context, by someone who knew when she left, or would be leaving, her home and who also knew exactly where she would be going.

The argument from there is bound to go .... and the only person who knew that was Luke. But there's no proof that that's true. Since she wasn't grounded, we don't know if Jodi had arranged to meet someone on her way to see Luke. The timings for both the grounding and non grounding story rule Luke out - if Jodi left at 4.50pm, there's not enough time for Luke to have been the person "seen" by Andrina Bryson at 4.49 - 4.54. If she left just after 5pm (re the witnesses who said they saw her at 5.05pm), the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm, so Luke can't have been the killer.

So, if it was truly premeditated, it was carried out by someone who knew what time Jodi left (or was leaving) and where she would be going, and that someone was not Luke Mitchell.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11256
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #36 on: October 20, 2019, 08:30:PM »
Do you know whether Jodi and Luke were in the habit of using that particular location to do drugs? Are there any friends of the two who have anything to say about this?

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #37 on: October 20, 2019, 08:42:PM »
From everyone I've spoken to, the statements of their friends, etc, the place where Jodi's body was found was not a place they used for anything. Sometimes, they would hang out at the very top of the woodland strip, where the break in the wall is right down to the ground - the clearing in there was a popular hangout for teens smoking, etc. It's easily accessible - you just walk off the path and into the clearing. It's not so easy to get from there to the spot where Jodi was found, though, and there's no suggestion from any of their friends that either of them went any further into the woodland strip than the clearing at the top.

The only people who ever mentioned entering the woodland strip via the V break were Ferris, Dickie Jnr and Dickie Snr, but none of that was in relation to meeting or seeing Jodi or Luke there. Even the cyclist who heard the strangling/struggling/leaves rustling sound was past the V break (in the Easthouses direction) when he heard whatever it was he heard.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7412
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #38 on: October 21, 2019, 03:53:AM »
The argument from there is bound to go .... and the only person who knew that was Luke. But there's no proof that that's true.

There's no proof its false either.

Since she wasn't grounded, we don't know if Jodi had arranged to meet someone on her way to see Luke.

According to the COA she left after "informing her mother that she was going to meet the appellant". That's a source I trust.

The phone records have Luke and Jodi communicating with each other prior to here leaving. The phone records do no show Jodi communicating with another phone number belonging to a viable alternative suspect (correct me if I am wrong)

If Jodi left at 4.50pm, there's not enough time for Luke to have been the person "seen" by Andrina Bryson at 4.49 - 4.54.

Indeed. But Luke was seen. Thus Brysons recollection of the time is either erroneously a bit early or the recollection by Jodi's mother leaving is erroneously to late. Or it could be a bit of both. They only have to both be wrong by 2 and a half minutes in their recollection of the times they were not even keeping track of at the time.

Not only was he seen, he was seen around the time his brother would be home alone, he was seen with a girl near the murder location matching Jodi's description not long after they had arraigned to meet up. He was seen wearing a green jacket. He admits wearing a green jacket.  Andrina Bryson is the last known person to see Luke's green jacket.

There has been no explanation given by Luke or his mother as to how or why the jacket disappeared. There has also been no explanation for the fire Luke admits took place in the garden, not long after he returned home.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 04:01:AM by David1819 »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2019, 08:11:AM »

According to the COA she left after "informing her mother that she was going to meet the appellant". That's a source I trust.

Statement, Judith Jones: "Jodi came downstairs and said she was going out. I took that to mean she was meeting Luke and that they would be mucking about up here."

Quote
The phone records have Luke and Jodi communicating with each other prior to here leaving. The phone records do no show Jodi communicating with another phone number belonging to a viable alternative suspect (correct me if I am wrong)

The phone records have Luke communicating with Judith's phone. The content of the texts was never recovered. We don't know who else might have been contacted via Judith's phone - the only records released were those showing Luke's number.

Quote
Indeed. But Luke was seen. Thus Brysons recollection of the time is either erroneously a bit early or the recollection by Jodi's mother leaving is erroneously to late. Or it could be a bit of both. They only have to both be wrong by 2 and a half minutes in their recollection of the times they were not even keeping track of at the time.

But the timing is critical. Bryson (eventually) was apparently wrong by almost an hour, even though she backed up her original timings with a phone call, logged on her phone, received "about half an hour" after she got home. Her sighting, according to her statements, was around 5.45pm. The evidence of these two witnesses needs to corroborate each other, otherwise, it's not evidence at all. The window of time for the Bryson sighting is not possible if Judith is correct, since Jodi was still in her house at 4.49. Interesting that you quote the court/appeal evidence verbatim when it suits your argument, but are happy to tweak it, speculatively, when it doesn't.

Quote
Not only was he seen, he was seen around the time his brother would be home alone, he was seen with a girl near the murder location matching Jodi's description not long after they had arraigned to meet up. He was seen wearing a green jacket. He admits wearing a green jacket.  Andrina Bryson is the last known person to see Luke's green jacket.

The Bryson sighting is deeply flawed. Her descriptions do not match Jodi or Luke. She did not identify Luke in court. She said she could only identify the male again by his clothing, then identified, from photographs, someone wearing completely different clothing. She said the male was wearing a green "fishing style jacket" - she was quite adamant (even in court) that it was neither a parka nor a bomber jacket. There is no evidence of a time arranged for Jodi and Luke to meet up. There is no evidence of a place arranged to meet up.

Quote
There has been no explanation given by Luke or his mother as to how or why the jacket disappeared.

There was a full explanation - there was no jacket. Just because people chose not to believe it doesn't mean the explanation didn't exist. The receipt for the Park, bought after the murder, was taken by the police. The green bomber wass taken by the police. In August 2003, the police were claiming to have dozens of witness statements attesting to Luke wearing  a German army shirt that they claimed had "disappeared" until t was pointed out to them that they had it. Where did those witnesses go? How did a German army shirt become a Parka 8 months later?

Quote
There has also been no explanation for the fire Luke admits took place in the garden, not long after he returned home.

And now, a complete departure from all the known evidence to just making it up! Luke said, in the first interview that he didn't know if there was a fire in the garden that night. He agreed that there "could have been" or "might have been" but he didn't know. In the August interrogation, the police bombarded him with claims that he'd previously said his mother and brother did have a fire that evening (he said nothing of the sort) - Luke (logically) responded that he couldn't have known if they had a fire or not because he was out all evening. At no point, ever, was there any suggestion of a fire "after he returned home."

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14967
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2019, 10:30:AM »
There's no proof its false either.

According to the COA she left after "informing her mother that she was going to meet the appellant". That's a source I trust.

The phone records have Luke and Jodi communicating with each other prior to here leaving. The phone records do no show Jodi communicating with another phone number belonging to a viable alternative suspect (correct me if I am wrong)

Indeed. But Luke was seen. Thus Brysons recollection of the time is either erroneously a bit early or the recollection by Jodi's mother leaving is erroneously to late. Or it could be a bit of both. They only have to both be wrong by 2 and a half minutes in their recollection of the times they were not even keeping track of at the time.

Not only was he seen, he was seen around the time his brother would be home alone, he was seen with a girl near the murder location matching Jodi's description not long after they had arraigned to meet up. He was seen wearing a green jacket. He admits wearing a green jacket.  Andrina Bryson is the last known person to see Luke's green jacket.

There has been no explanation given by Luke or his mother as to how or why the jacket disappeared. There has also been no explanation for the fire Luke admits took place in the garden, not long after he returned home.

jodi dident hae a phone she borrowed her mums so only  lukes phone was looked at it so it can not not be said that she did not text anybody else.

and there is the point that bryson described the clothes jodi was wearing completly wrong

even the investigting officer said there was no postive id.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 11:05:AM by nugnug »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7412
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2019, 11:53:AM »
Statement, Judith Jones: "Jodi came downstairs and said she was going out. I took that to mean she was meeting Luke and that they would be mucking about up here."

I need to see Judith Jones evidence in chief and cross examination to further comment.

The phone records have Luke communicating with Judith's phone. The content of the texts was never recovered. We don't know who else might have been contacted via Judith's phone - the only records released were those showing Luke's number.

Itemised bills existed back them. They would be in the case files somewhere.

But the timing is critical. Bryson (eventually) was apparently wrong by almost an hour, even though she backed up her original timings with a phone call, logged on her phone, received "about half an hour" after she got home. Her sighting, according to her statements, was around 5.45pm. The evidence of these two witnesses needs to corroborate each other, otherwise, it's not evidence at all. The window of time for the Bryson sighting is not possible if Judith is correct, since Jodi was still in her house at 4.49. Interesting that you quote the court/appeal evidence verbatim when it suits your argument, but are happy to tweak it, speculatively, when it doesn't.

Judith and Bryson do corroborate each other. You are treating this evidence as if its electronically time-stamped. But they are NOT electronically time-stamped. Their timings are both guesses/recollections. Thus there is a reasonable margin of error involved.

Bryson was driving at the time and what she saw would not have prompted her to take note of time. There is nothing to say Jodi could not have left her home at 4:46. Bryson could not have then seen her at 4:57 once this evidence is considered properly.

I quote from the COA what is relevant to the subject matter. I have nothing else to go on. Its my only source of information. What else do I have? Sorry but I am not going to consider what you quote is evidence. You will need to photocopy the whole thing and show me.

The Bryson sighting is deeply flawed. Her descriptions do not match Jodi or Luke. She did not identify Luke in court. She said she could only identify the male again by his clothing, then identified, from photographs, someone wearing completely different clothing. She said the male was wearing a green "fishing style jacket" - she was quite adamant (even in court) that it was neither a parka nor a bomber jacket. There is no evidence of a time arranged for Jodi and Luke to meet up. There is no evidence of a place arranged to meet up.

For a witness who only saw the two for a short period while driving its not flawed at all when considered in the right context. You expect way to much from this witness. She recalled Jodi's hair correctly and the type of clothing and colour. So to point out things like she didn't see the deathtones badge on Jodi is stupid.

As for why she didn't point him out in court. Appearances change a lot in two years. Specially at that age.

There was a full explanation - there was no jacket. Just because people chose not to believe it doesn't mean the explanation didn't exist. The receipt for the Park, bought after the murder, was taken by the police. The green bomber wass taken by the police. In August 2003, the police were claiming to have dozens of witness statements attesting to Luke wearing  a German army shirt that they claimed had "disappeared" until t was pointed out to them that they had it. Where did those witnesses go? How did a German army shirt become a Parka 8 months later?

Luke had a German army coat that is colloquially referred to as a Parka. They are one of the same.

https://www.epicmilitaria.com/olive-bundeswehr-parka-with-liner.html

From Brysons perspective would look very much like a fishing jacket.

And now, a complete departure from all the known evidence to just making it up! Luke said, in the first interview that he didn't know if there was a fire in the garden that night. He agreed that there "could have been" or "might have been" but he didn't know. In the August interrogation, the police bombarded him with claims that he'd previously said his mother and brother did have a fire that evening (he said nothing of the sort) - Luke (logically) responded that he couldn't have known if they had a fire or not because he was out all evening. At no point, ever, was there any suggestion of a fire "after he returned home."

He admitted there was a fire. And thus had to have been home to witness the fire in the first place.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 03:41:PM by David1819 »

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14967
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2019, 12:11:PM »
I need to see Judith Jones evidence in chief and cross examination to further comment.

Itemised bills existed back them. They would be in the case files somewhere.

Judith and Bryson do corroborate each other. You are treating this evidence as if its electronically time-stamped. But they are NOT electronically time-stamped. Their timings are both guesses/recollections. Thus there is a reasonable margin of error involved.

Bryson was driving at the time and what she saw would not have prompted her to take note of time. There is nothing to say Jodi could not have left her home at 4:46. Bryson could not have then seen her at 4:57 once this evidence is considered properly.

I quote from the COA what is relevant to the subject matter. I have nothing else to go on. Its my only source of information. What else do I have? Sorry but I am not going to consider what you quote is evidence. You will need to photocopy the whole thing and show me.

For a witness who only saw the two for a short period while driving its not flawed at all when considered in the right context. You expect way to much from this witness. She recalled Jodi's hair correctly and the type of clothing and colour. So to point out things like she didn't see the deathtones badge on Jodi is stupid.

As for why she didn't point him out in court. Appearances change a lot in two years. Specially at that age.

The Luke had a German army coat that is colloquially referred to as a Parka. They are one of the same.

https://www.epicmilitaria.com/olive-bundeswehr-parka-with-liner.html

From Brysons perspective would look very much like a fishing jacket.

He admitted there was a fire. And thus had to have been home to witness the fire in the first place.

how can you fail to spot a reat big deaftones logo.

Offline WakeyWakey

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2019, 01:18:PM »
how can you fail to spot a reat big deaftones logo.

for one, i remember seeming every alternative kid in edinburgh had this hoodie and the proportions looked nothing like  one they used in reconstruction - it looked like theyd tried to mak their own with iron on transfers for reconstruction:

Reconstruction:


Actual size of logo:


these tops were baggy as fuck, massive hood down id be surprise if you could see the logo, nevermind make out what ti was

Quote
And now, a complete departure from all the known evidence to just making it up! Luke said, in the first interview that he didn't know if there was a fire in the garden that night. He agreed that there "could have been" or "might have been" but he didn't know. In the August interrogation, the police bombarded him with claims that he'd previously said his mother and brother did have a fire that evening (he said nothing of the sort) - Luke (logically) responded that he couldn't have known if they had a fire or not because he was out all evening. At no point, ever, was there any suggestion of a fire "after he returned home."


https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[144] The first passage that had been founded upon by the Crown was to be found at page 17 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant agreed that on 30 June 2003 his mother and brother had had a fire in the log burner. However, there had been evidence of that fire from Mr and Mrs Frankland and also from Mr Ramage.

do you contest tht Luke agreed ther was fire sandra?

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14967
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Manson's Black Dhalia Paintings
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2019, 01:22:PM »
for one, i remember seeming every alternative kid in edinburgh had this hoodie and the proportions looked nothing like  one they used in reconstruction - it looked like theyd tried to mak their own with iron on transfers for reconstruction:

Reconstruction:


Actual size of logo:


these tops were baggy as fuck, massive hood down id be surprise if you could see the logo, nevermind make out what ti was


https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[144] The first passage that had been founded upon by the Crown was to be found at page 17 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant agreed that on 30 June 2003 his mother and brother had had a fire in the log burner. However, there had been evidence of that fire from Mr and Mrs Frankland and also from Mr Ramage.

do you contest tht Luke agreed ther was fire sandra?


how do you know the  hoodie looked nothing like the hoodie in the reconstruction.

did you see her that daay if you dident yyou couldent possbly know.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 04:14:PM by nugnug »