Once again you are using the same strawman argument. Its never been claimed the crime is similar to Elizabeth Short. The argument is that the crime resembles Manson's paintings.
Do the paintings, in all the important aspects, reproduce the injuries to Elizabeth short? Are they "similar" and if so, how similar?
If the paintings are "very similar" (in all the important aspects) to Elizabeth Short, then the crime (Jodi's murder) is being claimed to be similar to both the paintings and the actual ES scene - unless you're now going to argue that the paintings are wildly inaccurate and nothing like the Dahlia murder?
You're splitting hairs, David.
Do the paintings show the body as it was laid out? Yes, they do. Is that an accurate representation of how ES was found? Yes, it is. Do the paintings accurately reflect the injuries to ES? Yes they do.
Your previous argument was that Jodi's body was left "face up" - just like the paintings and that the injuries and removal of clothing were "just like the paintings."
You're wrong on all counts, whether we're talking about the paintings or the actual ES scene. ES (and the paintings) did not have socks left on, folded down over the toes. There is a very obvious injury to the thigh in both the real ES scene and the Manson paintings which is not present on Jodi. There is a very obvious stomach wound below the waist in the Manson paintings and the ES scene which was not replicated on Jodi. The paintings do not depict cut-throat injuries of any description. They do not depict arm injuries in any way similar to Jodi's. The paintings do not depict mutilations to the eyes, but they do depict injuries to the nose not present on Jodi.
And as nugnug pointed out, all of this is entirely irrelevant, because there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest Luke ever saw those paintings before the murder.