The Black Dahlia killing – An ‘adventuress’ who ‘prowled Hollywood Boulevard’
2/2

Short’s life in LA – the known, the unknown, and the speculation

Short arrived in LA on August 20^th with Gordon Fickling but they ended their relationship on the 26^th of August and Short moved to the Hawthorne hotel with Marjorie Graham, a friend from Boston (they had bumped into each other by accident a couple of days prior). Short moved again on the 20^th of September and registered with Marjorie at the downtown Hotel Figueroa. After 6 days there, they moved into the flat of Sid Zaid on Windsor Road for a few days before moving into the Florentine Gardens on Hollywood Boulevard at the end of September 1946. The Florentine Gardens were part-owned by Mark Hansen and this is where Short was introduced to him. They stayed at the Florentine Gardens until the 10^th of October when they moved in with Bill Robinson and Marvin Margolis to Robinson’s aunt’s apartment, 726 at the Guardian Arms on Hollywood Boulevard. According to Robinson and Margolis, Short was not romantically involved with either of them and was sleeping on the couch whilst Graham was sleeping on the bed with both men. Graham left LA and returned to Cambridge, Massachusetts on the 22^nd of October. Short left the apartment on the same day, leaving her luggage behind. Up until this point, Graham had been a stable presence in Short’s life since her arrival in LA. Following Graham’s departure from LA, Short’s life was bound to become even more chaotic.

On the 22^nd of October, Short was spending time with Glen Stearns, an amateur photographer who she met recently. Stears took several photos of Short on that day. In the evening of the 22^nd he drove her to Robinson’s apartment to collect her luggage. They spend most of the night driving around the San Fernando Valley where Short was unsuccessfully trying to find accommodation. In the early hours of October 23rd Short asked Stearns to drive her to Hansen’s home on Carlos Avenue. Anne Toth opened the door and let Short in. She stayed at Hansen’s until Anne Toth found and paid for her accommodation at the Chancellor on November 13^th (after Hansen told her to leave following an argument).

Short stayed at the Chancellor until December 6^th when she, unbeknownst to anyone, left for San Diego. In fact, she made sure people were not aware of her whereabouts by telling them she was visiting with her sister up North. She arrived in San Diego without a plan and had nowhere to say. She met a young woman at a cinema whose family felt sorry for her and took her in. Short stayed with the family until January 8^th, when she left in a hurry. Short spent the night of the 8^th with Robert "Red" Manley who left her at the Biltmore hotel the next day.

Short was a very vulnerable female living in LA on her own, surrounded by an often-unreliable network of people. For the most part, she has no constant or formal residence, drifting between different accommodations. There is no confirmed employment for Short during this period of time and it is not clear how Short was sustaining herself. During her stay at the Hawthorne in September, a short dark man about 35-40 driving a black Ford Sedan would pay Short’s bills when she wasn’t able to. Hansen said in his statement to the Police that he was reluctant to allow Short to stay at his property due to her always having “some undesirable looking character waiting for her outside and bringing her home”. Short was also known to come by money to pay for her expenses at the last minute, through unknown means.

Short was particularly vulnerable in the ‘transition’ phases between different accommodations when she was, in effect, homeless for periods of time. During these times, it seems that very few, if any, people were aware of her whereabouts. As she didn’t have a reliable social circle, she was, effectively, completely isolated at those times from people who knew her. This made her vulnerable and desperate. To make matters worse, Short has spoken to different individuals about being afraid of someone (or more than one individual) but the identity of these people remains a mystery. Short inadvertently made her situation riskier through actively misleading people with regards to her whereabouts. She was probably trying to protect herself from whoever she was afraid of as she possibly wanted not to be found. It seems that Short had reasons to believe that the individual(s) she was afraid of had means to find out where she was from her friends. They were, perhaps, close to her friends or even within her social circle. The missing week, i.e. the one week in which there are no confirmed sightings of Short comes on a heel of one such transition period – her return from San Diego to LA. During this period, Short was not reported missing and it seems that no alarms were raised at all. It is possible that the killer was close enough to Short to be aware of her vulnerability at that time.

There was mention of two men and a woman who have showed up at the house of the family Short was staying with in San Diego on the 7^th of January whilst she was away from the home (perhaps prompting her rushed departure from San Diego). Two men and a woman were also involved in one of the last unconfirmed sightings of Short’s on the night of the 9^th of January. A Police officer stated that a woman fitting Short’s description approached her panicked on the bus station near the Cecil Hotel stating that she is afraid of her ex-boyfriend who threatened to kill her should he see her with another man. On one account of this incident, the Police officer accompanies the young lady to an establishment where she stated the ex-boyfriend is and from where she run out without her belongings. The police officer then witnesses the young lady having a verbal confrontation with two ben and a woman before leaving the premises with the Police officer and stating to them that she will be fine because her father is picking her up and driving her home (out of LA). The Police officer couldn’t make a positive identification of the young woman being Short.

There was a lot of speculation with regards to Short’s sexuality. Photos of 200 men were discovered in Shorts belongings, with numerous phone numbers and addresses. This has fueled the baseless speculation the Short was making a living as a prostitute. However, according to Sergeant Harry Hansen, one of the original detectives assigned to the murder, there was evidence that Short had any form of sexual relationship with three men only. From being a prostitute, Short quickly became a ‘tease’ of men and/or a lesbian. There were even theories that Short was not sexually intimate with men because she had some form of a deformity of her female organs. Amongst the many contacts in Short’s belongings there were several names and numbers of doctors and dentists in LA, some of whom where know to have been involved in illegal abortions (Dr. Hodel himself being one such person). This led to further theories of Short being pregnant and in need of an abortion circulating. The coroner concluded following the autopsy that she had never been pregnant, nor did she have any form of deformity of her female organs.

Amongst the most bizarre statements made during the investigation is surely that of Dr. Melvin Schwartz, a dentist in his late 20-ies. He shared an office with Dr. Faught who would usually leave the premises around 3 or 4PM. After this time, Dr. Schwartz would assess Faught’s patients and ask them to come in the next they if he thought their appointment wasn’t urgent. According to Schwartz, one day a young woman came in the office when Faught was gone. When Schwartz asked her about the nature of her problem, she was reluctant to speak in the waiting area, so they went inside Faught’s office where she told Schwartz that she has an “inflamed gland”. She said Dr. Faught had once prior lanced her gland and she needed this done again. She said to Schwartz she believed to be allergic to rubber and that “every time I play around and have a rubber used on me, I get into this trouble”. According to Schwartz she then said to him that he is a good-looking doctor and, after he thanked her for the compliment, “she proceeded to grab my hand, she lifted her dress, and I pulled my hand away and stepped away from her.” At this point a nurse stepped into the office and “this lady in red disappeared”. Schwartz stated that Dr. Faught knew who this woman was and had said to him that she was a “streetwalker”. There is no mention of either Schwartz or Faught identifying Short as the young lady in question, but the story was waived in with the many narratives surrounding Short’s character.

Sgt. Peter Anthony Vetcher

According to the FBI files, Short met first Sergeant Vetcher in LA in September of 1946. This coincided with the beginning of the very turbulent period of the final months in Short’s life. At the time Vetcher was sightseeing in LA with another officer (Sgt. Moffett) during a trip the purpose of which was to return an AWOL soldier to base. The time spent in LA was not requested or approved according to any official military procedures (in other words, it was not reflected in military records of their whereabouts).

The following is known about Vetcher’s life: Vetcher was among the original First Ranger Battalion group at the Commando Training Depot, Achnacarry, Scotland on June 19^th, 1942. He was a member of the famed Darby Rangers. Vetcher himself, who was wounded twice, first in the Africa campaign and again in Italy, estimated that of the 500 elite soldiers, only 43 survived the war. He was awarded the Silver Star, among other medals. He was held as a prisoner during the war in Stalag 3B near Fuerstenberg, Prussia. His capture was first reported to the International Committee of the Red Cross on January 30^th, 1944. He was held prisoner for at least 526 days. Pete Vetcher was born in 1915 and died in 2001 (source: https://www.theblackdahliainhollywood.com).

Vetcher’s name came to LAPD’s attention after Short’s high school sweetheart John P. O’Neil, who was also a soldier, informed them that he had received a post card from Short stating that she was married to Vetcher and living in LA. It was a several-weeks-long effort to locate and interview Vetcher (more about this later). He stated that he wrote to the LAPD making them aware of his connection to Short as he was concerned his name will appear in her personal belongings (!), but did not hear back from the Police on this matter. He was finally interviewed by the FBI on March 27^th 1947.

Vetcher was cleared of suspicion based on his military records even prior to this interview and as such, this interview had the tone of an information gathering conversation. However, looking at the FBI files, several pieces of information regarding Vetcher’s alibi stand out: Vetcher was stationed at Fort McLellan in Alabama (wherefrom he visited LA) until 28^th of January 1947. He was at the time of the interview stationed in Harrisburg, Philadelphia as a National Guard instructor. Official morning records from Fort McLellan indicate Vetcher being present every morning from January 1^st to January 28^th. However, a document stating the following can also be found in the FBI files:

His file reflects a letter dated November twelfth, forty six, from the Honorable Daniel J. Fgood, member of Congress, requesting the Cooperation of the War Department in the transfer of Vetcher to the National Guard Unit, Scranton, Pennsylvania, in the capacity of instructor stating that Vetcher had already applied for transfer through official channels. It is not possible to determine where Vetcher was assigned in January. The latest assignment card in file dated November thirty, forty six, shows Vetcher assigned Company B, twenty eight infantry training battalion, Fort McLellan, Alabama, however there is a letter dated February twenty four, forty seven, signed by Vetcher from the office of senior instructor, Headquarters, one hundred eleventh infantry, post office box eighteen, Washington, Pennsylvania, advising that this was notification of change of address.

This is his account of the events (the complete statement can be found in the FBI files):

On September 20, 1946, he “proceeded to downtown Los Angeles.” He then, “wandered around the downtown section of Los Angeles until about 1:45 P. M., when he stopped and stood leaning against the wall of a store on the corner of what he recalls was 6th and Olive Streets. While he was idly watching the passers-by, he observed the victim, accompanied by another young woman [this was likely Majorie Graham], walk by at about 2:00 P. M. After passing him, the victim turned around and walked over to Sergeant Vetcher,” and inquired about a friend who had been in the service. She explained that they had been “childhood sweethearts in their hometown of Medford, Massachusetts.” Vetcher “stated that after this conversation he inquired of the victim whether she would give him a date for the evening.”

“The victim’s girlfriend separated from them, and the victim and Vetcher eventually proceeded to the Columbia Broadcasting Station Studios, where they saw a Tony Martin broadcast.”

“Thereafter they proceeded to Tom Breneman’s. Vetcher stated that at the corner of Hollywood and Vine they met First Sergeant Charles Moffett who accompanied them to Tom Breneman’s. Upon arriving at Tom Breneman’s, they observed that a number of people were waiting in line for a table, but as soon as they entered the door, the head waiter came over to the victim and escorted her, along with Vetcher and Moffett to a nearby table. Vetcher stated that during the time they were at Tom Breneman’s, he observed that the victim appeared to be well known to all of the waiters there.”

They talked again of the “childhood friend” from Medford. The man reminded her that he only knew this friend of hers under “combat conditions.” Lieutenant John P. O’Neil was the hometown boy and Beth and Pete Vetcher wrote him two postcards the next day, according to Vetcher, stating they were married and living “in Hollywood and very happy.” Beth signed one card Betty Short Vetcher.” The sergeant “also stated that the victim was very well dressed and caught the attention of many of the guests at Tom Breneman’s He stated that he caught snatches of conversations of people seated in the immediate vicinity and heard some of them suggest that she must be a professional actress employed by RKO or some other studio.” According to his statement, they left at about 12:30 A. M. and separated from Moffett.

Peter Vetcher told the special agents that they returned to downtown on a trolley and as they walked about five blocks from the stop, “a black car drove up beside them and stopped. Vetcher stated that there were five men seated in the car who appeared to be dark complexioned and possibly were Mexican, three of whom jumped out of the rear of the car and yelled, ‘There she is.’ Vetcher stated that he suggested to the victim that he beat these individuals up, but she told him the best thing to do would be to run. According to the FBI report, “they ran and escaped from these individuals, who apparently were unknown to the victim.”

When they reached her hotel, Beth invited him upstairs. Her roommate was working that evening and said Vetcher could sleep in her bed if it was alright with Beth. After sneaking into her room and making advances, Vetcher said that they made love several times throughout the night, but “that at no time was the victim in a passionate mood, which led him to suggest the possibility that she was a Lesbian.”

“In order to corroborate this statement, he pointed out that during his conversations with the victim, she related to him that she at one time frequently visited a wealthy woman who resides either in Hollywood or Los Angeles, and that this woman had made improper advances towards her, which she resisted.”

Vetcher spent time with her the next day, before they went their separate ways. He watched her enter the Figueroa Hotel with a girl friend and “stated that as the girls entered the hotel, he observed the victim in a heated conversation with a short, chunky, well-dressed man who appeared to be 40 or 45 years of age.” The soldier said, “he had not seen the victim since that time, and had never had any correspondence with her.”

The report said, “Vetcher stated that during his various conversations with the victim, she never expressed fear of anyone, but she did mention that Los Angeles was a tough city and that it was dangerous for a girl to be alone on the streets at night. She told him that she was afraid to be alone on the streets at night, and while they were reading a newspaper in the lobby of the Figueroa Hotel, she pointed out to him an article which featured a resume of the number of murders and rapes which had occurred in Los Angeles over a short period of time. In addition, Vetcher stated that the victim told him that she was going with a man whom she did not like very much, but she stated that she did not want to hurt his feelings by stopping to go with him. Vetcher advised that he did not know the name of this man. It may be noted that Vetcher vigorously denied that he had ever been married to the victim.”

“Vetcher claimed that after reading in the Birmingham, Alabama newspapers that the victim had been murdered, he wrote a letter to the Los Angeles Police Department advising them of his meeting with the victim. Vetcher stated that he feared that his name might be found in the little black book of the victim’s girlfriend, and, accordingly, contacted the Los Angeles Police Department as soon as possible. Vetcher advised that he never received a reply to his letter.”

The above is a statement of a highly regarded and decorated soldier and a prisoner of war. The importance of this fact cannot be overstated when trying to understand why this statement did not result in a significant effort of looking into Vetcher as a suspect. In fact, there is no indication in the FBI files that his fingerprints were even checked against the partial prints lifted off the package sent to the media (this is something regularly done with other suspects during the investigation). Vetcher claimed that these two days (20-21^stSeptember 1946) were the extent of his involvement with Short. He requested a relocation from Alabama prior to November 20^ththat same year. There seems to be some level of uncertainty regarding his whereabouts during January 1947 and he was known to be living in Pennsylvania with his mother by March 1947.

There isn’t a single element of the above statement that, in isolation, should raise alarms. However, the overall tone of the statement seems to be catering to the many problematic narratives about Short the Police were already entertaining. This, in itself, gives reason to pause. A highly organized, intelligent, and charming killer who has had several months to prepare his statement and has been following the course of the investigation, might know just what to say.

Perhaps the most problematic element of the statement is the fact that Vetcher claims to have had intercourse with Short on several occasions in one night. This is inconsistent with what is known about Short. Short has been intimate with only 3 people that the Police was able to verify. We’re expected to believe that one of them was Vetcher, a person Short knew for around 24 hours in total during her life, and a person whose telephone or address were not recovered amongst Shorts belongings. Whilst it isn’t known who the three people Short was intimate were, it is likely that the other two would be individuals who she had a long and more meaningful relationships with (and who have also been accounted for in her address book). Perhaps the other two were Gordon Fickling, a boyfriend who she met in 1944 and who had lived with her in Long Beach and in Hollywood, and Matt Gordon, a war-pilot who she was engaged to and who died during deployment in 1945.

The third person seems to have been Vetcher who, unlike many other men who have tried before him, managed to have intercourse with the ‘tease’ the Black Dahlia was said to be. Not only did he have intercourse with her, but it took place on multiple occasions over the course of one night. This sounds very unlikely. In fact, what’s more likely is that Vetcher had hoped to be intimate with Short on the night of September 20^th, but she declined this, as she had done many times before and after. She might have declined him on multiple occasions if his relationship with Short was more extensive than the one day he accounted for. Being declined would have caused a narcissistic injury to the killer. And if he was ever providing the Police with a statement, he would be likely to defend against this by exaggerating his sexual exploits.

But where the cunning nature of Vetcher’s statement really shines through is when he casts doubts regarding Short’s sexuality because she was “at no time” in “a passionate mood”. This is a brilliant ‘move’ on his part and shows that Vetcher really does know his audience. Firstly, Vetcher shows some vulnerability with this statement as he is, in essence, saying that he wasn’t able to satisfy Short sexually. Adding this element of vulnerability makes it less likely that the Police will question whether his statement regarding the nature of the intercourse was exaggerated in the first place. On the other hand, it also offers weight to the narrative the Police is already primed to take seriously – that Short was in some way perverted (such as by being a lesbian in the 40ies).

Vetcher is using a similar tactic in his recounting of the several Mexicans who were apparently after Short. What he is doing here is confirming to the Police that Short was involved with the criminal milieu, a theory that was prominent at the time (one of the most pursued angles of the investigation was that Short has someone been involved with Hansen’s criminal circle). But in addition to this, he is also suggesting that this connection might be very hard to ‘put a finger on’ as there are illusive Mexicans, making the case an international mystery.

Besides the statement, there is also the problem of Vetcher’s name not being accounted for in Short’s belongings and he himself stated that she had written it down (this is something Short seemed to have been doing regularly). This is to be expected if Vetcher is the person who assembled the package of Short’s belongings sent to the Police. Otherwise, it might be that Short simply misplaced or lost his contact. But this is implausible due to the very organized way in which Short was managing her male contacts. Not to mention the fact the Vetcher was someone she was (as he claims) physically intimate with.

In addition, Vetcher stated that he had sent a letter to LAPD to declare his knowledge of Short but did not receive a reply. Two things about this are worth noticing. Firstly, this is a very clever way to orchestrate plausible deniability as the Police would have no way of verifying this letter was sent and Vetcher, being a high-ranking military personnel, most likely had a good sense of this and of the fact that the investigators would have found it plausible that a letter was lost by the Police department in the chaos of the massive investigation. And secondly, it’s not known when the letter was sent. This would be a significant piece of information because Vetcher was, on his account, stationed in Alabama in January 1947 and it would be possible to find out when the news of Short’s killing was publicized in Alabama. Vetcher sending a letter earlier than this would be suspicious as he seems to have no known connections in LA and was simply there for one day sightseeing in September of 1946. Therefore, Vetcher would have either been elsewhere than Alabama in January of 1947, or he was following the story because he already knew Short was deceased prior to the news breaking in Alabama. Clearly, Vetcher was clever enough elsewhere in his statement to say that he had sent the letter after reading about the case in “the Birmingham, Alabama newspapers” but didn’t seem to furnish a date when se sent the letter. Nor was he bothered enough to attempt to get in touch with the Police by other means as this large investigation was ongoing.

Vetcher also made sure to furnish the Police with a number of other persons of interest, such as mentioning a boyfriend who Short said to have been afraid of whose name he couldn’t recall. He also stated that he dropped Short off on the 22^nd at the Hotel Figueroa (where she and Graham was staying at the time) and had witnessed her having “a heated conversation with a short, chunky, well-dressed man who appeared to be 40 to 45 years old”. There was also mention of a man Short had a date with on the might of the 22^nd who had a car, but whose name Vetcher again couldn’t recollect. He was a very useful witness, indeed.

What happened to Elisabeth Short?

A young woman, with nothing in this world but her beauty, arrives in LA hoping this beauty will be enough to allow her to build a life for herself. But the road to having a life is paved by men and, unfortunately, when a woman relies on her beauty she inadvertently is letting herself down a dangerous pathway of being objectified and sexualized by men. Very rarely, women make it through and use this as a way of shaping their freedom and identity. Women such as Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Pamela Andreson, and – in more recent times – women who are attempting this such as Emily Ratajkowski and Megan Fox. The greatest danger on this road is that men expect certain things of their sexual objects, and will not tolerate other things

The brutality of Short’s death transfixed the nation in 1947. This was the time of post-war optimism, the beginning of the boom of the suburban family lifestyle which will come to rule the social zeitgeist of the 50-ies. But, what really happened to Short is that she was a victim of a femicide. An angry killer savagely took from her the one thing she had – her beauty. And then put his act on display for the nation to be faced by the underbelly of the historical moment; the repressed violence of WWII, the loss of identity through rapid urbanization, the loss of respect of women through models served up by the new and booming entertainment industry. It’s interesting that Short’s death was more recently connected to the activities of the surrealist circle in LA (of which Hodel was a member). And surrealism probably is connected – through surrealist art being the only cultural niche where this latent, repressed violence and frustration was allowed out in the open. But this exposed surrealists as targets of externalization – it’s not me who is having these violent thoughts, it’s the surrealists! It should come as no surprise that Short’s murder remains unsolved.

“She didn’t seem to have any goals or standards… she never had a job all the time she lived in Los Angeles. She had an obviously low IQ, lived hand to mouth, day to day. They found out during the autopsy that her teeth were full of cavities. She had filled them up with candle wax. She was a man-crazy tramp, but she wasn’t a prostitute. There were all kinds of men in her life, but we were able to find three who’d had any sexual experience with her. She was a tease; she gave a bad time to quite a few guys. She just asked for trouble. There wasn’t much to like about her.”

-- sergeant Harry Hansen, one of the original detectives assigned to the Short murder