Law Enforcement & Experts

Infographic 2.

Law enforcement agencies / agents and experts are both represented only in the Infotainment paradigm.

In the Infotainment paradigm, the LAPD is depicted as ineffective not due to incompetency¹⁶³, but due to corruption¹⁶⁴. This representation pertains to the “early 20th century” LAPD; For example, Shane readily says “the mob was all over town”, “you got dirty cops”, “the whole town is filthy”, but quickly denies (“wait, no”) the notion that the contemporary “LAPD are crooked”. This doesn’t necessarily suggest that the current LAPD is respected more, but that it is a powerful institution that, in the very least, is to be carefully referred to.

Moreover, the expertise of retired LAPD detective, Steve Hodel, is questioned by Ryan (“it could show a personal vendetta”), who ultimately convinces Shane (R: “Do you see why I said Steve Hodel may have a conflict of interest?” S: “Now, yeah”). Note that Steve Hodel’s conclusion is questioned on the basis that he is considered unprofessional enough to mix his personal feelings against his father with his detective work, and not on George Hodel’s lack of guilt, as both Ryan and Shane repeatedly refer to the latter as a “murderer”.

The police are presented in generally neutral terms (“called the police”, “letters sent to the police”), with the exception of an allegation of corruption (“Steve Hodel claims *…+ the police covered up Hodel’s guilt”), which is implicitly presented as correct due to the statement “some officers in the LAPD were notoriously corrupt in the early 20th century” -which also appears as on-screen text in all caps and the word “CORRUPT” written in bright, red letters- and G. Hodel’s quote (“this is the best payoff I’ve seen in between law enforcement agencies”) -which also appears capitalized on screen-, that immediately follow the allegation, discursively speaking.

The explicit acknowledgement of the LAPD that evidence is missing (“lending credibility to the corruption allegation, *…+ the LAPD admits that much of the physical evidence for the Black Dahlia case is not in the files” – also emphasized with on-screen, capitalized text), which is the most indisputable evidence, doesn’t immediately follow Steve Hodel’s allegation, but Shane’s and Ryan’s agreement of the possibility that police indeed covered up Hodel’s murder, thus

163 (“the LAPD began circulating a flier in the hopes of getting more information *…+ eventually more information about the woman began to emerge”, “the LAPD had snuck listening devices into Hodel’s home undetected”).

164 (“some officers in the LAPD were notoriously corrupt in the early 20th century”, “the LAPD admits that much of the physical evidence for the Black Dahlia case is not with the files”, “the LAPD is in charge of the chain of custody of said tapes”, “it makes sense to me that those tapes would vanish”, “the case remains unsolved”).

legitimating the two YouTuber/dominating actors in their risqué generalization that “cops don’t care” (about whether they appear crooked). In fact, cops, whether of the late 40’s LAPD (“dirty cops”) or in more general terms (“they don’t care”), are portrayed negatively, as unsympathetic figures (“cops don’t care”).

In Sarian’s video, overall police representation is more positive. The police are the ones through which the dead body is introduced in the narrative (“police go to the location…Now when they get there, what they see is a naked body…”), they are shown to follow procedure¹⁶⁵ and they are presented respectfully (“police”, “investigators”, “police officers” and not “cops”

etc.). However, even as an authoritative institution, they are not spared from Sarian’s signature narrative techniques of direct speech fictitious discursive re-enactments in the Present Simple¹⁶⁶, volunteering of expressive personal interpretations (“Police go out to the location, and when they arrive, they are just shocked, stunned, confused, you name it, that’s how they are feeling”), and personalization through meta-commentary (“I would like to do that job, that would be fun to me”). The representations produced through these techniques do not add any factual information to the True Crime narrative as such, but serve to establish a personal, friendly, banter-like tone, which is in itself part of Bailey Sarian’s True Crime formula. As a result, the obviously unsubstantiated/inaccurate representations of the police are meant to keep the mood light, and not ridicule or parody police work.

That being said, the police are mildly criticized for failing to identify Christine’s source from inside the police¹⁶⁷, and it is stated that “it was believed that George was giving payoffs to law enforcement” without further commentary on police corruption. Also, when discussing the people in the community, Sarian represents them as engaged in the Black Dahlia story (“The people in the community are following this story heavily”), worried about their safety (“Have

165 (“they were able to get fingerprints and run the prints through their system”, “police contact Elizabeth’s mother”, “police take Robert into custody, they book him, they also search his car”, “gave him two polygraph tests”, “the police department in North Carolina, they forwarded the sketch to Los Angeles police department”).

166 (“they are like ‘yes, bingo’, you know?”, “’We’re gonna solve a mystery today’, is probably what they’re thinking”, “the police are thinking like, ‘This is our guy, but we need to get a confession’”, “so police are kind of like

‘Yeah, sure lady’”, “Police are, like, you know, ‘Why’d you lie? Why’d you waste our time?”)

167 (“They probably should have checked that”, “You would think police would fact-check the girl who told Christine about the hair situation?”, “Like, shouldn’t this have led investigators to dig a little bit deeper and figure out why did that person tell Christine, in the first place?”).

they caught the killer? What’s going on?”) and critical of the police (“What’s taking them so long to solve this murder?”). Nevertheless, overall police representation is positive, as shown by the tendency to assume that police are following the best/appropriate course of action, even when information on what actually happened is not available¹⁶⁸.

Going back to the Infotainment paradigm, the FBI is portrayed as a diligent organization¹⁶⁹ and the expertise of FBI executives is fully accepted (“perhaps most frustrating is the sentiment expressed by John Douglas, former head of the FBI’s Serial Crimes Division, that *…+ today the crime would be very ‘solvable’”). The positive representation of the FBI is therefore antithetical to that of police. The representations of law enforcement agents are accordingly more or less positive, depending on the individual’s affiliation with either the police or the FBI.

Specifically, Ralph Asdel is introduced as “the last living detective from the original investigation”, which creates high expectations, in terms of exclusivity and accuracy, about the insight he has to offer, as well as a sense of urgency (because time is running out; the original detectives that presumably know the case better than anyone else are all dead, except one). He is described as following procedure (“had received a few tips”, “found a man¹⁷⁰ matching that description”), but he is discredited because even though he “had no hard evidence” and “only a hunch to go on” he still “believed that this mystery man was the Black Dahlia murderer”.

The phrasing “mystery man” in particular suggests that it is futile or simply wrong to pursue this lead. The distrust towards Asdel’s detective skills is further demonstrated with the use of irony (“great insight provided by Adel there”) and mockery (“can’t tell you his name, but I know”) by Ryan, and a direct value judgement (“kind of a bad detective”) by Shane.

In stark contrast to the detective’s portrayal, lies the portrayal of John Douglas: Even before he is introduced as the “former head of the FBI’s Serial Crimes Division and one of the nation’s

168 (“I don’t think they tell you that, which is probably for the better”, “So LAPD goes out to the house, and they go inside to check things out, see what’s going on, and then, leave. So, I guess nothing was found.”, “he got off the hook, George, because he was gone, they really couldn’t do anything about it”).

169 (“identifying the fingerprints with help from the FBI”, “the FBI investigated approximately 300 USC Medical School students”, “the FBI raced to match these prints”).

170 Asdel’s suspect is the unknown second suspect presented in the Infotainment paradigm, a “man” that Asdel

“believed to be the murderer” “as of 1997”. He is described as a “mystery man” indicating that the scarcity of information that exists about him even as late as in 1997, is such that he is a practically impossible-to-follow lead.

leading experts on profiling violent crimes” (and, as such, represented as a highly esteemed authority figure), his sentiment is already presented as correct (“perhaps most frustrating is the sentiment expressed by John Douglas…”). His professional opinion is neither questioned nor subjected to irreverent commentary by the two presenters, further suggesting that he is a respected figure.

Finally, a district attorney’s opinion is also discussed, even though it is given in a non official capacity. Stephen Kay is introduced as “Stephen Kay, the then LA county head deputy DA”. He is represented as an authority figure with considerable experience (“had prosecuted cases for over 35 years”), which suggests that his conclusion (“I would have no reservations about filling two counts of murder against Dr. George Hodel”) is correct, but because he makes this statement unofficially (“speaking for himself”), he is portrayed as both bold as an individual¹⁷¹ and somewhat lacking in his public service role (“I commend him, but at the same time, duh”).

Having thus discussed the representation of law enforcement agencies/agents, I will now introduce the way other authority figures, namely forensic experts, are being portrayed in the videos.

Experts are only presented in the Infotainment paradigm. A handwriting expert remains nameless and is introduced simply as a “forensic expert hired by Steve Hodel”, having

“performed” “handwriting analysis”. The verb “believed” is used to discuss his findings, indicating a slight skepticism, since the word in not typically associated with scientific procedures; this impression is further strengthened by Ryan’s remark that “that comes with, obviously, the disclaimer that it was a handwriting expert hired by the person who’s purporting the theory”, again drawing attention not to the person’s credentials/expertise, but to his employer.

Ultimately, the forensic expert is considered credible on the basis that “I can’t see why this person would aid in the miscarriage of justice” by Ryan and “if you’re a handwriting expert, you gotta do your best” by Shane, implying that intentions are prioritized over skills in the narrative reconstruction of people’s actions.

171 (“I would have no reservations…”, “Throwing it on the table”, “I commend him”).

In comparison to the nameless forensic expert, Dr. Arpad Vass, who is introduced as “a leading forensic anthropologist” and represented as an authority figure in the scientific world (“helped pioneer”), is identified by name, and his actions are described in more scientifically/technically appropriate terms¹⁷².