Suspects

(“she tried to find her jackpot or was too close to finding a jackpot”), but failing so hard that her murder is discursively rationalized and she is made an example of or scapegoated⁹⁹.

The Black Dahlia is negatively discussed not in terms of who she is factually, but in terms of who she is conjecturally, with an eye to explaining why she was murdered (note that despite the video’s title and description that exclusively focus on finding “who” the murderer is, Antphrodite states that “basically no one knows why, and no one knows how, and no one knows who committed this crime”, when summarizing the case). By presenting her murder as a response to/punishment about something she did¹⁰⁰, the victim is discursively made responsible for her murder.

Moreover, when Antphrodite sums up his opinion on the why-how-who of the murder at the end of the video (“it’s a group, it has to be a group, it’s not one person. And she was a message.”), the Black Dahlia (murder victim) is equated to the reason she was murdered (“she was a message”), which suggests an instrumentalization of the murder victim’s representation in order to explain the crime/murderer’s behavior.

perpetrator theory; however, the perpetrators are shown to act within reason and are not subjected to value judgement. In the following segment I will discuss the suspect/perpetrator representations in the three videos¹⁰¹ comparatively -when possible-.

In the Infotainment paradigm, Robert Manley is introduced as a “salesman and former Army musician” by Ryan, and “ROBERT, ‘RED’ MANLEY SUSPECT” or “SUSPECT 1” on screen. He is represented as a persistent man who had taken an interest in Short¹⁰². The initial statements that “his relationship with Short began about a month before she was murdered” (also appearing as on-screen text) and that Short “would not speak to him but he was persistent”

cast suspicion over his character. Moreover, the phrasing “Manley said” and “there he says”

(about what he did with Short) draws attention to the fact that these are uncorroborated claims about the validity of which he appears to be the sole witness. The uncertainty over his innocence is also teased by emphasizing that he left Short “at the last place (she) was seen alive” and that he died “39 years to the day after he last saw Short alive”, which both appear as capitalized on-screen text too. The phrasing “it seemed” that refers to his innocence, even after it is stated that he passed two polygraph tests that he “willingly” took and was questioned after being given a “truth drug”, highlights the ambivalence with which he is portrayed.

In general (“willingly took”) and in his relationship with Short, Manley appears to be active and decisive¹⁰³ and is repeatedly associated with driving¹⁰⁴. The latter, in addition to the fact that “dates” and staying together “in a hotel”, but no other activities, interests or common friends are mentioned in relation to Short, suggests their relationship was fleeting and somewhat secretive. This impression is further strengthened by the phrasing “Manley said *…+

they both stayed platonically”, which both casts doubt to what he said (because he, a

“suspect”, said it) and also draws attention to his emphasis that they were not sexually involved, with the implication that perhaps he is not being truthful.

101 “Dan” will be discussed in the Appendix, and the “Second suspect” will be discussed under Ralph Asdel.

102 (“noticed her outside a bus station”, “Short would not speak to him but he was persistent and she eventually did get into his car”).

103 (“asked if she wanted a ride”, “would take Short on dates”, “drove them”, “he brought Short”).

104 (“asked if she wanted a ride”, “Short *…+ asked him to come pick her up”, “drove them”).

Ryan rejects the existence of truth drugs (“it’s not real”) and questions the nature of Manley’s death (“an accidental fall? On the anniversary of the last time he saw somebody he was accused of murdering?”) further suggesting that Manley is not conclusively guilty or innocent (“It could go beyond coincidence. That’s all I’m saying”). The most negatively portrayed suspect is, nevertheless, discussed last (see Dr. George Hodel).

In Sarian’s video, Manley is described in vague terms¹⁰⁵ by manner of how others know (of) him¹⁰⁶, repeatedly associated with a “1939 Studebaker Coupe”¹⁰⁷, and discursively paired with characters who neither attest to his innocence nor his guilt (“was married with a wife”, “he took off to San Francisco with a guy named Harry”), suggesting that the evidence against him is circumstantial.

Indeed, the emphasis on the lack of evidence concerning his possible guilt¹⁰⁸, as well as the fact that the following suspect -about whom the definitive statement “He was guilty” is made- is immediately described in negative terms, point to Manley’s inconsequential status as a suspect. Sarian’s use of suggestive phrasing¹⁰⁹ regardless, is characteristic of her narrative style which prioritizes immersive storytelling, suggesting that the aesthetical presentation aspect is an important part of her brand.

As far his relationship with Short is concerned, Manley is only described as having “picked her up at the house”, however, the redundant specification (“he was married with a wife”) suggests that he is implicitly described as a cheater.

The most negatively depicted actor in the Infotainment paradigm video is Dr. George Hodel;

he is introduced as a “wealthy doctor”, “described as a well-connected, dashing man with high I.Q.” who “was reported to have breezed through medical school”, and “DR. GEORGE HODEL

105 (“someone by the name of Red”, “a man”, “the guy’s name, ‘Red’”, “this Robert guy”).

106 (“she told Dorothy that she was off to her next adventure and that someone by the name of Red was picking her up at the house”, “Dorothy tells them a man picked her up at the house”, “the guest’s name who checked in was Robert Manley”).

107 (“this person drove a 939 Studebaker Coupe”, “picked her up at the house in a Studebaker Coupe”).

108 (“gave him two polygraph tests, that Robert ends up passing. They had nothing on him”, “they arrested Red again, they got nowhere with it and they had to let him go”).

109 (“just two days after the murder, he took off to San Francisco”, “Police *…+ take a peek in his garage, and guess what they find? It’s Robert’s 1939 Studebaker Coupe, I mean, the pieces are coming together”).

SUSPECT” (the latter in on-screen text). This representation conforms with the Theoretical Framework findings¹¹⁰ according to which the “ideal” male murderer in True Crime exhibits an alleged exceptionality in skills, intellect and looks, and is indeed romanticized by contemporary popular representations, because Dr. George Hodel is portrayed in terms of socioeconomic and intellectual exceptionality (“wealthy doctor”, “high IQ”, “breezed through medical school”) and beauty (“dashing”) by his contemporaries (“described”, “reported”). The conceptualization of a murdering subject as exceptional appears to still be culturally relevant as Shane comments

“yeah, that guy’s a murderer” after only hearing the aforementioned information and before the truly condemning pieces of evidence are discussed. Furthermore, the conceptualization of Dr. George Hodel also agrees with the Theoretical Framework findings¹¹¹ because his knowledge of “the sexual lives of people ranging from sex workers to the city’s elite” offers him invisibility in the sense that he is not confined and typically associated with only one social group/social class.

Another representation of Dr. George Hodel is that he is the “father” of Steve and Tamar Hodel and “grandfather” of Fauna Hodel. These typically positive identifiers however, are used in order to emphasize how much of a “monster” he is, as Steve suspected him of being the Black Dahlia murderer -a sentiment repeatedly validated by the two presenters¹¹², Tamar

“reported her father to the police, telling them he had tried to teach her about oral sex at the age of 11, that he had offered her to his friends when she was 14, and that George himself had had sex with her”, and Fauna is conceptualized as the possible product of incest (“it’s possible that the father of that baby *…+ could have been her grandfather”).

The sexually explicit nature of George Hodel’s alleged crimes and the characterization

“monster” suggest a discursive connection to the lust murderer archetype of the sex maniac/beast¹¹³ even though no sexual injury regarding the murder victim herself is mentioned in the video, because the victim was posed in a sexually degrading manner (“naked”, “legs out

110 See True Crime’s Favorite Criminal Suspect.

111 See True Crime’s Favorite Criminal Suspect.

112 (R: “it made sense why he would suspect his father of being capable of something horrible”, S: “No, I get it”).

113 See The Lust Murderer.

straight and spread apart”) -similar to the Jack the Ripper slayings¹¹⁴-, and because the omission of sexual violence perpetrated against Short may be related to YouTube monetization concerns (note for example that even though Tamar’s claims that Hodel “had sex with her” and “offered her to his friends” when she was underage are not questioned, the acts are also never described as “rape”).

Compared to Elizabeth Short (“Elizabeth Short” is said/appears as on-screen text 7 times in the video, whereas “George Hodel” over 30), much more information is provided about George Hodel: he is described in terms of his looks, profession, intellect, social circle, family dynamics -as aforementioned- and role (“breadwinner”, “supporting the family”), personal possessions (“a black 1936 Packard”, “photo album”, “home”), friendships ( “George’s reported friend, surrealist artist, Man Ray”, “he idolized Man Ray”), aspirations (“wanted to be an artist himself”) and emigration (“moved or perhaps fled to the Philippines”).

Moreover, in comparison to Short who is, discursively speaking, primarily dead, G. Hodel is not only living, but depicted as living a good life:

o he is “well-connected” and owns a “black 1936 Packard”, whereas she “contacted Manley and asked him to come pick her up” (one of the prime suspects in her murder), o he was “in charge of a venereal disease clinic in LA” reportedly having “breezed through

medical school”, whereas she worked as a “waitress and a cashier” or “dealt with periods of unemployment”,

o he could afford to remodel his home (“50 pound sacks of concrete sent to his home for remodeling”), whereas “the place where (she) head been staying in San Diego suddenly fell through”,

o he was friends with renowned “surrealist artist, Man Ray” whose artwork was

“possessed by MoMa”, and “wanted to be an artist himself”, whereas she “struggled to

114 See The Butchery of Female Bodies.

get minor acting roles” (and is not described in terms of what she “wanted” but what

“some say”), and,

o ultimately, he never paid the price for his alleged crimes¹¹⁵, whereas she was reduced to a “very dead, white body” at the age of 22, only “making page one headlines in Los Angeles for a month” and, as Black Dahlia, “still fascinating sleuths today”, after and because of her death.

Moreover, in terms of appearance, Dr. George Hodel is described as “dashing” (note how

“dashing” may refer to being elegant and fashionable, but also vigorous and spirited, meaning full of life), whereas Short’s physical appearance is described in an unforgiving, matter-of-fact manner as a nameless body (“five foot six inches, 118 pounds, black hair, green eyes, very attractive, bad lower teeth, fingernails chewed to quick”) or a more sensational manner as dead

“22-year-old Elizabeth Short”¹¹⁶, further suggesting that Short is decisively “dead”, discursively speaking, since no descriptions of her beauty and overall appearance when she was alive are provided.

Dr. George Hodel’s representation as a vigorous man with agency (“dashing”, “in charge”,

“wanted”) is also suggested by the fact that he is openly associated with sexual acts (“teach her about oral sex”, “George himself had had sex with her”) -whereas Short went “on dates” at most, and did so “platonically”, at that-, and the fact that, unlike Short, he is represented not only in terms of what others say about him¹¹⁷, but also through quotes (“Suppose I did kill the Black Dahlia… she’s dead”, “This is the best payoff I’ve seen… DA’s office”), meaning that he is literally given a “voice”.

In terms of moral character, it is interesting to note that Short (the victim) is never directly criticized, whereas Dr. George Hodel (the apparent perpetrator) is referred to as “a bit of an asshole”, “a bad man”, “awful”, “a real piece of shit”, “a monster”, “a villain”, and “a murderer”

115 (“acquitted of incest charges”, “moved, or perhaps, fled to the Philippines”, “eliminated him as a suspect”, “the police covered up Hodel’s crime”).

116 (“was lying face-up and naked. Her body split in half, at the waist. She was oddly posed, with her eyes open, hands above her head with elbows bent and legs out straight, and spread apart. She had been hit over the head and pieces of her flesh had been cut out. At the corners of her mouth, there were three-inch-long slits.”).

117 (“he was reported to have breezed through medical school”, “according to Steve, George idolized Man Ray”).

during the comedic commentary segments. As far as being called a “murderer” is concerned, it is important to note that the living descendants of the victims of crimes are depicted as missing

“closure”, until the “true perpetrator has been pointed out”. This representation -which doesn’t necessitate being pronounced guilty in a court of law-, legitimates pronouncing the guilt of a suspect in the True Crime infotainment format.

Going back to Hodel, the words used to describe him suggest that in the infotainment format, a suspect whose guilt is considered certain is not just open to moral judgement, but profane characterizations too. Indeed, whereas other people/institutions are criticized throughout the video (e.g. Ralph Asdel, the early 20th century LAPD), G. Hodel is the only one about whom profane language is used and, as such, the most negatively depicted character in the video. Taking into consideration the overall representation of G. Hodel as intelligent, skilled, vigorous, with extremely deviant sexual behavior and quoted saying “dialogue written for a villain” (“Suppose I did kill the Black Dahlia? They couldn’t prove it now”), the implication

“excusing” the profane language used against him is that he is evil (value judgement).

In Sarian’s video, George Hodel is introduced as “an infamous Hollywood doctor to the stars”, immediately alluding to an affluent and glamorous lifestyle. Uncertain about his surname (“George Hodle. Hodel?”), Sarian refers to him as “George” for the remainder of the video, discursively stripping him away of both his surname and title (doctor), not on the grounds of familiarity, but possibly disdain, in the context of the extremely negative portrayal that emerges. He is immediately positioned in regard to his relationship with Elizabeth Short (“Friends of George recognized the pictures in the paper of Elizabeth… dating George”) as the passive member (“Elizabeth was briefly dating” him, not the other way around), suggesting that the victim remains the focal point of attention in the narrative.

He is portrayed as having been accused of sexually abusing his daughter (“this sicko was accused of sexually abusing his daughter, who was only 14 years old,”) in phrasing that doesn’t raise questions about the validity of the accusation (“was accused of” instead of “so and so accused him” or “he was accused for ‘allegedly’ doing something”, etc.), and criticized before the events in question are described (“this sicko”, “this dude had issues and should have been

in prison”). Moreover, it is implied that he impregnated his underage daughter (“allegedly, he had sexually abused her and then she became pregnant”) and he is presented as the unsuccessful abortionist of his own offspring¹¹⁸, which implicitly casts doubt on his medical skills. His acquittal from the sexual abuse charges is mentioned in disparaging/distrustful terms about the justice system¹¹⁹.

Due to his guilt (“he was guilty”) as far as the sexual abuse of his daughter is concerned, he is presented as “a pretty strong suspect” for the Black Dahlia murder case¹²⁰ and the possible murder of his secretary¹²¹, suggesting that there is a link between sexual deviancy and homicidal tendencies -which traces back to the lust murderer discourse¹²² -. He is also the only actor, alongside Christine Reynolds, to be accurately represented in terms of quotes¹²³, which suggests that a deviation from Sarian’s typical use of embellished direct speech as a personalization technique, takes place when she is providing quotes as evidence of guilt/wretchedness.

Sarian’s personal bias (“Now George, he was rich, he was loaded, they knew it wasn’t gonna be easy trying to get anything from him, like he’s not gonna just confess, rich people don’t just confess.”) is presented before the quotation-evidence and after only alleged criminal acts for which he was been acquitted (“it ended up being acquitted and he was let go”) are mentioned, which suggests that rather than progressively building a “case” against him in terms of

“evidence” and “witness testimony” (e.g. Steve Hodel’s input), Sarian prefers to dominate the narrative through her subjective opinion, and prejudice the viewer accordingly.

118 (“George attempted to perform an abortion on his daughter, but I wasn’t successful. It was decided to place the baby up for adoption”).

119 (“Now I guess there was this whole trial… he was let go”, “I’m not bringing a lot of evidence and proof to this, but he was guilty”).

120 (“police are thinking, like, ‘This is our guy, but we need to get a confession’”, “there was actually enough evidence to charge George for the murder of Elizabeth, but when they tried to make the arrest it was too late”).

121 (“George’s secretary at the time had had just died from an overdose, so, you know, it was all sketchy”, “There were a lot of people who believed that George was indeed the one responsible”).

122 See The Lust Murderer.

123 (“George is saying something along the lines of ‘putting a pillow over her face and covering her with a blanket’, that’s what he says on the phone”, “they hear George saying, quote, ‘Supposing I did kill the Black Dahlia, they couldn’t prove it now, they can’t talk to my secretary anymore because she’s dead’, end quote”).

As far as the relationship between George and his son, Steve Hodel, is concerned, it is mentioned that “Steve heavily believed that his father was responsible for the murder and even believed that his father killed many more”, that “the soil behind George’s home was tested for human remains” and that “many are still skeptical...because they think Steve maybe has a personal vendetta against his father”. It is not stated that Steve Hodel is a retired LAPD detective, meaning that his opinion is presented on the basis of his relationship with George Hodel (insider information rather than professional expertise); this suggests that in Sarian’s negative portrayal of an actor (George Hodel), opinions based on interpersonal relationships are not less valid than those based on professional expertise (Steve Hodel’s “evidence” and

“testimony” are presented by Steve as a son and not by Steve as a detective).

In comparison to the other suspects mentioned during the course of the video (Manley, Dan, Christine Reynolds), George Hodel is the only person mentioned again after his initial presentation and, by the end of the video, he is discursively equated with the Black Dahlia murderer (“what if George was the Cleveland Torso Killer¹²⁴?”). All in all, he is presented as the likely perpetrator of multiple murders (Black Dahlia, his secretary, multiple victims when coming back from the Philippines –“Steve believed that when he came back, he was actually, like, killing people when he was here”- , the Cleveland Torso Killer victims), and a generally suspect character¹²⁵ with no positive traits (even his wealth is used against him –“rich people don’t just confess”).

As aforementioned, the third suspect presented in Sarian’s video is Christine Reynolds; she is introduced by name and surname as a “35 years old” “mother of three” who “called the Oakland Tribune to give them a tip” that she was going to “confess to The Black Dahlia murder”. The negative portrayal of the media suggests that by reaching out to the press before going to the police, she will be represented as a part/by-product of the sensationalization

124 The Cleveland Torso Killer is introduced as a very strong suspect of the Black Dahlia murder case towards the ending of the video (31:05) (“there’s still one suspect that remained on police’s mind, one person that they believed may have been the killer, and it would fit the profile, like mark all the boxes”). He is presented as a “serial killer” and discursively equated to George Hodel (“what if George was The Cleveland Torso Killer?”), further emphasizing the latter’s extremely negative portrayal.

125 (“shady parties”, “pretty shady past”, “shady stuff going down”, “George fled the U.S.”).

problem. Indeed, she is presented as an intriguing¹²⁶, but unreliable suspect¹²⁷, and a liar¹²⁸ who led a troubled life¹²⁹.

All in all, she is portrayed as someone living a difficult life (“mother of three” but no reference to a husband, homosexual at a time when “two girls having a love affair was just like

‘what?’, you know. People are losing their shit.”, “heavily drinking”) of which she has very little control, since she doesn’t even know if she killed someone. Nevertheless, her crudeness (“Christine told police that she had, quote, ‘cut some of her goddamn hair off, and shoved it up her effing pussy’, end quote”) and overall disturbed behavior¹³⁰ make her an unsympathetic figure, morally questionable enough to be discursively equated to a murderer (“She probably did kill somebody”), even if there isn’t enough evidence to suggest that.

Once again (see George Hodel above), a deviation from Sarian’s typical use of embellished direct speech as a personalization technique takes place when she is providing quotes as proof of wretchedness during the presentation of an actor (“Christine told police that she had, quote,

‘cut some of her goddamn hair off, and shoved it up her effing pussy’, end quote”).

Christine Reynolds’s girlfriend is introduced through her connection to Christine and work for the LAPD¹³¹. She is not presented as merely unprofessional, but as a potential suspect in the case¹³², despite remaining nameless. Interestingly enough, the police’s unwillingness to pursue the matter of the leak constitutes the only time their competence is expressly questioned by

126 (“something was very different with Christine’s story, okay?”, “But. Because there’s a big ‘but’. There was one detail in Christine’s story that was not public knowledge”).

127 (“By this time, Christine was the 27th person to confess to the murder”, “Christine tells police she completely forgot she had the knife in her hand, because she was drinking whiskey, and then just, like, started to stab her, but she didn’t remember that she stabbed her, but she remembered that she stabbed her, cause she’s telling the investigators.”).

128 (“If Christine really did stab her, there would be blood everywhere”, “And that’s when Christine broke down and her story just fell apart”).

129 (“Christine, she had woken up with blood all over her clothes and shoes, but she didn’t recall what had happened because she was heavily drinking at the time”, “She said, that she really struggled with this, like, it was sitting with her, and she was thinking about it, and so that’s when she decided to come forward and try to confess again, because she just couldn’t live with herself knowing that she may have killed somebody”).

130 (“she began to choke Elizabeth”, “started to stab her”, “she had woken up with blood all over her clothes and her shoes, but she didn’t recall what had happened”).

131 (“Christine said she had a girlfriend who worked for the, uh, Los Angeles police department”).

132 (“shouldn’t this have led investigators *…+ why did that person tell Christine in the first place?”, “Maybe that person was in on it, or purposely causing a distraction to the case”).

Sarian (“shouldn’t this have led investigations to dig a little bit deeper and figure out why did that person tell Christine in the first place?”). This criticism doesn’t stem from the need to address corruption, but out of frustration for potentially missing an important lead (“Maybe that person was in on it”), which suggests that truth-seeking is prioritized in Sarian’s True Crime approach.

Compared to the Infotainment paradigm and Bailey Sarian’s video, Antphrodite’s style is unique because the case is barely introduced and factual information is of little importance to the narrative, in general. Since Antphrodite’s content is speculative by nature (psychic readings) and the host expresses his personal opinion without “know(ing) the full story”, suspects are not introduced in the traditional sense -in fact they are not introduced at all, because, as a psychic, Antphrodite is responding to his video’s title about who killed the Black Dahlia-. Consequently, Antphrodite discusses (a) murderer(s) without providing specific names.

Specifically, the perpetrator of the crime is originally understood to be one (“her murderer”), but after being associated with the Four of Wands, a multiple perpetrator theory is brought forward¹³³. This group is presumed to be relatively tight and interested in proving that they are in control (“there has to be some camaraderie between the people that did this”, “’we’re in power’, the Four of Wands up there. The Four of Wands is the people that are in power.”).

Unlike the murder victim about whom insinuations are being made (“I think that her backstory is not 100% accurate, I keep hearing backstory not accurate. *…+ There’s a part of her story that’s not told that’s slightly darker.”), the perpetrators are not depicted negatively, but as if they were acting within reason¹³⁴.

133 (“this has to be a group”, “there’s more than one”, “it’s the Four of Wands, the home and family card so it’s a group, it has to be a group, it’s not a person.”).

134 (“I see her overplaying her hand which is why I see her murdered”, “she was used as a message sent to everyone else to shut the fuck up and fall in line”, “actually, I think that the message was heard from the people that they were supposed to hear it from”, “she had some piece of information… ‘fall in line or this will be you.’”).

4. “Witnesses” (see Infographic 1 below)

Having so far established that George Hodel (Infotainment paradigm) or Elizabeth Short (Sarian, Antphrodite) is the focal point of attention of the YouTuber video narrative, I will be discussing Actors who, through their relationship with George Hodel or Elizabeth Short, further elucidate their representations, in this subchapter.

Infographic 1.

Actors I will be discussing in the following segment, comparatively -if mentioned by more than one YouTuber-.

As far as Actors who are more closely related to George Hodel are concerned, Tamar Hodel, Steve Hodel and George Hodel’s secretary are discussed both in the Infotainment paradigm and Bailey Sarian’s video, whereas Fauna Hodel is only mentioned in the Infotainment paradigm.

What makes Fauna Hodel’s case noteworthy is that she is discussed within two contexts:

Firstly, by Ryan, as the central character of the TNT limited series promoted in “The Chilling Black Dahlia Murder Revisited”, she is described as “a teenage girl given away at birth, who makes a discovery about her past that leads her to question everything”, immediately evoking sympathy, due to her young age (“teenage girl”) and complicated/dramatic past (“given away”,

“discovery *…+ question everything”).

She appears as the subject of the dialogue; a courageous¹³⁵ protagonist¹³⁶ with an inquiring mind¹³⁷, whose “hero’s quest” storyline (“search for her identity”) the viewer is indirectly encouraged to go watch because it appears interesting and extraordinary¹³⁸. The “Fauna Hodel”

discussed in this context, however, refers to the protagonist of a promoted series, and this representation possibly comes from a pre-written text that Ryan is reading.

The real “Fauna Hodel” is introduced by Ryan within the context of the Black Dahlia murder case, as “George Hodel’s Granddaughter”. She is primarily represented as a “baby girl” or “girl”

with no particular agency (“adopted”, “not know the story”), and her relation with other characters who are discussed extensively (“Tamar gave birth to a baby girl”, “George Hodel’s granddaughter”) is emphasized. Compared to her previous representation as a limited series character, her inquiring spirit and adventurous quest are reduced to a singular mention of research, as an adult and with the implication that she was quite late in discovering her past (“not know the story *…+ until much later when conducting research of her own”).

Moreover, she is discussed by Ryan as the implied product of incestuous rape¹³⁹, but in a rather neutral way and without truly evoking sympathy; George Hodel and his villainous alleged actions are the focal point (Shane’s immediate response is “Ah, this guy’s a real piece of shit, Ryan”), whereas Tamar (Fauna’s mother) is the one actually discussed as an unfortunate victim.

Tamar is introduced as “one of George’s daughters”. Following her immediate and close association with suspect George Hodel, she is represented as an “insider” source about his life and character¹⁴⁰. Even though she is represented in active terms (“reported her father to the police”), her youth at the time of the alleged sex crimes (“11”, “14”), her possibly incestuous pregnancy “at age 15” and the fact that she is only discussed in association with G. Hodel,

135 (a clip of her saying “you can’t hide the truth forever” is played in the video. She is also implicitly juxtaposed to a dubious person -possibly the “villain” in the series- (“her search*…+ leads her to *…+ one of the prime suspects”).

136 (“inspired by the incredible true story of Fauna Hodel”).

137 (“makes a discovery”, “her search for”).

138 (“incredible true story”, “leads her to Hollywood’s most infamous unsolved murder”).

139 (“it’s possible that Tamar, since she claims that George had had sex with her at the age of 14 and gave birth to a baby at 15, it’s possible that the father of the baby, which is Fauna Hodel, could have been George, her grandfather”).

140 (“recalled her father hosting huge parties at their Hollywood adjacent home”, “reported her father to the police…George himself had had sex with her”).

signify that she is sympathetically presented as a victim (she is also “defended” from being called a liar, as “the family could have been motivated to do so because George was the breadwinner supporting the family”).

In Sarian’s video, George Hodel’s daughter is not introduced by name, again suggesting Sarian’s discursive separation of the individual from their identity as a victim, for the purpose of protecting their dignity (see Jane Doe). She is presented as an underage victim of sexual abuse by her father and possibly impregnated by him (“sexually abusing his daughter, who was only 14 years old”, “allegedly he had sexually abused her and she became pregnant”). George Hodel is referred to as a “sicko” and “guilty”, but deeply sympathizing with the victim is difficult on account of her namelessness.

The most interesting representational choices concerning an Actor literally and metaphorically related to George Hodel, concern his son, Steve Hodel, in the Infotainment paradigm. Steve Hodel is presented by name and former profession (“STEVE HODEL RETIRED LAPD DETECTIVE”). His credentials are mentioned (“having worked on over 300 murder cases”) before the conclusion of his investigation (“published his research, claiming the murderer was one George Hodel, the detective’s own father”) which implicates his own father, suggesting that it is valid.

However, S. Hodel’s investigation process/evidence is repeatedly ridiculed by Shane¹⁴¹¹⁴², and Ryan repeatedly states that the evidence Steve Hodel offers is either inconclusive¹⁴³ or

141 (“he’s got a big board and suddenly he takes the yarn on the board and just… Where am I putting this? On a photo of my father!”, “are they *the photos of Elizabeth Short+ a little more revealing than that photo of the back of Amelia Earhart’s head that you tried to pass off as evidence?”).

142 Amelia Earhart is referred to once by Shane during a comedic commentary segment (“Are they a little more revealing than that photo of the back of Amelia Earhart’s head that you tried to pass off as evidence?”), not because she was involved in the Black Dahlia case or for her life or accomplishments, but as an inside joke about Ryan’s supposedly unconvincing evidence and an allusion to S2 E5 (“The Odd Vanishing of Amelia Earhart”).

Since the reference concerns the credibility of evidence because of which Steve Hodel believes his father is connected to the Black Dahlia (“his son, Steve, found two photos of a woman who Steve believed to be Elizabeth Short, The Black Dahlia. He began investigating, coming to believe that his father had a romantic relationship with Short *…+”), Steve Hodel’s skills as a detective are, essentially, being questioned. The reference to Amelia Earhart suggests the audience is expected to have prior knowledge of the channel’s videos.

143 (“he comes across two pictures that look strikingly similar to Elizabeth Short. Now, I will say I have not seen any confirmation that they are, in fact, Elizabeth Short”, “a soil sample taken from an alley behind the home *…+

potentially biased (“according to handwriting analysis performed by one forensic expert hired by Steve Hodel *…+ Now that comes with, obviously, the disclaimer that it was a handwriting expert hired by the person who’s purporting the theory”).

Steve Hodel is presented in subjective terms such as “claiming” (and other variations of this verb such as “claimed”, “claims” etc.) and “coming to believe”, but never does he discursively

“prove” anything. His relationship to his father is repeatedly mentioned¹⁴⁴, but in comparison to his non-detective sister who can “recall” information about George Hodel and is therefore represented as an insider source about his life and character, Steve’s relation to his father is presented as a potential impediment to his detective work (“it could show a personal vendetta”), as it discursively dominates his identity as a detective. Even the investigation finding about which no comedic commentary is made and which is immediately validated (“George’s son claims his father via his connection and occupation, had knowledge about corruption in the LAPD and their ties to prostitution and abortion rings and that the police covered up Hodel’s guilt to avoid their own dirty laundry being aired.”), is presented by

“George’s son” as a “claim”. Moreover, the validation of this claim immediately after (“indeed, some officers in the LAPD were notoriously corrupt in the early 20th century”) happens because of proof provided by Steve Lopez, a journalist¹⁴⁵.

Finally, Steve Hodel’s professionalism is also indirectly questioned because it is implied that he has a financial gain from bringing forth his theory (“Steve Hodel published his research”,

“Steve Hodel visited his childhood home with a production crew”). Note that in such occasions, he is presented as “Steve Hodel”, further suggesting that his identity as “George’s son” is evoked as an impediment only (“George’s son” is perhaps not a very good detective, but “Steve Hodel” knows how to capitalize on his findings).

In Sarian’s video, Steve Hodel is introduced as George Hodel’s “son” and “someone who believed that his father was responsible for the murder and even believed that his father killed positive for human remains. Though the sample indicated a death that occurred anywhere from 20 to 100 years ago”).

144 (“Hodel’s son”, “his son Steve”, “George’s son”).

145 (“the transcripts from the bugs left in Hodel’s house… ‘I’d like to get a connection made in the DA’s office’”).

many more”. Due to George Hodel’s prior negative portrayal, Steve’s claims do not appear extravagant or misguided, and since his status as a retired LAPD detective is not mentioned at all, the proximity to his father makes him appear as a source of insider information¹⁴⁶. He is presented as someone with an inquisitive mind (“he wanted to do some further digging on his father to try and find some answers”), who “ended up writing a book about his father”, meaning that he is not directly or indirectly criticized for possibly having a financial/publicity-related motive from the beginning.

The evidence he provides (“soil behind George’s home was tested for human remains”) is presented as a step towards the right direction (“they tested the soil, and it came back positive”), for the limitations of which Steve has no discursive responsibility, since the results are discussed in general terms and subsequently presumed to be related to the existing forensic technology, rather than the specific method he chose (“they tested”, “the downside with this test is…there’s really not much information other than it did test positive”).

Finally, even though it is mentioned that Steve may have “a personal vendetta against his father”, the phrasing suggests that Sarian does not align herself with the critics (as “many are skeptical” and “they think”, but not Sarian), whose position is not presented in strong terms (“kind of doubt”, “maybe he has a personal vendetta”).

George Hodel’s secretary¹⁴⁷ is presented in a very similar manner in the Infotainment paradigm and Sarian’s video; In both cases she is introduced with the same quote by George Hodel (“Suppose I did kill the Black Dahlia? They couldn’t prove it now. They can’t talk to my secretary because she’s dead”), which suggests that she had incriminating information on him and wasn’t necessarily willing to stay silent. Whereas, in the Infotainment video, it is perhaps implied that Hodel had something to do with her death (“people don’t usually say stuff like that”, “that’s something that a normal person doesn’t say”), in Sarian’s video, her death is

146 (“See, his father, like, left the country, but then he would come back, from time to time to the States, not telling anyone of course, and Steve believed that when he came back, he was actually, like, killing people when he was here, and then he would leave again”).

147 For more on this Actor, see Appendix.

In document Innovative True Crime YouTubers: Journalism or Entertainment? (pagina 108-128)