CA CA - Dixie Arensen, 20, Los Angeles, 25 Aug 1968

[AZ Native Cat]

After reading and thinking about this case for a while I think the location of the church was staged. Unless there was a struggle her glasses wouldn’t have been off IMO. Also was there absolutely no one else there that can remember her there that morning?

 

[FOXINBOX]

And where was Jonathan a year after Dixie disappeared? In darkest Colombia trying to convert the natives, that's where. [Source: Article by Times staff writer Kenneth Hansen, LA Times 1st Sept 1969]

 

[Andreee]

DoeNetwork was unable to make a comparison between the unidentified woman found in Granada Hills and Dixie Arensen, as Dixie only has DNA for comparison, and since Los Angeles County cremated many of the unidentified remains during that era, the unidentified woman only has dental comparisons. How disappointing.

Did they not have Dixie's dental records to make a comparison?

 

[Andreee]

From The Charley Project: "She did not normally prepare church bulletins on Sundays, but on Thursdays and Fridays." So a deviation from normal routine, apparently.

 

[Andreee]

Gosh, that UID mentioned earlier in thread just seems so likely to be Dixie. It's a shame they don't seem to have her dental records to make a comparison. Almost same height, nearby, brown hair, 20ish age, proximity to residence, no other missing persons in that area as far as we know, quiet neighbourhood. Earlier in thread, article mentioned where detective on case says he had an idea of who the murderer was but no proof. Seems like a setup at the church, especially since she usually prepared the bulletin other days. Wonder if they took fingerprints on the car and in office...

 

[FOXINBOX]

There is one way to identify whether any human remains belong to Dixie. And it does involve teeth. If isotope analysis is done on the teeth, then it would be possible to establish an environmental timeline for the remains. As pointed out previously, Dixie was born on the sub-continent, which would rule an individual in or out an immediately, and with any other characteristics - whether that individual had born children, etc. etc. Dixie might be identified.
The authorities have to be cautious, otherwise somebody somewhere will be burying an individual who is not related to them! This "Closes" one case, and leaves another permanently unsolvable. I can quite understand the reluctance to make an identification when information is so scarce.

 

[Ozoner]

There is one way to identify whether any human remains belong to Dixie. And it does involve teeth. If isotope analysis is done on the teeth, then it would be possible to establish an environmental timeline for the remains. As pointed out previously, Dixie was born on the sub-continent, which would rule an individual in or out an immediately, and with any other characteristics - whether that individual had born children, etc. etc. Dixie might be identified.
The authorities have to be cautious, otherwise somebody somewhere will be burying an individual who is not related to them! This "Closes" one case, and leaves another permanently unsolvable. I can quite understand the reluctance to make an identification when information is so scarce.

Weren't these remains cremated? That would eliminate the possibility of isotope analysis.

 

[FOXINBOX]

If the remains were cremated, I'm thinking that's an even stronger reason to be cautious.
Which, of course, allows me to sound off about one of my pet bugbears - the cremation of murder victims. [Mods - feel free to send this post elsewhere]
...It should be a world-wide proviso that, as far as possible, the bodies of murder victims should be cremated until such time the perpetrator is convicted, in case future technology might aid the capture of the person responsible.
I hate to think of the amount of evidence that has gone up in smoke...in particular the case of Cheri Jo Bates, where she was not only cremated, contrary to most Roman Catholic practice in that era (Rome had only broken with tradition three years previously, and then on the strict proviso that the ashes were treated as if they were a body, not kept in a kitchen cupboard or the like).
Joseph Bates scattered his daughter's ashes to the four winds. I have never understood this. His infant daughter was buried in a tiny cemetery in the deepest midwest. If he was worried about Cheri's grave becoming a weird pilgrimage site, why not bury her there? I can guarantee there wouldn't be too many "pilgrims", especially in winter...

 

[Andreee]

If the remains were cremated, I'm thinking that's an even stronger reason to be cautious.
Which, of course, allows me to sound off about one of my pet bugbears - the cremation of murder victims. [Mods - feel free to send this post elsewhere]
...It should be a world-wide proviso that, as far as possible, the bodies of murder victims should be cremated until such time the perpetrator is convicted, in case future technology might aid the capture of the person responsible.
I hate to think of the amount of evidence that has gone up in smoke...in particular the case of Cheri Jo Bates, where she was not only cremated, contrary to most Roman Catholic practice in that era (Rome had only broken with tradition three years previously, and then on the strict proviso that the ashes were treated as if they were a body, not kept in a kitchen cupboard or the like).
Joseph Bates scattered his daughter's ashes to the four winds. I have never understood this. His infant daughter was buried in a tiny cemetery in the deepest midwest. If he was worried about Cheri's grave becoming a weird pilgrimage site, why not bury her there? I can guarantee there wouldn't be too many "pilgrims", especially in winter...

Still seems estreme to first bury Cheri in a cemetery, then later spread her ashes at sea. However, getting offtopic I guess.

 

[Ozoner]

If the remains were cremated, I'm thinking that's an even stronger reason to be cautious.
Which, of course, allows me to sound off about one of my pet bugbears - the cremation of murder victims. [Mods - feel free to send this post elsewhere]
...It should be a world-wide proviso that, as far as possible, the bodies of murder victims should be cremated until such time the perpetrator is convicted, in case future technology might aid the capture of the person responsible.
I hate to think of the amount of evidence that has gone up in smoke...in particular the case of Cheri Jo Bates, where she was not only cremated, contrary to most Roman Catholic practice in that era (Rome had only broken with tradition three years previously, and then on the strict proviso that the ashes were treated as if they were a body, not kept in a kitchen cupboard or the like).
Joseph Bates scattered his daughter's ashes to the four winds. I have never understood this. His infant daughter was buried in a tiny cemetery in the deepest midwest. If he was worried about Cheri's grave becoming a weird pilgrimage site, why not bury her there? I can guarantee there wouldn't be too many "pilgrims", especially in winter...

Unfortunately, many, many murder victims were cremated before the advent of DNA technology, especially in Los Angeles County. It comes down to economics. It takes land to bury bodies, and real estate is expensive. It's too bad that they didn't at least save hair and tissue samples. They did take dental x-rays, but those don't help with victims like Dixie who have no dental records available.

 

[FOXINBOX]

I have been working on a Mega-Map of Dixie's disappearance, which is unfinished, but I came across something of interest in a related crime...
WebSleuths are probably familiar with this composite of the East Area Rapist

Wondering whether people think the other composite - from 1966 - is the same guy, only ten years younger?

​

 

[FOXINBOX]

I was raised hearing a story about Dixie from my mother. My grandparents knew Dixie’s husband or at least his family somehow. I would have to verify the details again. Jon’s family always believed Charles Manson took Dixie. They spent years trying to figure it out according to my mother’s memory. The closest they ever got was one of his followers admitting they took a woman from a church. They tried to befriend the woman and send her letters in jail, but she never admitted to killing or kidnapping Dixie, nor gave over any information about the location of Dixie’s body. RIP Dixie.

I suspect this was because the Manson Family didn't arrive @ the Sturgis Ranch until 1969...very sad to think that Dixie's family wasted so much time.

 

[FOXINBOX]

I suspect this was because the Manson Family didn't arrive @ the Sturgis Ranch until 1969...very sad to think that Dixie's family wasted so much time.

Now I've re-read it, I realise that it was Jonathan's family. My apologies.

 

[FOXINBOX]

and of course the Manson Family were at the Spahn Ranch in '68. Personally, I don't think it's their style, but I've been wrong twice today...

 

[Cyndesleuth]

The information shown indicates that Dixie Lee Arensen was last seen at the church. As her husband had last seen her at home, by whom was she seen at the church? As August 25th was a Sunday, you would tend to think at that hour there would probably have been others there at that time. Who? And did they hear anything (sounds of a struggle, etc.) or see anything (another car besides hers, etc.)?

That early, there wouldn't have been anyone there. It must have happened early when she arrived at the church. I was a teenager in the youth group there at the time.

 

[Cyndesleuth]

My boyfriend now husband stayed with Dixie's husband so he wouldn't be alone when this happened. The duplicating machine was also left on. We knew both of them and her family. All but her youngest sister are now deceased.

 

[Cyndesleuth]

Why was she preparing the bulletin on Sunday? That is usually done earlier in the week.

She had gone out of town to participate in a roommates wedding and had not done the bulletin.

 

[sunnynz]

She had gone out of town to participate in a roommates wedding and had not done the bulletin.

Welcome to websleuths- it’s great to have you here to share more about Dixie! You can become a verified insider with websleuths so you don’t have to link to mainstream media articles to support any info you give.

 

[Cyndesleuth]

She could no

The only reason I can think of that she would leave her glasses but take her purse is if someone she knew and/or trusted compelled her to go someplace with them quickly, such as making up an emergency that required her to accompany them. This could lead to her leaving the typewriter running and maybe dropping the glasses on the floor and not realizing it. If something like this happened then we would have to look at someone close to her: family member, friend, or church member, someone who she would not hesitate to leave with.
An example would be if a person came running in and lied about there being an emergency at her house or with one of her family members etc, and she grabbed her purse and ran to the car with this person, only to be assaulted by them and killed someplace else.
The other option I can think of seems unlikely, that she would run away and stage it as a kidnapping.

t see without her glasses which brings me to the fact she didn't leave willingly

 

[Cyndesleuth]

There should be contact details on the Namus profile for a case manager. You can submit your tip to them. Nice work and keep us posted!

Was this ever submitted to investigation. ?