CA CA - Dixie Lee Arensen, 20, Los Angeles, 25 August 1968 *NamUs #MP24163*

[AZ Native Cat]

And why were her glasses off? I can’t see without mine and if I take them off even for a second I’m putting them back on just so I can see...

 

[dogperson]

With her being so nearsighted and her glasses being found on the floor I think she struggled with someone. It sounds like she was removed forcefully from the building.

 

[victoriarobinson642]

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.

 

[FOXINBOX]

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.

Sadly, that's everybody's loss - there's no justice for her family, and for the police, no opportunity close her case.

On the subject of spectacles - this is possibly a staged crime scene to make it appear that Dixie's abduction took place at this spot. The specs might just be window dressing after the fact to disguise the fact that the actual crime took place elsewhere, probably at her home. Unfortunately, because she didn't take them it does probably indicate a tragic outcome.
I'm wondering who was the last person to have contact with Dixie, other than her spouse. [And I'd still like more info about her car]

 

[Cimatico]

Enhanced image from source The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)

 

[FOXINBOX]

US Websleuths, help please.
This crime apparently took place in the early-ish morning of a Sunday. Now, in the UK, that would be a quiet time, not many folk about, which would help the abductor, but what about California? Even quieter [so any goings on would be noticeable] , just the same, or a bit busier?
And does anybody else think Dixie's choice of clothes was slightly odd? Olive brown shoes and a blue Empire-line dress? Maybe that was her taste, or someone else's?

 

[FOXINBOX]

Odd…But I found this:

California Divorce Index:

Dixie L Shaefer
Jonathan Arensen
Los Angeles City
June 1970

(A Jonathan E Arensen and a Dixie L Shaefer were married 22 June, 1968 in LOS ANGELES CITY.)

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/...off=8+9+10+29&db=CA_Divorce&indiv=1&ml_rpos=2

An article that also mentions her father (Dr.Shaefer) here:

Valley News from Van Nuys, California on September 5, 1968 · Page 42

Nice Sleuthing!

 

[FOXINBOX]

Well thanks to Pink Panther's earlier posts, I took another hard look at Dixie's case, and I found an incredible coincidence. Dixie was born in India, January 1st 1948, her parents being missionaries to that continent; Cecelia Shepard [Zodiac victim of the Berryessa attack] was born in India 1st day of January, 1947, her parents also missionaries. And Schaefer = well, it's a pen, of course, but it's German for Shepherd.
Dixie disappeared August 25 1968,
Zodiac started killing in the Bay Area December 23 1968,
Blue Rock Springs, July 4 '69,
Berryessa was 27 September 1969
And last, Presidio Heights, October 11 1969

I'm going to go away now and stick my head in a bucket of cold water, before emailing my friendly, downtown statistician...

 

[FOXINBOX]

Here it is - Dixie's Yearbook photo from 1965, obviously younger, but a clearer pic.

 

[FOXINBOX]

And another from the same year. Dixie is seated to the right of the piano. According to the newspaper articles, both she and her husband had good voices. Another thing to note:- Cecelia Shepard (again) was majoring in music. And thirdly, these young people are very conservatively dressed.

 

[victoriarobinson642]

Since there's a photo with her teeth, I wonder if it would be possible to do a manual dental comparison.

 

[Diane Redfern]

Since there's a photo with her teeth, I wonder if it would be possible to do a manual dental comparison.

Manual dental comparison is nowadays very criticized. I don't think you could really identify someone comparing dental records and a photo... many details are not registered on the photo.

I truly believe the Jane Doe is a good possibility, but it's impossible to proof beyond any reasonable doubt. It's sad and frustrating.

 

[Ozoner]

Manual dental comparison is nowadays very criticized. I don't think you could really identify someone comparing dental records and a photo... many details are not registered on the photo.

I truly believe the Jane Doe is a good possibility, but it's impossible to proof beyond any reasonable doubt. It's sad and frustrating.

In cases where there's nothing remarkable about the teeth, I would tend to agree. However, Dixie appears to have very large front incisors, and the one on the right appears to be overlapping the second incisor. That dentition is unusual enough that it might be possible to exclude a Jane Doe based on photographic evidence.

 

[Diane Redfern]

In cases where there's nothing remarkable about the teeth, I would tend to agree. However, Dixie appears to have very large front incisors, and the one on the right appears to be overlapping the second incisor. That dentition is unusual enough that it might be possible to exclude a Jane Doe based on photographic evidence.

I hope you are right.

 

[FOXINBOX]

Hoping this is a new post. I've done a search, but haven't time to read through everything. apologies if this is a repeat.
Looking back at Dixie's case - from The LA Times Sept 1 1969, case retrospective article.

“We have found nothing in her background or mental state to cause her to leave,” said Det. Sgt. George E. Rock. “She had some problems, personal and professional, but who doesn’t?”

Problems? Professional? Has anyone any insights?

 

[Andreee]

In cases where there's nothing remarkable about the teeth, I would tend to agree. However, Dixie appears to have very large front incisors, and the one on the right appears to be overlapping the second incisor. That dentition is unusual enough that it might be possible to exclude a Jane Doe based on photographic evidence.

Is someone following up on this or ?

 

[FOXINBOX]

As far as I am am aware, at the present time dental records are used only to exclude an identification. To be quite honest, as there is so much wiggle room in this sort of ID, I'm not surprised.

 

[Richard]

Before the current use of DNA to make positive identifications, Dental comparison was the primary and defining method used.

Back in 1988, I recall the US military making a positive identification of a World War II casualty based on comparison of a single tooth with 45 year old dental records.

Certainly, there was a good deal of other information which indicated what dental records to look at, but the final determination rested on that dental match.

 

[FOXINBOX]

Well, I'm guessing back in '88, the buck stopped at the dental records - there was nowhere else to go. Also, someone from the military would have accurate dental records, which is not necessarily true of the general public.

I found this in the US Library of Medicine. The paper is dated 2013, so not quite current. I'd post the whole article, but I'd be in breach of the 10% rule

Difficulties in personal identification caused by unreliable dental records - PubMed

Basically, it's saying that to make a confident identification, you need to take all parts of the skeleton into account.

... The there is always isotope analysis from teeth, of course, but that's another forensic field

 

[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?