Black Dahlia – Another Good Story Ruined (Updated)

Daily News Fake Photo

Let me say this again. This photo is a fake.

The actual Daily News front page for Jan. 15, 1947,  looks like this.


What’s wrong? Here:

Daily News Fake Photo

Pay attention: “Body of unidentified teen-age girl (ARROW)”

Daily News Fake Photo

Do you see an arrow in this picture? No. Because there isn’t one. Where is it?


Here it is, in the real photo.

So what happened? Someone took the Jan. 15, 1947, front page of the Daily News and pasted in another copy of the picture, cropping it slightly, then cropped the overall front page.

Who would do such a thing? Why it’s, which has retouched many Black Dahlia photos. Some of them are rather grotesquely done, like this one.

About lmharnisch

I am retired from the Los Angeles Times
This entry was posted in 1947, Another Good Story Ruined, Black Dahlia, Cold Cases, LAPD and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Black Dahlia – Another Good Story Ruined (Updated)

  1. Lynne Ray says:

    Mr. Harnisch,

    Please help me out (and pehaps others who are similarly “duh” impaired). In what way is one of these things not like the other? What does not belong, or, in the alternative, what is missing?

    Yours, with embarassment,



  2. sherry smith says:

    Funny you should post that picture. We have been talking about that photo on BDIH. Is that a photo of Beth doctored up? It looks horrible. Thanks Larry!


  3. JAMES says:

    I see the differance but what is his motive for faking this photo?


  4. keystrokelotteries says:

    Bit off topic, but I couldn’t help but notice the semicolon in the Real Front Page headline. I wonder if they are used anymore in big city papers. Probably not, like the no-subject headline of yore.


    • lmharnisch says:

      It happens, but most print heds are so short now that there’s no room to get in a second idea. Even the Web heads are limited to 60 characters for SEO purposes. But it happens.


  5. Stacia says:

    I’ve never understood that particular fake, because the original is sensationalist and clear enough to read — there isn’t any reason to fake it, yet they did.

    Hadn’t seen the second picture you posted before. Ugh, that is so poorly done it’s freakish.


Leave a Reply. Note: Your IP is logged with your comment so a fake name and email address are useless.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s