>I really wonder if the LAPD explored what seems to me, from an early 21st-century perspective, to be an angle in this case: was Saletri gay?
One of the LA Times articles you linked to said something like "He fancied himself a lady's man". Whether that means he had numerous confirmed romantic/sexual relationships, simply described himself that way, or had fabricated relationships to give that impression is unclear to me. It's also possible that he had such relationships, but was bisexual. A current/former romantic partner, spurned individual, or partner of someone Saletri was having (or had) an affair with could have murdered him.
Also, just because he had no known enemies doesn't mean he had none. It just means none were known to anyone police spoke with and no evidence was found that he had one. The alleged intent to change all of his locks may be a red herring or it may indicate a specific enemy or general fear. I say potential red herring in part because there could have been rather mundane reasons for it. Perhaps to standardize on a single key, because he lost a key, because others had keys and he wanted to be certain only he had the key, because he learned of a more secure lock, etc. If he really was fearful of forced entry it's worth considering that there was seemingly no mention of installing an alarm system (not whether he already had one).
Yes ... I've thought that maybe someone lied convincingly to the police. His sister says she still wondered a few years later if maybe someone at his funeral knew something.
EDIT: Yes, I had forgotten to mention that "fancied himself a ladies' man" thing. That to me sounds like something a closeted gay man in that milieu would want his friends to believe to allay suspicion (and being in those macho organizations would also have been at the time a good way to deflect that, too).
I'm glad you voiced the possibility he was closeted. I found the "fancied himself a ladies' man" comment odd when I read it - almost as though it was the journalist's coded meaning for something given the journalist could have more directly said he was a ladies' man or dated numerous women. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. And great point about the orgs that were mentioned.
Yeah the “he fancied himself a ladies’ man” definitely gives off the vibe that the rumor started with him OR that journalist/newspaper had some kind of axe to grind - it’s a rather condescending turn of phrase.
If he really was one (or at least, the rumor mill decided on its own he was one) they simply would have phrased it the way you mentioned. Especially in a physical newspaper, where real estate is at a premium, so words are chosen carefully and succinctly.
I don’t believe with my whole heart that he was definitely closeted (and I am heartily against speculating on such things in general - I take a very “I only want to know if you want to tell me and I only need to know if I’m going to be in a romantic/sexual relationship with you” approach to these things) but I can’t disagree that a secret spurned lover - be that a guy, a gal, or a non-binary pal - does indeed check many of the boxes. A same-sex lover would more easily explain WHY such a person was unknown, but there are plenty of reasons people would want to hide a hetero relationship as well (if the other person was married, age, skin color… I feel like having an affair with a married woman has the potential to go sideways in dozens of different ways that could end up looking very similar to the end result we are seeing here.)
Yuuup.
Another scenario that would check all the boxes: if he was “seeing” the ex of a friend, especially if the friend wasn’t over her yet. Unless it was 20 years ago and a middle school “relationship,” dating a friend’s ex is pretty much always a bad idea if you value your sanity. Would explain why it was a secret relationship, and also explain how the murderer/friend knew about the guns (assuming they did and didn’t just get lucky.)
Dogs quiet, neighbours never heardca sound etc...
Someone should look for murders where a person used a screwdriver 🪛 to remove bullet both before and after around the time. I get the feeling murderer was a professional,
It occurred to me that Frank could have given that "Most Interesting Man in the World" a run for his money.
I don't know about the vampire screen play, but here is a sample of the Maltese Falcon musical!
https://www.royalbooks.com/pages/books/158051/frank-saletri-screenwriter/the-secret-of-the-maltese-falcon-archive-of-three-original-screenplays-for-an-unproduced-film
The films wiki:
[Saletri also wrote, produced and directed the never-released blaxploitation horror film Black the Ripper and wrote the screenplays for two unmade Sherlock Holmes films, **Sherlock Holmes in the Adventures of the Werewolf of the Baskervilles** and **Sherlock Holmes in the Adventures of the Golden Vampire**, the latter of which was to **star Alice Cooper as Dracula**.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackenstein)
Edit: add link
Interesting case! The life insurance policy strikes me as odd simply because he had no family (other than a sister?) to leave anything to. If he was seemingly already quite successful, he probably already had a decent sized estate for someone to inherit. Why would adding to that be a priority? I wouldn’t think that would be first on his mind if he was fearing for his life. Unless someone convinced him for other reasons.
Which brings me to my second question…did they look at the sister in depth? Perhaps he didn’t have a good relationship with her (or thought he did but she didn’t) and if she was his only heir, that could be more than enough motive for murder. *Before you go looking for outlaws, you look at in-laws*, as the saying goes.
On the gay angle, I don’t necessarily see that as any more likely than a disgruntled client or business partner. He may not have *known* a client/partner was angry, or at least to that degree, so maybe didn’t fear them.
You have to look at who has the most to gain from his death first. It sounds like it would be the sister, only based on the info provided here (tbf, I haven’t done any research in this case myself, but it’s intriguing!).
It also sounds like an amateurish job if they took the time to dig the bullet out. A legit hardcore criminal would just use an untraceable gun or dump it in a body of water. So I don’t think it was somebody with an extensive (violent) criminal background or a pro hit. Which again leads me back to his sister. Money does terrible things to people.
Great write up! I’ll have to hit up the dedicated sub on this one now. My interest is definitely piqued.
People may be interested to see a sample page from that Maltese Falcon musical. (I assume it was presented as a parody to avoid legal action?) The WGA knows Frank as "Frank Ritenhyde Saletri", though I think the R actually stood for Robert?
[https://www.royalbooks.com/pages/books/158051/frank-saletri-screenwriter/the-secret-of-the-maltese-falcon-archive-of-three-original-screenplays-for-an-unproduced-film](https://www.royalbooks.com/pages/books/158051/frank-saletri-screenwriter/the-secret-of-the-maltese-falcon-archive-of-three-original-screenplays-for-an-unproduced-film)
(it seems to be the same document as the OP's link)
[https://www.biblio.com/book/secret-maltese-falcon-archive-three-original/d/1523050660?placement=moreauthor](https://www.biblio.com/book/secret-maltese-falcon-archive-three-original/d/1523050660?placement=moreauthor)
A bit of information about Frank's house. It was at 6216 Primrose Avenue. The front's obscured by vegetation and a wall, but looking at it from above on the satellite view ... using nearby vehicles for scale, it's a decent size (a real estate site says 4 bedrooms, built 1924?) but not a huge mansion or anything like that.
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/6216-Primrose-Ave-90068/home/7130897
"A probably-totally-reliable commenter on the Classic Horror Film Board wrote in 2010 that he knew Saletri and visited the house a couple times in the 1970s: "it was a very cool place. spiral staircase from floor to floor; secret passage from room to room which you would access by pulling open a coffin that was on the wall.""
https://la.curbed.com/2013/10/31/10180484/blackenstein-murder-house-flipped-to-market-in-the-hills-1
Also, the same source claimed that a) Frank had a step-brother, and b) Frank was approached to defend Charles Manson, but turned it down because he hated Manson so much. Knowing about the Bela Lugosi house story, I'm not convinced about the Manson thing ... but the part about a step-brother might be relevant to this case.
Interesting mystery! As I was reading your post, the idea that he was a closeted gay who got into a deadly dispute with a lover came to my mind, as well. The business about removing the bullet is really weird--I don't recall seeing that in any other case where someone was shot.
Interesting write up!
Where did you get the info about the removal of the bullet? That’s pretty unusual. It almost seems to suggest it was done by someone familiar with forensics - I’m not sure how common it would be to know bullets can be traced to guns prior to shows like csi. With that said, he was a defense attorney so he probably knew a bunch of people who’d know!
The lead inside. It will be given grooves and blemishes that supposedly correspond to the individual barrel they were fired out of. Kind of like a fingerprint. With the case you can say it is the same kind of ammunition but you cannot say whether a certain gun fired it or not
My first thought here, too. Couldn't have been as well known as today's forensics are known - i lived in ny at that time and most consumer familiarity with forensics was just fingerprints
I'm glad that you got your tech issues resolved -- it's nice to see another fascinating writeup from you.
That detail about the bullet being removed -- creepy. (I really hope that the shot had killed Frank by then.) If the person who shot him had a gun that wasn't traceable back to them, they might have left it behind and staged a suicide scene. (One would think that the gun not being found would, as you noted, make investigators suspicious right away.) So for whatever reason, they were reluctant to part with the weapon ... either they felt that they wouldn't be able to get a replacement (surely not a difficult thing to do in a city with numerous legal and illegal sources) unless they had no money at all. Or the bullet could be traced (could it have been used to commit another crime so there was already a record of it out there?). Or it could even be something like the gun belonging to someone else and they wouldn't have been able to explain away its disappearance.
The fact that they did not stage a suicide suggests to me that someone was not worried about his death being declared a homicide (Or they didn't care).
It's an odd situation, for sure. On the one hand they didn't seem to be concerned about Frank's death being noted as suspicious. (So that wouldn't fit with some types of insurance policies, or with somebody who had known ties to Frank and might be investigated as a suspect.)
But it doesn't seem to have been an intruder who wanted to steal Frank's valuables (or even his guns), because the stuff was still there. And if the person had been interrupted by Frank and had panicked and shot him, they didn't flee the scene immediately but stayed long enough to remove the bullet. (Also there was the thing about Frank's dogs ... I'm wondering if the dogs were roaming around the house at the time he died, or if they were penned up somewhere. Like if he was planning on having a meeting for a couple of hours, and would let them out once that was done.)
If it was someone who was having an affair with Frank, and one or both of them were keeping it secret -- who brings a gun along on a date? (If they were scared of Frank, why even go there ... okay, there are power relationship aspects that might be playing a role, especially if Frank was known to give out money sometimes ... but still.)
If it was a professional or semi-professional hit -- why use that particular firearm if the bullet could be incriminating? (There's no guarantee that they'd be able to recover the bullet ... what if it had gone through Frank and into the wall, would they have chiseled it out?)
A lot of stuff to think about, for sure. The point about the locks being changed -- could be significant, but without knowing whether it was part of a general attempt to upgrade the house, and whether he already had a burglar alarm or was planning to get one installed, might not indicate that he had concerns about his own safety.
The life insurance thing. I wonder ... one thing I've heard of through my family, was that someone had agreed to lend a fairly large amount of money (for buying a home). The borrower was concerned that if anything happened to them, the lender might not get repaid. So the borrower took out life insurance, and the plan was that if they had a heart attack or got hit by a drunk driver before they had made all the loan repayments, their estate and executor would be directed to cover the remainder of the loan. (I wish that this had been the arrangement with one of my own friends -- he died unexpectedly of a heart attack and his family refused to repay the money he'd borrowed from me for home renovations, because it was mentioned in e-mails but there wasn't an official IOU with a legal signature on it, etc.)
It seems to be a known procedure, so if Frank were borrowing money, or even if he'd promised to make an investment or support someone for a certain amount of time, life insurance might be a way to guarantee that there would be money available in the future? However, there would presumably be written instructions from him as well, if he were organized enough to arrange the insurance.
But what if something was stolen, but none of those police interviewed observed anything missing.
From [this 1986 LA Times article](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-01-23-me-27803-story.html) his sister, June Kirk, said:
>Later, she said, she found out he had ordered the locks changed at his house not long before his murder, and “he had taken out a large insurance policy, leaving his estate as the beneficiary.” No will was found, however, she said.
What if there was a will, but it was stolen? As a lawyer I'd think if he had a will he'd have left a copy with a lawyer of his, but perhaps not. What if his will left his estate to different beneficiaries than those who got the estate after his death? The murderer could have stolen the will and removed the bullet for one of numerous reasons. Including that he was killed with one of his own guns or that the gun had been used in other crimes in which bullets may have been taken into evidence, potentially allowing the crimes to be tied together. Or perhaps in a [misguided?] attempt to make it seem like the killer was a skilled professional.
If his sister was set to inherit the estate it either hadn't happened yet, the insurance policy payout was in limbo, or he had a ton of debts because it took her 3.5 years to save up the $10k reward she offered.
>“I can’t let go,” the tall, dark-haired woman said in an interview at a Los Angeles motel. It had taken Kirk, who owns a crop-dusting business with her husband, almost 3 1/2 years to raise the $10,000.
I do wonder though - were the locks ever changed? I shared in an earlier comment that it might be a red herring, but what if someone he knew convinced him to get new locks to make it appear that he was in fear of a legitimate threat and then killed him to benefit from his death or in a conspiracy with someone else who would benefit from his death?
Also, if he had dirt on someone he could have been killed to prevent him from speaking and if it was documented the documents could have been stolen.
I see no obvious reason to purchase a life insurance policy for his own estate unless he intended to dramatically increase the value of his estate upon his death. It makes me further wonder if he did have a will and who it named.
>I do wonder though - were the locks ever changed?
Yes, I was going to say that they had but then the way the article was phrased suggested that maybe he had just only made the appointment to have them changed, and they hadn't yet been.
And it's a fair point, too, that the investigation should have tried to find out whether this was something he did routinely or not.
>what if something was stolen
Just seeing your reply now ... I suspect we were thinking along the same lines. It sounds like Frank's house was a decent size, and unless there were obvious signs (wholesale ransacking), things could have gone missing that even people who visited the place regularly may not have known about. (I recently had to pack up most of my stuff after a flood, and it occurred to me that I'm the only one who knows what is in the boxes.) And as you noted, if a will disappeared, it would probably take awhile to search his files (if he did a lot of work at home, he likely had cabinets full of them). Maybe if he'd been very careful about filing and cataloguing, and there was a gap in the numbering system -- but he may not have been that organized.
Good point about the sister's financial situation -- it sure doesn't sound like she had a lot of cash on hand, even though (in theory) she would have been in line to inherit Frank's estate, if no will could be found. I don't know if Frank's ex would have been entitled to anything, they hadn't had children, his folks were probably gone, and I don't know if he had any other siblings who would have split the inheritance with his sister.
Given how few people (at least given the information we've got) stood to benefit financially from Frank's death, the life insurance really stands out as odd. It would be one thing if he had children/grandchildren and was worried about providing for their future (increasing the value of the estate, like you said), but it doesn't sound like he did. Now I'm curious about what actually did happen with Frank's money ... did the insurance company pay out eventually, how much was in the estate at the end, and how was it distributed, etc.
And if Frank was caught in some unexpected situation (like some former girlfriend presenting him with a kid she claimed was his, hence the life insurance) -- I guess they didn't come forward afterwards.
I suppose there could have been a bunch of things going on at the same time (Frank having an affair with someone who maybe was getting money out of him, Frank having evidence against some high-profile person and being worried that there might be a burglary attempt to steal it, Frank thinking about making a will that wasn't in favor of someone who'd been expecting it). But the more people involved in a mess, one might think that there'd be some kind of development by now.
I guess that could be a thing if you wanted to trick the insurance company but I feel like relatively few people would happen upon a suicide of someone they knew and decide to dig the bullet out of their skull with a screwdriver which would be technically tricky and disgusting/horrible. I assume the police would check out the beneficiaries of the life insurance policy during the relevant time period though.
The beneficiary was his estate. He also had no will. He didn't seem to have any known children so it's unclear who inherited the estate and who may have thought they would inherit some or all of his estate.
ETA: I may be wrong about lack of a will. I thought I read that in OP's post or a linked source, but on reread I don't see that stated.
ETA 2: I found it. In [this 1986 LA Times article](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-01-23-me-27803-story.html) his sister, June Kirk, said:
>Later, she said, she found out he had ordered the locks changed at his house not long before his murder, and “he had taken out a large insurance policy, leaving his estate as the beneficiary.” No will was found, however, she said.
That's interesting. If someone is thinking about estate planning, one would think that a will would be pretty important. Unless that was the next step he was working on. (Someone might have taken it, but usually there'd be copies stashed somewhere.)
Maybe I'm naive -- Frank was middle-aged, in a time when it wasn't super-unusual for people in their 50s or 60s to drop dead, and I'd be surprised if he had never gotten around to preparing an earlier version of a will. People were suggesting up-thread that he might have been terminally ill -- in that case, he'd know that he'd have to get his affairs in order.
Well, one would think -- I don't know much about the procedure for an autopsy -- whether they would have looked at his entire body, or just at whether the gunshot wound had caused enough damage to be fatal. I checked online just now and apparently there can be partial autopsies done, where they don't examine the individual organs, or even open the abdomen.
But I'm also assuming that they would check with the deceased's physician, if only as a matter of form. And I couldn't imagine a doctor withholding medical information like that (which might be relevant to the investigation -- I'm not in law or medicine, and that would seem to be pretty important to me).
I very much agree that based on what we know it seems unlikely that as a lawyer of that age that he wouldn't have a will. And have copies which would be found or shared upon his death. If one wasn't discovered I have to wonder if a copy was stolen from home and whether someone who had a copy was involved in his death. That said, perhaps police learned that he had a will, but also couldn't locate it, and didn't share that with his sister.
I'm not sure what the law in CA might have been at the time, about people who die intestate. I googled the current situation, and apparently the pecking order is spouse, kids, parents, and then siblings (and a sibling's children for those who are deceased). If all of these are dead or don't exist, more distant relatives (though I don't know if it goes as far as second cousins etc.). Otherwise, the state gets the money. (there's a table here that gives the formulas)
[https://www.clearestate.com/en-us/blog/dying-without-a-will-in-california](https://www.clearestate.com/en-us/blog/dying-without-a-will-in-california)
Frank was divorced -- I suspect that his ex wouldn't have been entitled to anything, unless he mentioned it in his will. No kids. So I guess that his sister would get it all. (Or if there were other surviving siblings, divide it up with them.)
I'm assuming that their parents may have been gone by then. Though I didn't see any listings for family on Frank's Findagrave page.
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/85935636/frank-robert-saletri
I guess one scenario could be, if Frank's sister found out that she wasn't mentioned in his will, and -- just for a hypothetical example -- he was giving his ex a quarter of his estate, donating his home as a refuge for impoverished members of the Cauliflower Alley club, paying $50,000 to a couple of trusted filmmaker friends to finish editing Black the Ripper (I'm assuming the film did exist), and splitting the rest between the Count Dracula society and his American Legion post. The sister shows up at his house, there's a confrontation, and she murders him and then rifles through his files and takes away everything relating to his estate plans that she can find. Maybe she used their father's WWI souvenir Mauser pistol for the murder and wanted to get the bullet out just in case it was identifiable. Though this all seems rather farfetched to me.
The insurance policy had the estate as the beneficiary and he had no will. But perhaps someone thought they were a beneficiary or named in a will.
I also suppose it's possible the friends could have found him dead with a gun near his body and returned the gun to where it was normally stored, and dug the bullet out of the wound because they didn't want his death to appear to be a suicide. Or because he planned this and they agreed in advance to help him make it look like a murder. I find the former highly unlikely. And for the latter it would seem to be better (and not difficult) to purchase a gun for this purpose and have them retrieve it and dispose of it.
Two questions I have:
Did police check for gunshot residue on him (of course the friends could have cleaned his hand)?
Who actually inherited the estate?
ETA: I wrote that he had no will. I thought that was stated in OP's post, but I just reread it and didn't see it stated. Perhaps it was in one of OP's linked sources or something else I read. If no one can find a reference to that it's possible I thought I read that and was mistaken
ETA 2: I found it. In [this 1986 LA Times article](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-01-23-me-27803-story.html) his sister, June Kirk, said:
>Later, she said, she found out he had ordered the locks changed at his house not long before his murder, and “he had taken out a large insurance policy, leaving his estate as the beneficiary.” No will was found, however, she said.
>Did police check for gunshot residue on him
Good point -- and related to it, were the guns he kept in his house checked to see if any of them had been fired recently?
I'd also be interested in whether he'd left any instructions in his will, for payments to various other people (lump sum, or ongoing payments for a length of time). There might not be specific records of things like paying someone's mortgage or repaying loans, etc., but a large amount of money paid at once or over a specific period of time could be interesting to investigate. (I'm asking this because there have been situations where someone has taken out life insurance to cover something like a promise to pay out a regular sum every month for several years, in case the person dies.)
This is not an unheard of possibility, I agree. Not terribly common, but perhaps he was dealing with a terminal illness and enlisted somebody’s help for money. I personally knew one person who did this, though it wasn’t as dramatic. Today, there are even societies who will teach you how to do it properly and painlessly because even in states/countries that have death with dignity laws, there are too many conditions that don’t qualify (like dementia and even some terminal cancers, for example).
Back then there were no DWD laws on the books, so he may have felt he had no choice.
I don’t see this as the probable way he died, but definitely a possibility.
>made to look like murder for the insurance.
I just wanted to say, I don't think it's weird at all. Good thinking! And given how much stuff Frank was into, given what we've been told about the case, him or someone else deciding to give that impression shouldn't be ruled out. People can do strange things, for financial motives -- or out of loyalty.
Mob were involved in film at this time and need to see a list of his film financiers.
Maybe people at that time who may not have been linked to organised crime by the police so escaped detection, but whose criminal connections became a matter of public record later.
If Saletri burked an organized crime guy or their appointed front man by claiming to have made movie which he never completed or movie which was too crap to get distribution and ergo no return on investment, Saletri might have run into trouble. Explains why house locks changed.
No screwdriver on scene means murderer bought it with him suggesting premeditation. One might use a screwdriver as police might take exception to you carrying around a knife and ask questions, but which a screwdriver wouldn't arouse. No sounds heard by neighbours, dogs quiet, and removal of bullet suggeste a cool hand and maybe a professional hit. Also that gun may have been known to police, maybe another murder or maybe public record person owned a gun model capable of firing the bullet which killed Saletri, so with bullet dug out and no evidence even if police suspected.
Edited to add link to Michael Franzese Colombo crime family boss movie of the 1980s as proof of concept
[https://youtu.be/WdhMFfoAd98?si=W34GEyJU\_jymOLc9](https://youtu.be/wdhmffoad98?si=w34geyju_jymolc9)
The YouTube link you provided no longer works, but I'll guess you were referring to ***Mausoleum***, the 1983 horror movie that was rumored to have been a vehicle for money-laundering. Franzese is a credited producer on the film. It's a pretty silly film, but fun to watch if you're into that kind of movie. John Carl Buechler provided good make-up effects.
He certainly could have been gay, but it’s more likely that would lead to (relative) disinterest by the police than that they wouldn’t think to consider it. 1982, not 1882!
>I really wonder if the LAPD explored what seems to me, from an early 21st-century perspective, to be an angle in this case: was Saletri gay? One of the LA Times articles you linked to said something like "He fancied himself a lady's man". Whether that means he had numerous confirmed romantic/sexual relationships, simply described himself that way, or had fabricated relationships to give that impression is unclear to me. It's also possible that he had such relationships, but was bisexual. A current/former romantic partner, spurned individual, or partner of someone Saletri was having (or had) an affair with could have murdered him. Also, just because he had no known enemies doesn't mean he had none. It just means none were known to anyone police spoke with and no evidence was found that he had one. The alleged intent to change all of his locks may be a red herring or it may indicate a specific enemy or general fear. I say potential red herring in part because there could have been rather mundane reasons for it. Perhaps to standardize on a single key, because he lost a key, because others had keys and he wanted to be certain only he had the key, because he learned of a more secure lock, etc. If he really was fearful of forced entry it's worth considering that there was seemingly no mention of installing an alarm system (not whether he already had one).
Yes ... I've thought that maybe someone lied convincingly to the police. His sister says she still wondered a few years later if maybe someone at his funeral knew something. EDIT: Yes, I had forgotten to mention that "fancied himself a ladies' man" thing. That to me sounds like something a closeted gay man in that milieu would want his friends to believe to allay suspicion (and being in those macho organizations would also have been at the time a good way to deflect that, too).
I'm glad you voiced the possibility he was closeted. I found the "fancied himself a ladies' man" comment odd when I read it - almost as though it was the journalist's coded meaning for something given the journalist could have more directly said he was a ladies' man or dated numerous women. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. And great point about the orgs that were mentioned.
Yeah the “he fancied himself a ladies’ man” definitely gives off the vibe that the rumor started with him OR that journalist/newspaper had some kind of axe to grind - it’s a rather condescending turn of phrase. If he really was one (or at least, the rumor mill decided on its own he was one) they simply would have phrased it the way you mentioned. Especially in a physical newspaper, where real estate is at a premium, so words are chosen carefully and succinctly. I don’t believe with my whole heart that he was definitely closeted (and I am heartily against speculating on such things in general - I take a very “I only want to know if you want to tell me and I only need to know if I’m going to be in a romantic/sexual relationship with you” approach to these things) but I can’t disagree that a secret spurned lover - be that a guy, a gal, or a non-binary pal - does indeed check many of the boxes. A same-sex lover would more easily explain WHY such a person was unknown, but there are plenty of reasons people would want to hide a hetero relationship as well (if the other person was married, age, skin color… I feel like having an affair with a married woman has the potential to go sideways in dozens of different ways that could end up looking very similar to the end result we are seeing here.)
>an affair with a married woman Good point -- even a unmarried woman could have repercussions (a jealous boyfriend, ex, or family member).
Yuuup. Another scenario that would check all the boxes: if he was “seeing” the ex of a friend, especially if the friend wasn’t over her yet. Unless it was 20 years ago and a middle school “relationship,” dating a friend’s ex is pretty much always a bad idea if you value your sanity. Would explain why it was a secret relationship, and also explain how the murderer/friend knew about the guns (assuming they did and didn’t just get lucky.)
Thank You for this comment
Dogs quiet, neighbours never heardca sound etc... Someone should look for murders where a person used a screwdriver 🪛 to remove bullet both before and after around the time. I get the feeling murderer was a professional,
This is sad- he seemed like a cool dude. Side note- am I the *only* one who wants to see a Sherlock Holmes vampire movie??
>a Sherlock Holmes vampire movie I'm pretty sure there are multiple subreddits that are dedicated to exactly that!
It occurred to me that Frank could have given that "Most Interesting Man in the World" a run for his money. I don't know about the vampire screen play, but here is a sample of the Maltese Falcon musical! https://www.royalbooks.com/pages/books/158051/frank-saletri-screenwriter/the-secret-of-the-maltese-falcon-archive-of-three-original-screenplays-for-an-unproduced-film
I absolutely want to see a Sherlock Holmes vampire movie.
The films wiki: [Saletri also wrote, produced and directed the never-released blaxploitation horror film Black the Ripper and wrote the screenplays for two unmade Sherlock Holmes films, **Sherlock Holmes in the Adventures of the Werewolf of the Baskervilles** and **Sherlock Holmes in the Adventures of the Golden Vampire**, the latter of which was to **star Alice Cooper as Dracula**.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackenstein) Edit: add link
omg
Lots of us do
Interesting case! The life insurance policy strikes me as odd simply because he had no family (other than a sister?) to leave anything to. If he was seemingly already quite successful, he probably already had a decent sized estate for someone to inherit. Why would adding to that be a priority? I wouldn’t think that would be first on his mind if he was fearing for his life. Unless someone convinced him for other reasons. Which brings me to my second question…did they look at the sister in depth? Perhaps he didn’t have a good relationship with her (or thought he did but she didn’t) and if she was his only heir, that could be more than enough motive for murder. *Before you go looking for outlaws, you look at in-laws*, as the saying goes. On the gay angle, I don’t necessarily see that as any more likely than a disgruntled client or business partner. He may not have *known* a client/partner was angry, or at least to that degree, so maybe didn’t fear them. You have to look at who has the most to gain from his death first. It sounds like it would be the sister, only based on the info provided here (tbf, I haven’t done any research in this case myself, but it’s intriguing!). It also sounds like an amateurish job if they took the time to dig the bullet out. A legit hardcore criminal would just use an untraceable gun or dump it in a body of water. So I don’t think it was somebody with an extensive (violent) criminal background or a pro hit. Which again leads me back to his sister. Money does terrible things to people. Great write up! I’ll have to hit up the dedicated sub on this one now. My interest is definitely piqued.
People may be interested to see a sample page from that Maltese Falcon musical. (I assume it was presented as a parody to avoid legal action?) The WGA knows Frank as "Frank Ritenhyde Saletri", though I think the R actually stood for Robert? [https://www.royalbooks.com/pages/books/158051/frank-saletri-screenwriter/the-secret-of-the-maltese-falcon-archive-of-three-original-screenplays-for-an-unproduced-film](https://www.royalbooks.com/pages/books/158051/frank-saletri-screenwriter/the-secret-of-the-maltese-falcon-archive-of-three-original-screenplays-for-an-unproduced-film) (it seems to be the same document as the OP's link) [https://www.biblio.com/book/secret-maltese-falcon-archive-three-original/d/1523050660?placement=moreauthor](https://www.biblio.com/book/secret-maltese-falcon-archive-three-original/d/1523050660?placement=moreauthor) A bit of information about Frank's house. It was at 6216 Primrose Avenue. The front's obscured by vegetation and a wall, but looking at it from above on the satellite view ... using nearby vehicles for scale, it's a decent size (a real estate site says 4 bedrooms, built 1924?) but not a huge mansion or anything like that. https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/6216-Primrose-Ave-90068/home/7130897 "A probably-totally-reliable commenter on the Classic Horror Film Board wrote in 2010 that he knew Saletri and visited the house a couple times in the 1970s: "it was a very cool place. spiral staircase from floor to floor; secret passage from room to room which you would access by pulling open a coffin that was on the wall."" https://la.curbed.com/2013/10/31/10180484/blackenstein-murder-house-flipped-to-market-in-the-hills-1 Also, the same source claimed that a) Frank had a step-brother, and b) Frank was approached to defend Charles Manson, but turned it down because he hated Manson so much. Knowing about the Bela Lugosi house story, I'm not convinced about the Manson thing ... but the part about a step-brother might be relevant to this case.
Two mysteries in one: The movie and the death
Interesting mystery! As I was reading your post, the idea that he was a closeted gay who got into a deadly dispute with a lover came to my mind, as well. The business about removing the bullet is really weird--I don't recall seeing that in any other case where someone was shot.
Yeah. Somebody had the time, and the reason (at least from their standpoint) to do this.
Interesting write up! Where did you get the info about the removal of the bullet? That’s pretty unusual. It almost seems to suggest it was done by someone familiar with forensics - I’m not sure how common it would be to know bullets can be traced to guns prior to shows like csi. With that said, he was a defense attorney so he probably knew a bunch of people who’d know!
Back then, it was common knowledge that bullets could be traced to a specific gun.
Good to know!
I'm far from being an expert but I thought it was the casing that could be traced back to a gun, not the lead inside.
The lead inside. It will be given grooves and blemishes that supposedly correspond to the individual barrel they were fired out of. Kind of like a fingerprint. With the case you can say it is the same kind of ammunition but you cannot say whether a certain gun fired it or not
My first thought here, too. Couldn't have been as well known as today's forensics are known - i lived in ny at that time and most consumer familiarity with forensics was just fingerprints
I'm glad that you got your tech issues resolved -- it's nice to see another fascinating writeup from you. That detail about the bullet being removed -- creepy. (I really hope that the shot had killed Frank by then.) If the person who shot him had a gun that wasn't traceable back to them, they might have left it behind and staged a suicide scene. (One would think that the gun not being found would, as you noted, make investigators suspicious right away.) So for whatever reason, they were reluctant to part with the weapon ... either they felt that they wouldn't be able to get a replacement (surely not a difficult thing to do in a city with numerous legal and illegal sources) unless they had no money at all. Or the bullet could be traced (could it have been used to commit another crime so there was already a record of it out there?). Or it could even be something like the gun belonging to someone else and they wouldn't have been able to explain away its disappearance.
The fact that they did not stage a suicide suggests to me that someone was not worried about his death being declared a homicide (Or they didn't care).
It's an odd situation, for sure. On the one hand they didn't seem to be concerned about Frank's death being noted as suspicious. (So that wouldn't fit with some types of insurance policies, or with somebody who had known ties to Frank and might be investigated as a suspect.) But it doesn't seem to have been an intruder who wanted to steal Frank's valuables (or even his guns), because the stuff was still there. And if the person had been interrupted by Frank and had panicked and shot him, they didn't flee the scene immediately but stayed long enough to remove the bullet. (Also there was the thing about Frank's dogs ... I'm wondering if the dogs were roaming around the house at the time he died, or if they were penned up somewhere. Like if he was planning on having a meeting for a couple of hours, and would let them out once that was done.) If it was someone who was having an affair with Frank, and one or both of them were keeping it secret -- who brings a gun along on a date? (If they were scared of Frank, why even go there ... okay, there are power relationship aspects that might be playing a role, especially if Frank was known to give out money sometimes ... but still.) If it was a professional or semi-professional hit -- why use that particular firearm if the bullet could be incriminating? (There's no guarantee that they'd be able to recover the bullet ... what if it had gone through Frank and into the wall, would they have chiseled it out?) A lot of stuff to think about, for sure. The point about the locks being changed -- could be significant, but without knowing whether it was part of a general attempt to upgrade the house, and whether he already had a burglar alarm or was planning to get one installed, might not indicate that he had concerns about his own safety. The life insurance thing. I wonder ... one thing I've heard of through my family, was that someone had agreed to lend a fairly large amount of money (for buying a home). The borrower was concerned that if anything happened to them, the lender might not get repaid. So the borrower took out life insurance, and the plan was that if they had a heart attack or got hit by a drunk driver before they had made all the loan repayments, their estate and executor would be directed to cover the remainder of the loan. (I wish that this had been the arrangement with one of my own friends -- he died unexpectedly of a heart attack and his family refused to repay the money he'd borrowed from me for home renovations, because it was mentioned in e-mails but there wasn't an official IOU with a legal signature on it, etc.) It seems to be a known procedure, so if Frank were borrowing money, or even if he'd promised to make an investment or support someone for a certain amount of time, life insurance might be a way to guarantee that there would be money available in the future? However, there would presumably be written instructions from him as well, if he were organized enough to arrange the insurance.
But what if something was stolen, but none of those police interviewed observed anything missing. From [this 1986 LA Times article](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-01-23-me-27803-story.html) his sister, June Kirk, said: >Later, she said, she found out he had ordered the locks changed at his house not long before his murder, and “he had taken out a large insurance policy, leaving his estate as the beneficiary.” No will was found, however, she said. What if there was a will, but it was stolen? As a lawyer I'd think if he had a will he'd have left a copy with a lawyer of his, but perhaps not. What if his will left his estate to different beneficiaries than those who got the estate after his death? The murderer could have stolen the will and removed the bullet for one of numerous reasons. Including that he was killed with one of his own guns or that the gun had been used in other crimes in which bullets may have been taken into evidence, potentially allowing the crimes to be tied together. Or perhaps in a [misguided?] attempt to make it seem like the killer was a skilled professional. If his sister was set to inherit the estate it either hadn't happened yet, the insurance policy payout was in limbo, or he had a ton of debts because it took her 3.5 years to save up the $10k reward she offered. >“I can’t let go,” the tall, dark-haired woman said in an interview at a Los Angeles motel. It had taken Kirk, who owns a crop-dusting business with her husband, almost 3 1/2 years to raise the $10,000. I do wonder though - were the locks ever changed? I shared in an earlier comment that it might be a red herring, but what if someone he knew convinced him to get new locks to make it appear that he was in fear of a legitimate threat and then killed him to benefit from his death or in a conspiracy with someone else who would benefit from his death? Also, if he had dirt on someone he could have been killed to prevent him from speaking and if it was documented the documents could have been stolen. I see no obvious reason to purchase a life insurance policy for his own estate unless he intended to dramatically increase the value of his estate upon his death. It makes me further wonder if he did have a will and who it named.
>I do wonder though - were the locks ever changed? Yes, I was going to say that they had but then the way the article was phrased suggested that maybe he had just only made the appointment to have them changed, and they hadn't yet been. And it's a fair point, too, that the investigation should have tried to find out whether this was something he did routinely or not.
>what if something was stolen Just seeing your reply now ... I suspect we were thinking along the same lines. It sounds like Frank's house was a decent size, and unless there were obvious signs (wholesale ransacking), things could have gone missing that even people who visited the place regularly may not have known about. (I recently had to pack up most of my stuff after a flood, and it occurred to me that I'm the only one who knows what is in the boxes.) And as you noted, if a will disappeared, it would probably take awhile to search his files (if he did a lot of work at home, he likely had cabinets full of them). Maybe if he'd been very careful about filing and cataloguing, and there was a gap in the numbering system -- but he may not have been that organized. Good point about the sister's financial situation -- it sure doesn't sound like she had a lot of cash on hand, even though (in theory) she would have been in line to inherit Frank's estate, if no will could be found. I don't know if Frank's ex would have been entitled to anything, they hadn't had children, his folks were probably gone, and I don't know if he had any other siblings who would have split the inheritance with his sister. Given how few people (at least given the information we've got) stood to benefit financially from Frank's death, the life insurance really stands out as odd. It would be one thing if he had children/grandchildren and was worried about providing for their future (increasing the value of the estate, like you said), but it doesn't sound like he did. Now I'm curious about what actually did happen with Frank's money ... did the insurance company pay out eventually, how much was in the estate at the end, and how was it distributed, etc. And if Frank was caught in some unexpected situation (like some former girlfriend presenting him with a kid she claimed was his, hence the life insurance) -- I guess they didn't come forward afterwards. I suppose there could have been a bunch of things going on at the same time (Frank having an affair with someone who maybe was getting money out of him, Frank having evidence against some high-profile person and being worried that there might be a burglary attempt to steal it, Frank thinking about making a will that wasn't in favor of someone who'd been expecting it). But the more people involved in a mess, one might think that there'd be some kind of development by now.
I had a weird idea. Suicide, but made to look like murder for the insurance. I have no idea if this has any validity, it just popped into my head.
I feel like the fact someone removed the bullet from his head (and the scene) kind of rules out suicide? Also the lack of gun
I meant that they committed suicide and then someone made it look like murder.
I guess that could be a thing if you wanted to trick the insurance company but I feel like relatively few people would happen upon a suicide of someone they knew and decide to dig the bullet out of their skull with a screwdriver which would be technically tricky and disgusting/horrible. I assume the police would check out the beneficiaries of the life insurance policy during the relevant time period though.
The beneficiary was his estate. He also had no will. He didn't seem to have any known children so it's unclear who inherited the estate and who may have thought they would inherit some or all of his estate. ETA: I may be wrong about lack of a will. I thought I read that in OP's post or a linked source, but on reread I don't see that stated. ETA 2: I found it. In [this 1986 LA Times article](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-01-23-me-27803-story.html) his sister, June Kirk, said: >Later, she said, she found out he had ordered the locks changed at his house not long before his murder, and “he had taken out a large insurance policy, leaving his estate as the beneficiary.” No will was found, however, she said.
That's interesting. If someone is thinking about estate planning, one would think that a will would be pretty important. Unless that was the next step he was working on. (Someone might have taken it, but usually there'd be copies stashed somewhere.) Maybe I'm naive -- Frank was middle-aged, in a time when it wasn't super-unusual for people in their 50s or 60s to drop dead, and I'd be surprised if he had never gotten around to preparing an earlier version of a will. People were suggesting up-thread that he might have been terminally ill -- in that case, he'd know that he'd have to get his affairs in order.
But if he *was* terminally ill, wouldn't the autopsy have found that?
Well, one would think -- I don't know much about the procedure for an autopsy -- whether they would have looked at his entire body, or just at whether the gunshot wound had caused enough damage to be fatal. I checked online just now and apparently there can be partial autopsies done, where they don't examine the individual organs, or even open the abdomen. But I'm also assuming that they would check with the deceased's physician, if only as a matter of form. And I couldn't imagine a doctor withholding medical information like that (which might be relevant to the investigation -- I'm not in law or medicine, and that would seem to be pretty important to me).
I very much agree that based on what we know it seems unlikely that as a lawyer of that age that he wouldn't have a will. And have copies which would be found or shared upon his death. If one wasn't discovered I have to wonder if a copy was stolen from home and whether someone who had a copy was involved in his death. That said, perhaps police learned that he had a will, but also couldn't locate it, and didn't share that with his sister.
I'm not sure what the law in CA might have been at the time, about people who die intestate. I googled the current situation, and apparently the pecking order is spouse, kids, parents, and then siblings (and a sibling's children for those who are deceased). If all of these are dead or don't exist, more distant relatives (though I don't know if it goes as far as second cousins etc.). Otherwise, the state gets the money. (there's a table here that gives the formulas) [https://www.clearestate.com/en-us/blog/dying-without-a-will-in-california](https://www.clearestate.com/en-us/blog/dying-without-a-will-in-california) Frank was divorced -- I suspect that his ex wouldn't have been entitled to anything, unless he mentioned it in his will. No kids. So I guess that his sister would get it all. (Or if there were other surviving siblings, divide it up with them.) I'm assuming that their parents may have been gone by then. Though I didn't see any listings for family on Frank's Findagrave page. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/85935636/frank-robert-saletri I guess one scenario could be, if Frank's sister found out that she wasn't mentioned in his will, and -- just for a hypothetical example -- he was giving his ex a quarter of his estate, donating his home as a refuge for impoverished members of the Cauliflower Alley club, paying $50,000 to a couple of trusted filmmaker friends to finish editing Black the Ripper (I'm assuming the film did exist), and splitting the rest between the Count Dracula society and his American Legion post. The sister shows up at his house, there's a confrontation, and she murders him and then rifles through his files and takes away everything relating to his estate plans that she can find. Maybe she used their father's WWI souvenir Mauser pistol for the murder and wanted to get the bullet out just in case it was identifiable. Though this all seems rather farfetched to me.
He could have enlisted somebody to take him out.
Exactly. And how can a person shoot themselves with no gun present?
The insurance policy had the estate as the beneficiary and he had no will. But perhaps someone thought they were a beneficiary or named in a will. I also suppose it's possible the friends could have found him dead with a gun near his body and returned the gun to where it was normally stored, and dug the bullet out of the wound because they didn't want his death to appear to be a suicide. Or because he planned this and they agreed in advance to help him make it look like a murder. I find the former highly unlikely. And for the latter it would seem to be better (and not difficult) to purchase a gun for this purpose and have them retrieve it and dispose of it. Two questions I have: Did police check for gunshot residue on him (of course the friends could have cleaned his hand)? Who actually inherited the estate? ETA: I wrote that he had no will. I thought that was stated in OP's post, but I just reread it and didn't see it stated. Perhaps it was in one of OP's linked sources or something else I read. If no one can find a reference to that it's possible I thought I read that and was mistaken ETA 2: I found it. In [this 1986 LA Times article](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-01-23-me-27803-story.html) his sister, June Kirk, said: >Later, she said, she found out he had ordered the locks changed at his house not long before his murder, and “he had taken out a large insurance policy, leaving his estate as the beneficiary.” No will was found, however, she said.
>Did police check for gunshot residue on him Good point -- and related to it, were the guns he kept in his house checked to see if any of them had been fired recently? I'd also be interested in whether he'd left any instructions in his will, for payments to various other people (lump sum, or ongoing payments for a length of time). There might not be specific records of things like paying someone's mortgage or repaying loans, etc., but a large amount of money paid at once or over a specific period of time could be interesting to investigate. (I'm asking this because there have been situations where someone has taken out life insurance to cover something like a promise to pay out a regular sum every month for several years, in case the person dies.)
Again, I would think that they did, because there’s so little to go on that something like that, they would have released.
Both excellent questions!
This is not an unheard of possibility, I agree. Not terribly common, but perhaps he was dealing with a terminal illness and enlisted somebody’s help for money. I personally knew one person who did this, though it wasn’t as dramatic. Today, there are even societies who will teach you how to do it properly and painlessly because even in states/countries that have death with dignity laws, there are too many conditions that don’t qualify (like dementia and even some terminal cancers, for example). Back then there were no DWD laws on the books, so he may have felt he had no choice. I don’t see this as the probable way he died, but definitely a possibility.
>made to look like murder for the insurance. I just wanted to say, I don't think it's weird at all. Good thinking! And given how much stuff Frank was into, given what we've been told about the case, him or someone else deciding to give that impression shouldn't be ruled out. People can do strange things, for financial motives -- or out of loyalty.
Thanks. Some very strange things do happen.
you've got a real knack for writing, OP. after seeing this post and am going through your older UM posts. really digging them. kudos!
Thanks!
Wow, Saletri sounded like quite a character. This article was very well-written; it felt very professional.
I live 2 blocks away from the house omg
Mob were involved in film at this time and need to see a list of his film financiers. Maybe people at that time who may not have been linked to organised crime by the police so escaped detection, but whose criminal connections became a matter of public record later. If Saletri burked an organized crime guy or their appointed front man by claiming to have made movie which he never completed or movie which was too crap to get distribution and ergo no return on investment, Saletri might have run into trouble. Explains why house locks changed. No screwdriver on scene means murderer bought it with him suggesting premeditation. One might use a screwdriver as police might take exception to you carrying around a knife and ask questions, but which a screwdriver wouldn't arouse. No sounds heard by neighbours, dogs quiet, and removal of bullet suggeste a cool hand and maybe a professional hit. Also that gun may have been known to police, maybe another murder or maybe public record person owned a gun model capable of firing the bullet which killed Saletri, so with bullet dug out and no evidence even if police suspected. Edited to add link to Michael Franzese Colombo crime family boss movie of the 1980s as proof of concept [https://youtu.be/WdhMFfoAd98?si=W34GEyJU\_jymOLc9](https://youtu.be/wdhmffoad98?si=w34geyju_jymolc9)
The YouTube link you provided no longer works, but I'll guess you were referring to ***Mausoleum***, the 1983 horror movie that was rumored to have been a vehicle for money-laundering. Franzese is a credited producer on the film. It's a pretty silly film, but fun to watch if you're into that kind of movie. John Carl Buechler provided good make-up effects.
will say be interested to know if any of his clients had mob connections.
So many murders where the victim is known to loan money. If the wrong person finds that out, they’re a goner.
Yeah, when I wrote that I thought about Barry Sherman …
He certainly could have been gay, but it’s more likely that would lead to (relative) disinterest by the police than that they wouldn’t think to consider it. 1982, not 1882!
[удалено]
Near as I can tell, Saletri appears to have been white, probably of Italian descent given his surname.