Talk:Boston Strangler

message: He died on November 25, and was found on November 26 in his cell.
----
While "Unsolved Mysteries" suggests there was another killer, & deSalvo knew him, the book The Boston Strangler (1968?) mentions the first (or first 3) vics were all in their 60s, while later ones were in their 20s. It may not be a rule, but cert rule of thumb among profilers----
Isn't it true that Roy Smith was convicted of a murder that they only now credit to the Boston Strangler?  A writer and reporter from  Belmot, Mass., has a book on this, in fact.
Here is an excerpt from a 1963 Time article on this woman...
::Bessie Goldberg, 62, wife of a real estate man, lay on the living-room floor of her Dutch-colonial home in Belmont, a well-to-do Boston suburb. Around her neck was a nylon stocking that had been stripped from her left leg. She was dead. Headlined the Boston Herald: HOUSEWIFE TENTH STRANGLE VICTIM.The ten women, all from the Boston area, have been strangled in the past nine months, throwing the city into panic. The Animal Rescue League cannot keep up with the demand for watchdogs. Hardware stores report a run on chain locks. Detectives have combed the dossiers of more than 2,000 known sex offenders.... Thenewsgeek 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sort of true, and it's worth including in the article. CNN has a story today on this subject here. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion

message: F. Lee Bailey's book THE DEFENSE NEVER RESTS was published in 1971, not 1995. Why such a long mention of a psychic and no mention of Brooke's political ambitions and how they may have effected his handling (i.e. the "solving" of the case)? Why isn't the place of DeSavlo's alleged 1964 assault mentioned? This is a really bad article. Why?  Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is terrible

message: The Boston Strangler murders are unsolved. And I can't think of anyone other than Bailey (and what source that is) that would contend that De Savlo is the strangler, or even that there was one strangler. Putting DeSalvo's vital statistics in the article is unconscionable as it violates the policy against having a neutral point of view. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I (partially) agree.  DeSalvo has never been proven to be the Boston Strangler.  His claim to be the actual murderer is widely accepted with skepticism.  In any event, it is highly contentious and controversial.  Many in law enforcement believe that the Boston Strangler murders were actually the work of several different murderers (not one man).  DeSalvo's name and information should not be in the info box in this article.  That is highly misleading; it would lead a reader to believe that DeSalvo is in fact the Boston Strangler, a claim hotly disputed and highly in doubt.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Putting DeSalvo's vital statistics in the article is unconscionable

message: I have reverted the move of this page. Please discuss the move before doing it. Thanks!--Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: This is a request for comments regarding the article. Substantial evidence has shown that Albert DeSalvo was NOT the Boston Strangler, nor a serial killer at all. I don't think it is appropriate to portray him as such, as the first sentence of the article does, nor to have "Boston Strangler" redirect to "Albert DeSalvo". 
Oblyvia 08:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comments

message: Seems there has been a huge amount of vandalism to the victims section, spanning several months.  Someone care to get a verified list of the actual victims names?
yes there has!  I have now reverted the list back to the original which the police believed to be correct at the end of their investigations.... until an official investigation shows it to be incorrect then I feel we have to stick to it. Doctorpete 11:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to victims 

message: A major issue exists with the addition of material by User:Csherman1 who, by inclusion of information regarding his own involvement in case, both on this page as well as the autobiography page he created (Casey sherman), stands to profit from mention in the article from sales of books that were included in the autobiography page. In addition, no citations or references are given for any of the material he has added. A POV issue also exists because of the wording used in the additions. For example, Casey Sherman led a high profile crusade, It was considered the Holy Grail in the case, Sherman then forged an unlikely alliance, etc. The subject of Sherman's involvement is already included in the article in a more neutral, less stellar manner in the following paragraph. This isn't a forum for self-promotion. I am removing his contribution for the second time and have tagged the article for conflict of interest. If necessary, I can open a CoI inquiry. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: There has been the name 'Paula Lepro' added to the victim list ...... ? who was this .. I have not seen that name mentioned anywhere in the literature till now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorpete (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? previously unknown victim 

message: This CNN report may be of interest.  Roger Davies talk 07:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA link 

message: Since there's already a WP:BIO article about DeSalvo, and the consensus seems to be that the two articles should not be merged, I'd like to suggest making this article less biography-like and more obviously an article about a series of crimes which may have been committed by more than one person. For starters, I'd like to suggest removing the Infobox from this article, since (1) it makes it look like a bio of DeSalvo (and I don't know of an appropriate Infobox template for a series of crimes); and (2) the DeSalvo article has its own "murderer" Infobox, and if these things are being counted, that's misleading. Any objections? --Rosekelleher (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented it out, hope that's okay. These two articles are so intertwined it's hard to know where to put what. Seems to me the DeSalvo article should be less about the case (with some of that info transferred here) and more about his early life and so on. --Rosekelleher (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove infobox? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Boston Strangler. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/boston/21.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Boston Strangler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/printout/0%2C8816%2C839437%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027133814/http://www.charliemanson.com/crime/desalvo.htm to http://www.charliemanson.com/crime/desalvo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under the “Events” section it first says (unsourced) that “police believe that one man was the perpetrator”, but later says police were unconvinced. Does anyone have reliable sources either way? Or that indicates police views changed over time? IllQuill (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did police think it was all one person or not?