The Boston Strangler | Serial killers Wiki | Fandom powered by Wikia Share Ad blocker interference detected! Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected. is a name attributed to the murderer of several women in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, in the early 1960s. Though the crimes were attributed to Albert DeSalvo, investigators of the case have since suggested the murders (sometimes known as the silk stocking murders) were not committed by one person. Victims First Stage (1962) Anna E.

Slesers, 55, sexually molested with unknown object and strangled with the cord on her bathrobe; found on June 14, 1962 Mary Mullen, 85, died from a heart attack but in the confession was said to have collapsed as the strangler grabbed her; found on June 28, 1962 Nina Nicols, 68, sexually molested and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on June 30, 1962 Helen Blake, 65, sexually molested and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on June 30, 1962 Ida Irga, 75, sexually molested and strangled; found on August 21, 1962 Jane Sullivan, 67, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on August 30, 1962 Second Stage (1962-1964) Sophie Clark, 19, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on December 5, 1962 Patricia Bissette, 23, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings

; found on December 31, 1962 Mary Brown, 69, stabbed and beaten, found on March 9, 1963 Beverly Samans, 23, stabbed to death on May 8, 1963 Evelyn Corbin, 58, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on September 6, 1963 Joann Graff, 23, sexually assaulted and strangled on November 25, 1963 Mary Sullivan, 19, sexually assaulted and strangled with dark stockings; found on January 4, 1964 Between June 14, 1962 and January 4, 1964, 13 single women (between the ages of 19 and 85) were murdered in the Boston area.

Most had been sexually assaulted in their apartments and were murdered in the manner indicated above. Without any sign of forced entry into their dwellings, the women were assumed to have either known their assailant or have voluntarily allowed him into their homes, believing him to be an apartment maintenance person or some other service person. While the police were not convinced that all of these murders were the work of a single individual, much of the public believed so. The media certainly fueled the idea of a single murderer referring to him with names such as 'The Phantom' and 'The Sunset Killer' before settling on 'The Boston Strangler. On October 27, 1964, a stranger entered a young woman's home posing as a detective. He tied his victim to her bed, proceeded to sexually assault her, and suddenly left, saying "I'm sorry" as he went. The woman's description led police to identify the assailant as Albert DeSalvo and when his photo was published, many women identified him as the man who had assaulted them. Earlier on October 27, DeSalvo had posed as a motorist with car trouble and attempted to enter a home in Bridgewater, Massachusetts.

The homeowner, future Brockton police chief Richard Sproles, became suspicious and eventually fired a shotgun at DeSalvo. DeSalvo was not initially suspected of being involved with the stranglings. It was only after he was charged with rape that he gave a detailed confession of his activities as the Boston Strangler. He initially confessed to a fellow inmate George Nassar who reported to his attorney F. Lee Bailey who took on DeSalvo's case. The police were impressed at the accuracy of DeSalvo's descriptions of the crime scenes. Though there were some inconsistencies, DeSalvo was able to cite details which had not been made public. However, there was no physical evidence to substantiate his confession. As such, he stood trial for earlier, unrelated crimes of robbery and sexual offenses in which he was known as The Green Man and The Measuring Man respectively. Bailey brought up the confession to the stranglings as part of his client's history at the trial in order to assist in gaining a 'not guilty by reason of insanity' verdict to the sexual offenses but it was ruled as inadmissible by the judge. DeSalvo was sentenced to life in prison in 1967.

In February of that year, he escaped with two fellow inmates from Bridgewater State Hospital triggering a full scale manhunt. A note was found on his bunk addressed to the superintendent. In it DeSalvo stated that he had escaped to focus attention on the conditions in the hospital and his own situation. The next day he gave himself up. Following the escape he was transferred to the maximum security Walpole State Prison where he was found murdered six years later in the infirmary. He had been stabbed. The killer or killers were never identified. Doubts remain as to whether DeSalvo was indeed the Boston Strangler. At the time he confessed, people who knew him personally did not believe him capable of the vicious crimes. It was also noted that the women killed by "The Strangler" came from different age and ethnic groups, and that there were different modi operandi. Susan Kelly, author of the 1996 book The Boston Stranglers, accessed the files of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts "Strangler Bureau". She argues that the stranglings were the work of several killers rather than a single individual.

Another author, former FBI profiler Robert Ressler, said that "You're putting together so many different patterns [regarding the Boston Strangler murders] that it's inconceivable behaviorally that all these could fit one individual." In 2000, Elaine Whitfield Sharp, an attorney specializing in forensic cases who is based in Marblehead, Massachusetts, took up the cause of the DeSalvo family and that of the family of Mary A. Sullivan. Sullivan was publicized as being the final victim in 1964, although other stranglings occurred after that date. A former print journalist, Whitfield Sharp assisted the families in their media campaign to clear DeSalvo's name, to assist in organizing and arranging the exhumations of Mary A. Sullivan and Albert H. DeSalvo, in filing various lawsuits in attempts to obtain information and trace evidence (e.g. DNA) from the government, and to work with various producers to create documentaries to explain the facts to the public. Whitfield Sharp pointed out various inconsistencies between DeSalvo's confessions and the crime scene information (which she obtained).

For example, Whitfield Sharp observed that, contrary to DeSalvo's confession to Sullivan's murder, there was no semen in her vagina and that she was not strangled manually, but by ligature. Forensic pathologist Michael Baden observed that DeSalvo also got the time of death wrong — a common inconsistency with several of the murders pointed out by Susan Kelly. Whitfield Sharp continues to work on the case for the DeSalvo family. In the case of Mary Sullivan, murdered January 4, 1964 at age 19, DNA and other forensic evidence were used by Casey Sherman to try to track down her presumed real killer. Sherman wrote about this in his book A Rose for Mary (2003), and stated that DeSalvo was not responsible for her death. For example, DeSalvo confessed to sexually penetrating Sullivan, yet the forensic investigation revealed no evidence of sexual activity. There are also suggestions from DeSalvo himself that he was covering up for another man, the real killer. The film The Boston Strangler starred Tony Curtis as Albert DeSalvo. Henry Fonda co-starred.

Boston Strangler Boston Strangler June 14, 1962–January 4, 1964 Country: Edit Block The Boston Strangler is a name attributed to the murderer (or murderers) of several women in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, in the early 1960s. Though the crimes were attributed to Albert DeSalvo, investigators of the case have since suggested the murders (sometimes known as the silk stocking murders) were not committed by one person. Victims Edit Block First Stage (1962) Anna E.

Slesers, 56, sexually molested with unknown object and strangled with the cord on her bathrobe; found on June 14, 1962 Mary Mullen, 85, died from a heart attack but in the confession was said to have collapsed as the strangler grabbed her; found on June 28, 1962 Nina Nichols, 68, sexually molested and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on June 30, 1962 Helen Blake, 65, sexually molested and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on June 30, 1962 Ida Irga, 75, sexually molested and strangled; found on August 21, 1962 Jane Sullivan, 67, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on August 30, 1962 Second Stage (1962-1964) Sophie Clark, 21, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on December 5, 1962 Patricia Bissette, 23, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings;

 found on December 31, 1962 Mary Brown, 69, stabbed, strangled and beaten, found on March 9, 1963 Beverly Samans, 23, stabbed to death on May 8, 1963 Evelyn Corbin, 58, sexually assaulted and strangled with her nylon stockings; found on September 6, 1963 Joann Graff, 23, sexually assaulted and strangled on November 23, 1963 Mary Sullivan, 19, sexually assaulted and strangled with dark stockings; found on January 4, 1964 Events Edit Block Between June 14, 1962 and January 4, 1964, 13 single women (between the ages of 19 and 85) were murdered in the Boston area.

Most had been sexually assaulted in their apartments and were murdered in the manner indicated above. Without any sign of forced entry into their dwellings, the women were assumed to have either known their assailant or have voluntarily allowed him into their homes, believing him to be an apartment maintenanceman, deliveryman, or some other service person. Despite enormous media publicity that would presumably have discouraged women from admitting strangers into their homes after the first few murders, the attacks continued. The killings panicked and frightened many Boston-area young women, causing some to leave the area. Many residents purchased tear gas and new locks and deadbolts for home doors. The murders occurred in several cities, making overall jurisdiction over the crimes unclear. Massachusetts Attorney General Edward W. Brooke helped to coordinate the various police forces. He controversially permitted psychometrist Peter Hurkos to use his alleged extrasensory perception to analyze the cases, which Hurkos claimed a single person was responsible for. He provided a "minutely detailed description of the wrong man", causing the press to ridicule Brooke. While the police were not convinced that all of these murders were the work of a single individual, much of the public believed so; the connection between a majority of the victims and hospitals was widely discussed.

Confession Edit Block Gainsborough Street, site of the first murder attributed to the Boston strangler. On October 27, 1964, a stranger entered a young woman's home posing as a detective. He tied his victim to her bed, proceeded to sexually assault her, and suddenly left, saying "I'm sorry" as he went. The woman's description led police to identify the assailant as Albert DeSalvo and when his photo was published, many women identified him as the man who had assaulted them. Earlier on October 27, DeSalvo had posed as a motorist with car trouble and attempted to enter a home in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. The homeowner, future Brockton police chief Richard Sproles, became suspicious and eventually fired a shotgun at DeSalvo. DeSalvo was not initially suspected of being involved with the stranglings. It was only after he was charged with rape that he gave a detailed confession of his activities as the Boston Strangler. He initially confessed to a fellow inmate George Nassar who reported to his attorney F. Lee Bailey who took on DeSalvo's case. The police were impressed at the accuracy of DeSalvo's descriptions of the crime scenes.

Though there were some inconsistencies, DeSalvo was able to cite details which had not been made public. However, there was no physical evidence to substantiate his confession. As such, he stood trial for earlier, unrelated crimes of robbery and sexual offenses in which he was known as The Green Man and The Measuring Man respectively. Bailey brought up the confession to the stranglings as part of his client's history at the trial in order to assist in gaining a 'not guilty by reason of insanity' verdict to the sexual offenses but it was ruled as inadmissible by the judge. DeSalvo was sentenced to life in prison in 1967. In February of that year, he escaped with two fellow inmates from Bridgewater State Hospital, triggering a full scale manhunt. A note was found on his bunk addressed to the superintendent. In it DeSalvo stated that he had escaped to focus attention on the conditions in the hospital and his own situation. The next day he gave himself up. Following the escape he was transferred to the maximum security Walpole State Prison where, six years later, he was found stabbed to death in the infirmary. The killer or killers were never identified.

Doubts Edit Block Doubts remain as to whether DeSalvo was indeed the Boston Strangler. At the time he confessed, people who knew him personally did not believe him capable of the vicious crimes. It was also noted that the women killed by "The Strangler" came from different age and ethnic groups, and that there were different modi operandi. DeSalvo's attorney Bailey believed that his client was the killer, describing the case in Defense Never Rests (1995). Susan Kelly, author of the 1996 book The Boston Stranglers, accessed the files of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts "Strangler Bureau". She argues that the stranglings were the work of several killers rather than a single individual. Another author, former FBI profiler Robert Ressler, said that "You're putting together so many different patterns [regarding the Boston Strangler murders] that it's inconceivable behaviorally that all these could fit one individual." In 2000, Elaine Whitfield Sharp, an attorney specializing in forensic cases who is based in Marblehead, Massachusetts, took up the cause of the DeSalvo family and that of the family of Mary A. Sullivan.

Sullivan was publicized as being the final victim in 1964, although other stranglings occurred after that date. A former print journalist, Whitfield Sharp assisted the families in their media campaign to clear DeSalvo's name, to assist in organizing and arranging the exhumations of Mary A. Sullivan and Albert H. DeSalvo, in filing various lawsuits in attempts to obtain information and trace evidence (e.g. DNA) from the government, and to work with various producers to create documentaries to explain the facts to the public. Whitfield Sharp pointed out various inconsistencies between DeSalvo's confessions and the crime scene information (which she obtained). For example, Whitfield Sharp observed that, contrary to DeSalvo's confession to Sullivan's murder, there was no semen in her vagina and that she was not strangled manually, but by ligature. Forensic pathologist Michael Baden observed that DeSalvo also got the time of death wrong — a common inconsistency with several of the murders pointed out by Susan Kelly. Whitfield Sharp continues to work on the case for the DeSalvo family.

In the case of Mary Sullivan, murdered January 4, 1964 at age 19, DNA and other forensic evidence were used by Casey Sherman to try to track down her presumed real killer. Sherman wrote about this in his book A Rose for Mary (2003), and stated that DeSalvo was not responsible for her death. For example, DeSalvo confessed to sexually penetrating Sullivan, yet the forensic investigation revealed no evidence of sexual activity. In popular culture Boston Strangler Case Solved 50 Years Later - ABC News ABC News Boston Strangler Case Solved 50 Years Later By MICHELE MCPHEE WATCH Boston Strangler Case Solved After 50 Years 0 Shares Email A water bottle recovered from a construction site where Tim DeSalvo – whose uncle Albert DeSalvo had confessed to being the internationally notorious Boston Strangler – gave police the DNA evidence they needed to bring closure to a case that has been a mystery for nearly 50 years, murders for which no one has ever been charged.

"This is really a story of relentlessness,'' Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis explained today as Massachusetts top law enforcement officials revealed that DNA preserved from the body of the Boston Strangler's last victim--raped and murdered in 1964--can now be linked with "99.9 percent certainty" to the late Albert DeSalvo. "This is good evidence. This is strong evidence. This is reliable evidence,'' Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley said of the new DNA result. "But there can be no doubt." The Boston Strangler case, which inspired a 1968 Hollywood movie starring Tony Curtis, marked a terrifying swath of history in the city – and one that has long been mired in doubt. It was the 1960s and single women across Massachusetts were the target of a serial killer and rapist. When it was over, the Boston Strangler had killed 11 women. The case baffled the five separate District Attorney's offices investigating the murders because of the spread-out locations of the victims. Then DeSalvo, a convicted rapist, made a jailhouse confession claiming that he was the Boston Strangler and provided details on the 11 murdered women.

But DeSalvo was never charged in the case and was found dead in his cell under mysterious circumstances at Walpole state prison in 1973. This week investigators will exhume DeSalvo's body from Puritan Lawn Cemetery in Peabody, Mass., to make the final determination with DNA testing. The strangler's last victim would be 19-year-old Mary Sullivan, strangled with her own stocking in her Beacon Hill apartment on tony Charles Street. She was also sexually savaged. Her killer left behind seminal fluids that were lifted from a maroon blanket her body was covered with. That remains the only DNA evidence in the entire Boston Strangler investigation: six samples that the Boston Police Crime Lab's lead forensic scientist Robert Hayes preserved as he waited for technology to advance to the point where nuclear DNA could be positively matched to a suspect. First, police had to make sure the Y-chromosomes in those DNA samples were a familial match to DeSalvo in order to convince a judge to let investigators disturb his grave. So BPD Sgt. Brian Albert, a surveillance expert, followed nephew Tim DeSalvo to his worksite in Boston and retrieved a water bottle he drank from and left behind.

It was a match to the samples collected in the 1964 Beacon Hill murder, excluding 99.9 percent of the male population from suspicion in Mary Sullivan's killing, Hayes said, and pointing to Albert DeSalvo with near certainty as the man responsible. "I knew science would one day provide us with answers in this case,'' Hayes told ABC News. Those answers provided comfort to the nephew Mary Sullivan never met: Boston author Casey Sherman, who had long held that his aunt had been murdered not by DeSalvo but by another man. He even wrote a book, "A Rose for Mary" about the investigation he launched to assuage his mother's nightmares. His mother Diane was just 17 when Mary Sullivan was murdered and she continued to dream of her sister, Sherman told ABC News. "I am grateful this brings closure to me and to my mother most of all,'' Sherman said, his voice shaking with emotion. He got choked up, took a breath, and continued talking. "For all these years it was just me and her chasing this case,'' Sherman said.

"It took 49 years for police to say they legitimately got him." But Elaine Sharpe, a lawyer for the DeSalvo family, insisted that police have not legitimately identified Albert as the Boston Strangler. She added that his nephew did not know he had been followed and inadvertently provided the evidence for the search warrant that will lead to the body being exhumed 30 years after it was buried. "Just because they had DNA,'' Sharpe said, "Doesn't mean Albert DeSalvo killed her." Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley dismissed that assertion, saying: "We may have solved one of the nation's most notorious serial killings." 0 Shares If Albert DeSalvo Wasn't The Boston Strangler, Who Was? Bill James Investigates If Albert DeSalvo Wasn't The Boston Strangler, Who Was? Bill James Investigates Go to permalink During the years 1962-64, 13 women in the Boston area were molested and then strangled by an assailant who came to be known as the Boston Strangler. In 1965, Albert DeSalvo, a convicted sex offender and patient at a local mental institute, began telling people he committed the murders.

With the help of superstar attorney F. Lee Bailey, and with the support of investigators eager to be rid of the case, DeSalvo confessed to the killings during a trial for unrelated crimes. No physical evidence linked him to the Boston Strangler cases, and DeSalvo was never convicted of those killings. But for years after his confession the popular assumption remained that the Strangler murders were the work of one man, and that that man was DeSalvo. In an excerpt from his new book, Popular Crime , Bill James, the patron saint of sabermetrics, explains how DeSalvo couldn't have been the Boston Strangler. Advertisement Advertisement Some of Albert DeSalvo's confessions, at least as edited and released by the police, may have the ring of truth. But many of DeSalvo's confessions, in all honesty, don't sound right. They're based too much on visual recall. All of the books about DeSalvo note this visual recall at least in passing. He would "close his eyes," wrote F. Lee Bailey in The Defense Never Rests. "Then, as if he were watching a videotape replay, he would describe what had happened" (emphasis mine).

Two pages later, Bailey recounts DeSalvo telling police that, at one victim's apartment, he had knocked a pack of cigarettes to the floor beside a bureau. He named the brand of the cigarettes. At this, says Bailey, the police investigator "grabbed his briefcase and pulled out a photo showing the bureau and a pack of cigarettes just as Albert had described it." My reaction, on reading that, was "that sounds like DeSalvo had seen the same photograph that the cop had." I did not know, at that time, that Dr. Ames Robey had been claiming for years that that was exactly what had happened: the police showed DeSalvo photographs of the crime scenes. "Whether or not DeSalvo had ever been at the Goldberg house," wrote Sebastian Junger in A Death in Belmont, "the newspaper photo was clearly the source of his description" (emphasis mine). DeSalvo had studied the photo of a house where a murder occurred so intently that, years later, he could still describe in detail what the photo contained-square drainpipes, shades pulled down. He remembered the outside of the house from studying the photo in the newspaper.

Sponsored "I went into number 77," said DeSalvo in supposedly recounting the first of the murders. "I remember it said that on glass over the door in gold letters." It doesn't sound right; to me; it doesn't sound like he was really there. It sounds like he had seen the pictures. I don't get into visiting crime scenes, but I lived in Boston during most of the time I was writing this book. I noticed that one of the Strangler murders occurred at 515 Park Drive, and I would often catch the T at St. Mary's Square, on the Green Line. 515 Park Drive is just about a one-minute walk from St. Mary's Square. It is close enough that, if you came out the door of 515 Park and saw the train, you might be able to catch it before it left. Advertisement Then another time my wife and I were going to the Boston Symphony, and we were a little early and walking around the neighborhood, and we happened to walk past 77 Gainsborough Street, where the first of the Stranglings occurred. I noticed that it's just a block or two off the Green Line.

Two of the later murders, which occurred within a quarter-mile of the first, are actually on the other side of that Line, so that the three murders crowd around one stop on the Green Line. And then one time I was walking out near Boston College, just getting a little exercise, and I realized that I was near another of the murder scenes, at 1940 Commonwealth Avenue, so I took a moment and looked at that building. And there, not thirty feet from the door of 1940 Commonwealth, was a T stop. It's the Green Line. Advertisement Another of the murders occurred at 1435 Commonwealth. It's another stop on the same spur of the same line. There's more to it than that. The Green Line has several spurs. 515 Park Drive, which is about a one-minute walk from the C spur of the Green Line, is also about a two-minute walk from the B spur; it is near the place where they split off from one another, so that one can get quickly to either line. From that point the B and C spurs of the Green Line diverge, being at one point separated by more than a mile. Then they converge again.

You know where they almost meet again? 1940 Commonwealth, where the second of the murders occurred, is right on the B spur—and a five-minute walk from the C spur. That's where they come back together. The closest point is 1940 Commonwealth. Advertisement 77 Gainsborough Street, where the first murder occurred, is just off the E spur of the Green Line—but that's not how my wife and I got to the Symphony. We got there on a different spur, which is a short walk away. The T system in Boston is good, but it does not have fantastic coverage of the city. There are substantial portions of the Boston area where you can't really use the T, because it takes too long to get to it. Several of the Boston Strangler's murders occurred not only right on the T system, but in areas that were served by multiple lines of the T system—as if perhaps the murderer had thought ahead, "I might have to come out of here and go this way, or I might have to go down that way.

I need to be able to get out of this area as quickly as I can no matter which way I'm heading." Advertisement Advertisement Albert DeSalvo, in his "confessions" to the crime, claimed that he drove to the murder scenes. I wonder. Where did he park? Why didn't anybody find a parking receipt? Why did he drive, one time after another, into areas that are notoriously difficult to drive to? The murders up in Lawrence and Lynn and Salem . . . somebody may have driven to those. The "original" Strangler murders, the ones that started the panic . . . I'd be willing to bet that whoever committed those murders got there and left on the T. There's actually more to it than that. We lived not in Boston but in Brookline, which is an independent city so close that you could walk from our apartment to the Boston Common. It's a couple of miles. "Did any of the murders occur in Brookline?" my wife asked. Well, no, not quite. 515 Park Drive is in Boston—but if you cross the street, you're in Brookline.

1940 Commonwealth is three miles away from there, in the Brighton Section of Boston, near Newton—but you can throw a rock from there back into Brookline. Advertisement 1435 Commonwealth is in Brighton—but it's a four-minute walk from Brookline. 4 University Drive, where one of the victims lived, is in Cambridge—but it's not a half-mile from Brookline. The Green Line of the Boston T system serves Brookline (and other areas); one spur goes down the north and west sides of Brookline, another along the east side, and a third goes through the heart of the little city. Advertisement Advertisement In serial murder cases, if you plot the crime scenes on a map and connect the dots, very often they will form a sort of circle, and very often the murderer will live near the center of that circle. This is well known now, although it wasn't recognized until about 1980. If you draw a circle on a map which is a one-mile radius from Coolidge Corner, it doesn't include any of the murder scenes.

But if you draw a circle which is a three-mile radius around Coolidge Corner, it includes virtually all of the murder scenes in Boston and Cambridge—all but one—and there are murder scenes at all points of the compass. I am not saying that this is true, but it is possible. It is possible that the Boston Strangler lived in Brookline, perhaps between Coolidge Corner and Brookline Village, and that he deliberately left Brookline to commit his crimes, knowing that Brookline has its own police force, and that it might be in his best interests not to have his local police force looking for him. Actually, there are two circles here—one that is formed by the murders in Boston, and a much larger circle formed if you include the murders in the northern towns. DeSalvo lived nowhere near the smaller circle, the "walking" circle—but he was near the center of the larger circle. I don't know what to make of it. It seems odd to me that this killer came in from several miles to the north and committed these murders that accidentally trace a neat pattern around the edges of Brookline.

If the real Strangler did live near Coolidge Corner, and if he did use the T to move around, he could have been back in his apartment ten minutes after leaving most of the buildings where the crimes were committed. Advertisement Why did DeSalvo confess? He was crazy, to begin with, and was notorious for telling self-aggrandizing whoppers. According to Bailey, the very first thing that he heard from DeSalvo, by way of Nassar, was "would it be possible for him to publish his story and make some money with it?" The last thing anybody heard from DeSalvo was, he was suing people because the money he had been promised disappeared before it reached his pockets. One can see that, if the police knew that DeSalvo had not really committed the crimes but wanted to take credit for them, then they might allow him to take "credit" for the murders in the public's eye, but never charge him in connection with them. That way, if and when the real murderer was discovered, there would be no impediment to prosecution.

If the police had actually charged DeSalvo with the murders, a) they would have had to present some sort of corroborative evidence, which they did not have, and b) they would have been in a difficult position if the series of murders resumed and the murderer was caught. The way it worked out was good for the police—in fact, it was great for the police. The police had an excuse to call off the time-consuming, frustrating and fantastically expensive investigation, they got the public to believe that they had solved the crimes—but all of their options were still on the table if the real murderer re-surfaced. Advertisement Advertisement The Belmont murder—Sebastian Junger's case—was never officially associated with the Strangler crimes. Junger, clinging to the belief that DeSalvo may have been guilty, works this into a theory of why DeSalvo, confessing to the crimes, never confessed to that one while he was in the process of coming clean. The logic is tortured and unconvincing.

But if one assumes the opposite tack, that DeSalvo was being fed information by the police to clean up the crimes so that they could move on, then it becomes very obvious why DeSalvo didn't confess to that crime: the police didn't want him to. They had already hung that one on somebody else. These arguments present as coherent and logical the outcomes of a judicial process that was, in reality, chaotic and confused. "The police" and "the prosecutors" included people who had opinions all over the map. Some wanted to prosecute DeSalvo for the Stranglings, some wanted to investigate further, some thought he had nothing to do with the case, and some wanted to disbar Bailey for the way he had represented DeSalvo. My opinion. F. Lee Bailey was a publicity-hungry young attorney who was building a name for himself by getting involved in high-profile crimes, and the Boston police played him. Albert DeSalvo wanted to confess to these crimes, and some of the police went along with it for their own reasons. Bailey was then able to present himself to the public as the clever lawyer who had cut a deal to end the Boston Strangler case, keeping his client off the streets but out of jail.

Advertisement Everybody got what they wanted out of the deal. The police got rid of an unsolvable case that was draining money and blocking careers. DeSalvo, although he grew unhappy with the deal, got to be a famous important criminal rather than the anonymous lowlife that he really was. Bailey, who was already somewhat famous because of the Sam Sheppard and Carl Coppolino cases, became a lot more famous; he wound up with his own network TV show. The only thing was, no one got to the truth. Excerpted from the book Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence by Bill James. Copyright © 2011 by Bill James. Excerpted with permission by Scribner, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. The Boston Strangler - Crime Museum The Boston Strangler Home » Crime Library » The Boston Strangler From June 1962 through January 1964, 13 single women between the ages of 19 and 85 were murdered throughout the Boston area. Many people believed that at least 11 of these murders were committed by the same individual because of the similar manner in which each murder was committed.

It was believed that the women, who all lived alone, knew the attacker and let him in, or that he disguised himself as a repairman, or a delivery man to get the women to voluntarily let him into their apartments. “In every case, the victims had been raped – sometimes with foreign objects – and their bodies laid out nude, as if on display for a pornographic snapshot. Death was always due to strangulation, though the killer sometimes also used a knife. The ligature – a stocking, pillowcase, whatever – was inevitably left around the victim’s neck, tied with an exaggerated, ornamental bow.” This series of crimes was often referred to as “The Silk Stocking Murders” and the sought after attacker became known as the “Boston Strangler.” A couple of years before “The Silk Stocking Murders” began, a series of sex offenses began in the Cambridge, Massachusetts area. A smooth-talking man, in his late twenties, went door-to-door looking for young women. If a young woman answered the door, he would introduce himself as a talent scout from a modeling agency looking for new models. If she was interested he would tell her that he needed to get her measurements.

Many women expressed interest and allowed him to measure them with his measuring tape. He would then fondle the women as he took their measurements. Several women contacted the police and this man was referred to as the “Measuring Man.” In March of 1960, police caught a man breaking into a house. He confessed to the burglary, and without any prompting, he also confessed to being the “Measuring Man.” The man’s name was Albert DeSalvo. The judge sentenced DeSalvo to 18 months in jail, but he was released after 11 months for good behavior. Following his release, he began a new crime spree throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. During this spree, DeSalvo, while dressed in green, broke into over 400 homes and sexually assaulted over 300 women. While police throughout New England were in search of the “Green Man”, Boston homicide detectives continued their search for the “Boston Strangler.” In October of 1964, a young woman who was one of the “Green Man’s” victims came forward to police saying that a man posing as a detective entered her home and sexually assaulted her.

From her description of the man, the police were able to identify the man as Albert DeSalvo. A photo of DeSalvo was published in newspapers and several women came forward to identify him as their attacker. He was arrested on a rape charge and was sent to Bridgewater State Hospital for psychiatric observation, where he befriended convicted murderer George Nassar. It is speculated that the two worked out a deal to split reward money if one of them confessed to being the Boston Strangler. DeSalvo confessed to his attorney, F. Lee Bailey, that he was the Boston Strangler. Through DeSalvo’s ability to describe the murders in accurate detail, Bailey believed that DeSalvo was in fact the Strangler. After hours of questioning, where DeSalvo described murder by murder, the details of his victim’s apartments and what they wore, the police were convinced that they had the killer. Despite his confession, there was no physical evidence to link Albert DeSalvo to the “Silk Stocking Murders.” Doubt remained, and police brought the Strangler’s one surviving victim, Gertrude Gruen, to the prison to identify the man she fought off as he attempted to strangle her.

To observe her reaction, the police brought two men through the prison lobby, the first was Nassar and the second was DeSalvo. Gruen said that the second man, DeSalvo, was not the man; however, when she saw the first man, Nassar, she felt there was “something upsetting, something frighteningly familiar about that man.” Through it all, DeSalvo’s wife, family and friends never believed he was capable of being the Strangler. Because there was no physical evidence and he did not match witness descriptions, he was never tried in any of the “Boston Strangler” murders. He was however sent to prison for life for the rapes and sexual assaults from the “Green Man” case. He was sent to Walpole maximum security state prison in 1967 to serve his sentence; but six years later he was stabbed to death in his cell. After nearly 50 years, no one has ever been charged as the Boston Strangler. In July 2013, the Boston Police Department believed that they had discovered DNA evidence linking Albert DeSalvo to Mary Sullivan, who had been raped and strangled in 1964 – the final victim of the Boston Strangler.

After taking DNA from DeSalvo’s nephew, the Boston Police said it was a “near certain match” to DNA evidence found on Mary Sullivan’s body and on a blanket taken from her apartment. Upon this discovery, the court ordered the exhumation of DeSalvo’s body. After extracting DNA from DeSalvo’s femur and some of his teeth, it was determined that DeSalvo was the man who killed and raped Mary Sullivan. While the case of Mary Sullivan’s murder has been closed, the mystery of the Boston Strangler still remains open to speculation. For more information, please visit: Boston Strangler | American serial killer | Britannica.com American serial killer See Article History Boston Strangler, American serial killer who murdered at least 11 women in the Boston area between 1962 and 1964. His crimes were the subject of numerous books and a film, though the exact number of victims—as well as his identity—proved a matter of controversy. The Boston Strangler’s first victim, a 55-year-old woman, was sexually assaulted and strangled in her ransacked apartment on June 14, 1962.

During the following months, several other women, ranging in age from 65 to 85 years, were murdered in similar circumstances, news of which engulfed the city in panic. The Boston police chief transferred nearly all his department’s resources to the search for the so-called “mother killer.” Then, in December, a young woman was killed, and three weeks later a 23-year-old woman was found strangled. Subsequent victims included women of a range of ages. By January 1964, 13 women were dead, and the Massachusetts attorney general, Edward Brooke , had taken charge of the investigation personally. In 1965 Albert DeSalvo , an inmate at a state mental hospital who had a history of burglary dating from the 1950s, confessed to the murders. Although never actually charged with the killings (investigators at the time were unable to physically link him to the murder scenes), DeSalvo was convicted on charges of sexual assault and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case and DeSalvo’s life were portrayed in the 1968 film The Boston Strangler. DeSalvo was murdered in Walpole State Prison in 1973.

DeSalvo was viewed as a textbook case of a sexually motivated serial murderer , a seemingly ordinary man who was nevertheless capable of outbursts of savage violence. Yet DeSalvo’s guilt was controversial at the time and remained so in the decades after his death. His original confessions, for example, demonstrated ignorance of many aspects of the crimes. Although he would later describe details that only the actual killer could have known, his testimony, according to some observers, could have been based on information provided to him by police. Furthermore, several victims who survived did not believe he was their attacker. At the beginning of the 21st century, DNA analysis of newly uncovered forensic evidence offered the possibility of determining whether DeSalvo was guilty of the rape and murder of Mary Sullivan, the last victim commonly attributed to the Boston Strangler. Although testing conducted in 2001 had suggested that DeSalvo was not responsible for the crime , DNA analysis of his exhumed remains in 2013 proved, according to investigators, that he had in fact raped and murdered Sullivan. In light of the later findings, authorities concluded that DeSalvo “most likely” committed the other killings as well.

Boston Strangler | Unsolved more Mysteries Unsolved more Mysteries New DNA evidence casts doubt on whether Albert DeSalvo was really the Boston Strangler. Albert DeSalvo Panic grips Boston after serial killings CASE DETAILS George Nassar In the early 1960s, Boston was in the grip of fear. A killer was on the loose. Ten women were found murdered. They ranged in age from 19 to 75; they had different ethnic backgrounds; they lived in different neighborhoods. The only thing these women had in common was that they were strangled to death in their own apartments. The police were frustrated and the public terrified. They named the killer the “Boston Strangler.” Susan Kelly, author of two books about the Boston Strangler case, described the mood in Boston at the time: “There are stories of women rushing out to dog pounds to buy every available stray mutt for protection. Locksmiths reported a run on their businesses. People were obviously quite clearly frightened by whatever was out there.” Ten months after the last murder, few people noticed when a man named Albert DeSalvo was arrested on unrelated sexual assault charges. DeSalvo was married and had two children. He also had an extensive history of sexual offenses.

One of his many nicknames was the “Measuring Man.” DeSalvo pretended to be recruiting fashion models. He would smooth talk his way into women’s homes, measure them for clothing, and then fondle them. When DeSalvo’s scam eventually caught up with him, he was arrested and sent to prison for one year. Albert DeSalvo in custody After De Salvo’s release, police began receiving complaints about “the green man,” a maintenance worker who talked his way into women’s apartments and then assaulted them. Susan Kelly said DeSalvo’s scam was more successful than one might imagine: “She would let him in. He would make an overture to her. If the overture were repelled, he would leave. But a surprising number of times it wasn’t, according to him, and he ended up making love with the woman. Later, his assaults became much more aggressive. Eventually these were the charges he was arrested for.” DeSalvo was arrested and sent to Bridgewater State Mental Hospital. Dr. Ames Robey was the medical director: “Well, the first thing that was so obvious about Albert was his incredible need to be somebody important. He would brag about almost anything.

He gave the feeling, although he didn’t say so at that time, that he sort of wanted to be as well known as, quote, “the Boston Strangler.” Three months later, George Nassar, another inmate at Bridgewater, had an odd conversation about the Boston Strangler with his lawyer, F. Lee Bailey. Bailey recalled his talk with Nassar: “He asked me whether or not it would be possible for someone who had done the stranglings to write a book. And my off-hand answer was sure, but he might go to the electric chair as a consequence. Later on, I was asked to go down and see this fellow, Albert DeSalvo, by my client.” Bailey expected to come face to face with a monster. Instead, he met a married man with two children who seemed concerned about his family: “I was a little incredulous because everybody develops a profile. You’re looking for a monster, somebody that, you know, the jowls are dripping and it just didn’t seem to fit. He wanted to be able to tell his story. He said, ‘I would like to find out why I am like this.

Maybe people can give me tests or something.’” According to Bailey, DeSalvo confessed he was the Boston Strangler. “I had no way of knowing whether or not he was telling the truth, fantasizing because he was crazy, or had read a lot of things in the newspapers and wanted to be famous.” Two days later, Bailey returned to Bridgewater with a tape recorder and a list of questions. With DeSalvo’s permission, Bailey had struck a deal with the Boston police. They would provide Bailey with details only The Strangler would know, as a way of testing DeSalvo. In return, Bailey was guaranteed that the tapes would never be heard in court. Deputy Superintendent John Donovan, retired Chief of Homicide in the Boston Police Department, said he was intrigued by what he heard: “His descriptions of the crime scenes were just so accurate that that impressed me very much.” But when Dr. Ames Robey heard the tape, he was not so impressed.

He believed there was another explanation for DeSalvo’s knowledge of the crime scenes: “Albert indicated to us that he had gone to the various sites that the newspapers had named after the police tape was off the doors in the apartments, just to sort of be there and see what it was like.” Dr. Robey says that DeSalvo had a photographic memory. He may have visited the victims’ apartments, or perhaps he was just repeating what someone else had described to him. Then Robey began to believe that DeSalvo’s friend, George Nassar, was somehow involved: “I first began to wonder about something going on when no other inmates would come near them. And they would immediately stop talking if the guards or staff came anywhere near where they could hear. But they would have extensive conversations about what, of course, we didn’t know.” A career criminal, George Nassar had been imprisoned for killing a gas station attendant shortly after the Strangler killed his last victim. Nassar agreed to discuss his role in the case and his relationship with Albert DeSalvo for the first time: “With Albert DeSalvo, I was simply an associate. I’ve done the same thing with many, many prisoners.

People come to me and ask for advice. I give it to them if they say, if it’s worthy of me assisting them, I assist them, for my reasons because I feel it’s a worthy thing to do.” The Massachusetts Attorney General ordered that news of DeSalvo’s confession be kept under wraps. Within the police department, there was a split over whether DeSalvo was, in fact, the killer. Then someone leaked the story of the confession to the local papers. In response to the story, two women came forward. One was a survivor of a possible Strangler attack. The other was a neighbor of one of the victims. They were brought to Bridgewater to see if they recognized any of the inmates. Surprisingly, the one familiar face did not belong to Albert DeSalvo, but to George Nassar. Is it possible that he was actually the Boston Strangler? Dr. Ames Robey thought it was possible: “George Nassar would fit the profile of the Boston Strangler. We found nothing that would rule him out, not even one iota.” George Nassar denied the accusation: “I do not kill women. I’ve never conceived of it. I wouldn’t conceive of it.

I have great respect and regard for women, beginning with my mother who brought me up that way.” F. Lee Bailey wasn’t convinced his client fit the profile of the Strangler: “George Nassar was eliminated as the Strangler. I don’t think he had the profile to strangle. George Nassar used a gun.” Albert DeSalvo was the state’s prime suspect, even though there was no physical evidence that linked him to any of the killings. F. Lee Bailey suggested that DeSalvo undergo hypnosis. He recalled the session: “We had him hypnotized and age regressed right through one of the homicides. And the things that developed in the presence of a very bright medical hypnotist were of great interest.” The session revealed that DeSalvo had had problems with every significant woman in his life. According to F. Lee Bailey: “We found an involvement of his wife who he’d married in Germany, his daughter who had a physical disability that troubled him greatly, his mother whom he had a love-hate relationship. And it was just the beginning.” Dr.

Robey observed the session and came to a completely different conclusion: “The answers were almost implied in the question, which, at least from my training, is something you don’t do. I was not at all convinced that anything had been uncovered. And was a little surprised later when Mr. Bailey announced what had occurred under hypnosis was ‘definitive evidence.’ Albert, even with the crimes he was charged with, he was considered gentle, polite. His sexual proclivities, his general attitude, he was not angry and hostile.” In the summer of 1965, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office conducted its own interrogations. The transcripts of those interviews were never released, but author Susan Kelly obtained a copy while researching her book called “Deadly Charade.” Susan came to believe that Albert DeSalvo was playing along: “When you read the transcript and you come to a point where Albert gives an incorrect answer to a question, he is guided to give the correct answer. And Albert, who was a smart guy, caught on very quickly. This man was not the Boston Strangler, he didn’t kill anyone.” F. Lee Bailey strongly disagreed: “They had the right guy, beyond question.

No one has ever come up with anything meaningful to contradict that. The question is, how could we try him as the Strangler and close the file in the public’s mind?” F. Lee Bailey struck a deal with the State. Albert DeSalvo went on trial, but not as the Boston Stranger. Instead, he was tried for sexual assault and other crimes in connection with the “green man” case. In return, the State agreed not to press for the death penalty. According to Bailey, it was the right thing to do: “That’s all we wanted. Nobody ever wanted Albert on the street, including Albert, and to ask not to be executed so that he could be studied seemed to me a reasonable objective.” After less than four hours of deliberation, the jury reached its verdict: guilty on eight criminal counts. DeSalvo had wanted to be sent to a mental hospital, but his insanity defense failed. He was sentenced to life in prison. Susan Kelly had suspicious as to why: “It was a much more severe sentence than he would have received normally on the sex charges of which he’d been convicted. But he was being sent to the prison as the Boston Strangler. It was that simple.” Dr.

Ames Robey concurred: “I think the most difficult part of all of this was the feeling that whether they had it solved or not, they had quieted the public’s concern. So, theoretically everyone was happy.” In prison, DeSalvo was re-united with his old friend, George Nassar. Once again, questions were raised regarding Nassar’s possible involvement with the stranglings. Nassar admitted nothing: “Because Al was not tried, this case had become mythical, it became part of, like, a public fantasy of what really happened. It became a continuing mystery, when it should’ve been resolved. And I was part of the mystery.” Outside of prison, DeSalvo had become a legend. But inside, he feared his fame had made him a marked man. After more than six years behind bars, he asked to be transferred to a cell in the prison infirmary. Here, he would be isolated from the other inmates. On the evening of November 25th, 1973, DeSalvo telephoned his former psychiatrist, Dr. Ames Robey. “He wanted to talk to me, to tell me the, quote, real story.

He didn’t say what the real story was and I could only hope that this is what I would hear, but I never heard it. DeSalvo told Dr. Robey that he also intended to tell a reporter the same story. But before he talked to anyone, he was found in his cell murdered, stabbed repeatedly in the chest. Some believed that DeSalvo was involved in a drug deal gone bad. Others, including George Nassar, say DeSalvo was killed in a dispute over cuts of meat he was allegedly selling on the prison black market. To Dr. Robey, it was clear what had happened: “Somebody didn’t want that interview happening. And I think they’ve said before, ‘dead men tell no tales.’” Three inmates were eventually charged with Albert DeSalvo’s murder, but no one was ever convicted. Was Albert DeSalvo the Boston Strangler? F. Lee Bailey: “Albert DeSalvo was the Boston Strangler. We learned that at great and tragic expense to the community and then wasted him away. We could’ve learned a lot from Albert. We didn’t.” Dr.

Ames Robey: “I think Albert became the Boston Strangler because he wanted so much to be the Boston Strangler. It was the most important thing in his life. For somebody that felt all his life that he was a nobody, all of a sudden he could become world-renowned.” Susan Kelly: “After eight years of research on this case, one thing I'm certain of is that Albert DeSalvo was not the Boston Strangler. There are a number of very good suspects. None of them happen to be Albert DeSalvo.” Shortly after his murder, authorities came across a collection of poems that DeSalvo had written while in prison. One of them provided an intriguing footnote to the legend of the Boston Strangler. It read: Here’s the story of the strangler yet untold The man who claims he murdered 13 women, young and old Today he sits in a prison cell Deep inside only a secret he can tell People everywhere are still in doubt Is the strangler in prison, or roaming about? Despite these and other doubts, DeSalvo became known far and wide as the Boston Strangler. But recently, new physical evidence suggests the real killer or killers were never caught.

Samples of DNA found on the Strangler’s last victim seems to prove that Albert DeSalvo was not the Boston Strangler. On January 4, 1964, Mary Sullivan was found by her roommate, strangled to death and sexually assaulted. In a final morbid gesture, placed at her feet was a Happy New Year card. The police collected semen left on Mary’s body by the killer. But in 1964, there was no way to match it to a suspect. Albert DeSalvo later admitted he’d killed Mary. However, two families have formed a surprising alliance to challenge his confession: the family of Mary Sullivan and the family of Albert DeSalvo, including his brother Richard: “I never believed my brother was the Boston Strangler from day one. I just want the name cleared. That's all. Albert was not perfect. Albert did some bad things.

Albert was not a murderer.” Mary Sullivan's sister, Diane, also believes that DeSalvo was not the killer: “I'm gonna do everything I can to find her murderer, to find the murderer of Mary.” According to Casey Sherman, Mary Sullivan’s nephew, he contacted the Boston police and asked about possible DNA evidence in The Strangler case: “I made several inquiries to the Boston police department and they told me flat out that they did not have any physical evidence left in the Boston Strangler case to test for DNA evidence.” So Mary Sullivan’s family turned to the only evidence available to them: Mary’s remains. Casey said the family felt exhumation was the only way they could settle the case: “We had to do the exhumation of my aunt's body. It was a horrible experience. We didn't want to do it, but it was our last and only recourse, we thought, and it was the only chance to find her killer.” The Sullivans got help from a team of forensic experts, including world-renowned Professor of Law and Forensic Science, James Starrs: “We were obviously looking for any seminal fluid, and we do know that seminal fluid will fluoresce under UV light.

So we looked, and seminal fluid fluoresced, and it was also in the right location for seminal fluid. It's on pubic hair.” Forensic molecular biologist Dr. David Foran was another member of the team: “So we examined that, hoping to get any DNA from it. We had to be extra careful because, obviously, her hair is going to have her DNA in it, so one of the tricky parts becomes isolating DNA only from this material that's stuck in the pubic hair, and not from the hair itself.” Dr. Foran successfully isolated a DNA sequence and compared it to Albert DeSalvo's genes using DNA taken from his brother, Richard. The results were virtually indisputable; the semen was not Albert DeSalvo’s. It confirmed to Casey Sherman that his family made the right decision in exhuming his aunt’s body: “When he said that there was DNA, they believed, from Mary's killer on her body, and that DNA didn't match Albert DeSalvo, it was just complete vindication as far as I was concerned.” The results led James Starrs to lay down a challenge: “For those who say that Albert DeSalvo did do it, the shoe is on their foot now.

It's for them to come forward and show the evidence to prove that Albert DeSalvo did do it.” But if Albert DeSalvo did not kill Mary Sullivan, then who did? The detectives who first investigated the killing found a strange piece of evidence in her bathroom. According to Diane Dodd, Mary’s sister, it implicated Mary's abusive ex-boyfriend: “They found an ascot cut up in the toilet. When my sister dated this person, that's all she bought him for presents, because he loved ascots. So I could see him definitely cutting that ascot up in the bathroom, and I could absolutely see him killing Mary.” Another suspect emerged based on an eyewitness account. A neighbor saw a man in Mary's apartment at the approximate time of the murder. Mary’s roommate had a boyfriend who matched the description given by the neighbor. He may have had access to Mary's apartment, and her keys, explaining why there were no signs of forced entry. Casey Sherman felt this scenario made sense: “Her apartment key had gone missing the day before she was killed. Now this key hadn’t fallen off the keychain. It was taken off.” The suspect was brought in for a polygraph test.

According to police, his responses were deemed “untruthful.” Once DeSalvo had confessed however, investigations into this suspect and Mary’s ex-boyfriend, were closed. According to author Susan Kelly, the police also had strong suspects in several of the other murders: “If Albert wasn’t the Boston Strangler, who was the Boston Strangler? From what my research indicates, there wasn’t one, there were many.” On June 14, 1962, the Strangler claimed his first victim, 56-year-old Anna Slesers. Earlier that day, a painting crew was working at her apartment. Sixteen days later, the same painting crew arrived at the apartment building of Helen Blake. She became victim number two. Casey Sherman thinks the connection is obvious: “Two of the members of the painting crew, their alibis couldn’t be corroborated by their boss or by their fellow workers. And that’s an unusual connection.” Casey points out that the police also had a suspect for victim number six, 20-year-old Sophie Clark: “The suspect in the Sophie Clark case was seen entering her apartment building.

He was seen fleeing her apartment building, covered in sweat.” Police identified the man and learned that he had dated Sophie at least once. He was given polygraph tests on two separate occasions and, according to authorities, failed both. Victim number seven was 23-year-old Patricia Bissett. In this case, police also had a strong suspect: Patricia’s boss, the man who discovered her body. Casey did some of his own research into her murder: “Detectives found out that Patricia Bissett was having an affair with her happily married boss at the time she was killed. Well, I found her autopsy report. It shows that she was one month pregnant when she was murdered. Not only do you have motive, you have a suspect there.” But investigation of all these suspects stopped cold when Albert DeSalvo confessed. Susan Kelly says her research reveals the true picture: “There’s a possibility that some of the older women died at the hands of the same person.

Each of the young women who died was murdered by a different individual who had his own motives.” Casey Sherman suspected that many of the murders were copy-cat killings: “If you hated a woman back in the early 1960’s, you could kill her, loosely wrap a stocking around her neck, and hope that the police would think it was the Boston Strangler. All the grizzly details were printed in the papers at the time. If you wanted to commit a murder, here was your diagram.” The Sullivan family continues to hope that Mary’s killer will one day be identified and prosecuted. Bringing some peace of mind to his mother is Casey’s prime motivation: “I want closure for my mother. My mother has had to live nearly 40 years without any answers in this case. We want to publicly identify Mary’s killer, look him in the eye, and tell him what he stole from us.” Update:

Question: What was the real name of the murderer known as the 'Boston Strangler'?
Answer: ALBERT DE SALVO