I have not read your book but I have read some previews from it online. I have it on my list of about 6 books to buy in June or July. Gotta keep the postage costs down so I am waiting for one book I want that comes out in July and then I will order all at once.
Anyhow, one person I am really curious about is the suspect Bradley Schereschewsky. Has anyone done any further research on him? Checked his DNA? Anything? Is he still alive? I think he would be about 80 or so?
Good questions
Didn't he have a sister? Is sibling DNA similar?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Didn't Schereschewsky have a sister?
We are passed 50 years for all the claimed Strangler murders now but the last murder committed by Nassar is still coming up for same in a few months.
What I have found interesting is some of the more recent TV shows and books where England is using DNA to look at old cases - solved and unsolved.
There was a DNA sample taken from a slide of the body found in Dr. Crippen's cellar - matched it against great nieces of his wife Cora and finding it doesn't match.
I also read about that DNA from the A6 murder - which matched James Hanratty, who had been thought to be not guilty by a lot of people.
I've wondered if they have kept the stuff from the Charles Lindburgh Jr. kidnapping. Would love to see if there was any DNA on it. Get a better answer as to whether Hauptmann was guilty. I think there were letters - so possible DNA on stamps. Or on the baby's clothes and bedding.
Indeed it is. I grew up in the town where it happened. It was horrific. Of course it never occurred to me as a child that someday I'd write about it.
The problem with touch DNA is that there is no way to assure that it came from the killer. It can easily be spread by second hand contact. I shake your hand then touch a blanket that a victim is found on. You may have never actually touched the blanket or even been at the location of the blanket, but you Touch DNA is there because I touched it.
As for Hauptmann there is little doubt he was guilty, but there is certainly more than reasonable doubt that he must have had an accomplice.
As for DeSalvo, I have never believed a. that he was the Strangler and b. that all the crimes were comitted by the same person. Just the vast difference in ages of the victims is a huge red flag to me.
However, I was under the impression that I was recently proveh wrong at least as far as the final victim. Didn't they just recently announce that DeSalvo's DNA was, in fact. found on her body, or did I dream that?
:seeya:
Hi !
I just really wanna say............... ^^How cool is that ?^^
Indeed it is. I grew up in the town where it happened. It was horrific. Of course it never occurred to me as a child that someday I'd write about it.
I think I might have replied to a similar question back a page or so, but, yes, DeSalvo's DNA was found on a blanket in the apartment. He had confessed to breaking into some of the crime scenes in the aftermath of the murders, so it's conceivable he left his DNA there. BUT--and it's a big but--male DNA matching that of a prime suspect in the case (not DeSalvo) was found on Sullivan's body by Dr. Michael Baden.
I don't think Nassar's murders got any coverage here in IL but I was in hs when the Strangler murders were all over the news.
Breaking and entering into crime scenes after the murders? Was he supposed to be following the actual killer or killers around or was that just amazing coincidence?
Actually if he made that claim, I would be more likely to consider him guilty. It is such a ludicrous claim I would have to assume he was setting up a defense in case he had been observed or left some other type of evidence (since DNA would obviously have not been a consideration to DeSalvo).
Unfortunalely I have come to a point where most of the for hire Doctor's (Baden, Wecht) proclamations have about as much influence with me as a politician telling me they will make everything better. I am sure some of them must really mean what they are saying, but I just do not find them credible any more (although Wecht is far worse than Baden, IMO).
However, I am always interested, for some strange reason, in these old cases. I am anxously awaiting the arrival of your book from Amazon, so i will be able to form a more informed opinion. Meanwhile I am re-reading a book on the Marilyn Sheppard murder, even older than these crimes.
So I am about Two Thirds through "The Boston Stanglers" and I have to say, reading it now from the pespective of knowing about the DNA found at Mary Sullivan's murder matching De Salvo, I am actually more convinced of his guilt.
I had either forgotten, or I never realized that his victims as the Green Man were also quite diverse in terms of age. So if that is the case, I am not sure you can then preclude the possibility that he woud have chosen varied victims as the Strangler.
I just don't think I can get past the DNA evidence.
Of Course, that said, I think it is reasonable that not every single one of the identified and generally accepted "victims" were, in fact victims of the Boston Strangler. Patricia Bissete stands out as one that, IMO, very likely was not.
However, I would have said the same thing about Mary Sullivan prior to the DNA evidence and obviously would have been wrong.
That's an interesting point. But consider this: If DeSalvo was a serial killer capable of performing horrific crimes, why did he suddenly decide to alter his behavior so radically and revert to molesting women rather than murdering them? This doesn't happen with serial killers. They don't stop unless they're caught or killed. Generally they get worse, like Ted Bundy.
And you must bear in mind the fact that the DNA of the principal suspect in the murder of Mary Sullivan was also found on her body, in the pubic area. It wasn't DeSalvo's.