CANADA Canada - Mary Ann Plett, 29, Edmonton AB, Sept 15 1971

New Posts

pleasestandby said:
[url]https://books.google.com/books?id=khe2SDBCVxQC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=mary+ann+plett&source=bl&ots=gVw3I1rayo&sig=wEBT--Fg0jKAauWeLSMWiZlGISU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0q_2F_aLJAhUGNj4KHai1BLIQ6AEIPTAH#v=onepage&q=mary%20ann%20plett&f=false[/URL]

Deadly Encounters: True Crime Stories of Alberta

page 62...

"Had anyone seen a car resembling the Plett's two-tone green Pontiac? If not, had they noticed anything at all during the day that seemed in anyway unusual? No, was the consistent reply. No one had seen or heard anything out of the ordinary.

It was indeed strange, then that one of the women Jake questioned that night called police the next day. She had apparently forgotten having seen a car meeting the description of the Plett's being driven slowly down the road between her house and the acreage. She reported that there had been a man and a woman in the car and that the woman looked frightened.

The lady's motives for the call have never been clearly understood by authorities..."

________________________________________________________________________

The book further states that MAP was only 5' 2" tall, 120 lbs. Not exactly a romantic match for a "rather large man".

In the same book, page 65, page 73, Mary Ann had told her husband that she did not like Cooper and felt extremely uneasy with him. She told him the client was in the habit of muttering to himself and occasionally seemed to be locked in an audible argument with himself.

That's quite a distinct description for someone to tell their husband if she's having an affair and trying to keep it from him. Why say anything at all and draw attention to the affair?

I also find it hard to believe that Mary Ann Plett fooled her friends, family and coworkers about an affair and her husband was also, after her death, able to fool his family, friends and all those veteran detectives into believing he was innocent and was able to carry on the charade throughout the search and the funeral without once bringing any suspicion on himself.

Jake also had to quit college, get a job and raise several children by himself. Not exactly an end result I'd want to end up with.
Click to expand...

Anyone suggesting that the investigators were thorough enough, that they knew better, that they were beyond reproach and could not be fooled or dissuaded during the years Pickton was operating, sure are wearing egg on their face now.

Around the world daily, women are murdered by their spouses because of a perceived insult like infidelity... without the husband giving a second thought to the future consequences.

How else would she describe the man she was potentially having an affair with? Attractive? Smart? Intelligent? Funny? "Yes Honey, he wants to meet tonight and will only talk to me at the office. There is nothing strange about that, he's just a fat, ugly weird man." I guarantee you, any man in a momogamous relationship, even in today's world, would be a bit suspicious... let alone in the 70's in a strict Christian household.

A year later, he had a new woman, was writing a book and probably made some money off of the story.

Does that make him guilty? No... but there is no sign of innocence there either.
 
It actually begs the question, if this weird man who annoyed her so much and muttered to himself was so scary, why didn't she ask the husband to come along that day? She obviously knew his school schedule.

Why did no one else know who this guy was or ever see him? How and why did she actually keep this guy that big a secret from everyone? Did no one suggest to her it was weird for him not to at least leave a number? Why would she defend it? To make a sale? Did she really not have a contact number for him? Was that the reason the briefcase was dumped? Was there anything missing from the briefcase? Pages of a planner or notebook?
 
OutOfTheDarkness said:
It actually begs the question, if this weird man who annoyed her so much and muttered to himself was so scary, why didn't she ask the husband to come along that day? She obviously knew his school schedule.

Why did no one else know who this guy was or ever see him? How and why did she actually keep this guy that big a secret from everyone? Did no one suggest to her it was weird for him not to at least leave a number? Why would she defend it? To make a sale? Did she really not have a contact number for him? Was that the reason the briefcase was dumped? Was there anything missing from the briefcase? Pages of a planner or notebook?
Click to expand...

I'm not aware that her coworkers had no clue that she had in the past shown this acreage or that she again was showing it. Where was their input?

If her husband did kill her, I would think the person she was allegedly messing around with would have come forward, especially after her body was found. I would think he would have been afraid to become the next victim. Also, why not kill him, too? After all, he was part of the problem and a loose end who potentially could have come forward and cast suspicion on the husband.
 
pleasestandby said:
I'm not aware that her coworkers had no clue that she had in the past shown this acreage or that she again was showing it. Where was their input?

If her husband did kill her, I would think the person she was allegedly messing around with would have come forward, especially after her body was found. I would think he would have been afraid to become the next victim. Also, why not kill him, too? After all, he was part of the problem and a loose end who potentially could have come forward and cast suspicion on the husband.
Click to expand...

Her co-workers obviously knew, as they were the ones taking the calls, and obviously knew her schedule. Why not have him come to the office that day, and then go from there? Why did it have to be a pick up away from the office? Why did she go along with that? Why did she willingly keep anyone from seeing this guy? The third time to see the property alone with a guy that mutters to himself? Really?

This was 1971. Conservative. Would an "adulterer" really come forward and admit to an affair, especially if he himself had a wife and family? Would he not automatically become the prime suspect? It may even be that the man she was having an affair with IS the killer.

All this is hypothetical of course... but assuming there was an affair, we don't know that the husband knew who it was with. Like I outlined earlier, the husband could have been the one to call that morning... "(whispering) It's *James*... can't talk... pick me up at the mall at 11... I have a hotel room and a bottle of bubbly." It could've been a test for all we know. He goes to the mall and waits... if she shows, then he knows. If she's a no show and tells him later about the inappropriate man... then he feels better.

What would the conversation be like if he got in the car when she showed at the mall?

Were there any unsolved male murders in the same time frame, in the same area?
 
It's the meeting multiple times before the murder, the fact she seemed to go along with calls and meetings at 'all hours' as it was described, and her seemingly keeping others away that sets of the skeptical alarms.

Why didn't the perp just do it the first time? Was he building up the courage? That is a big risk to take, meeting multiple times and calling the office more than once... not leaving a number and odd behaviour just draws attention to yourself.
 
It's all well and good to hear the opinions of the investigators at the time. If you stop there, however, you reach the same place they do... unsolved. You have to look at the evidence, and draw your own conclusions...

Considering she may have had an affair is not victim bashing. It is interpreting the evidence. Ignoring the possibility means potentially ignoring the truth. Is there a little doodle on a page somewhere with his name on it that got overlooked because they refused to think a good christian woman would cheat? Did they look at all her papers for imprints of numbers and names because perhaps she jotted something down with those pages underneath?

Was there any gossip at the time in the office that anyone was reluctant to discuss back then that perhaps today they might be more comfortable revealing?

Perhaps with today's search capabilities, and Internet access, someone may come forward if the case is exposed and discussed properly in the proper context.
 
Have no idea what 'evidence' is being used in order to interpret that MAP was having an affair. To say one is introducing that as a possibility would be fair - no one at the time however, including JP made such as interpretation.

Again, what exactly is the evidence that Mary Ann met with 'Cooper' - other than what husband JP said. Phone messages from co-workers is all I can see that a person named 'Cooper' had contact with Mary Ann. Poor evidence imo - could have been anyone making those calls.
 
Woodland said:
Have no idea what 'evidence' is being used in order to interpret that MAP was having an affair. To say one is introducing that as a possibility would be fair - no one at the time however, including JP made such as interpretation.

Again, what exactly is the evidence that Mary Ann met with 'Cooper' - other than what husband JP said. Phone messages from co-workers is all I can see that a person named 'Cooper' had contact with Mary Ann. Poor evidence imo - could have been anyone making those calls.
Click to expand...

So everyone tells the absolute truth all the time, every time?

Is a killer really going to openly admit he knew or suspected she was having an affair? Really? Self incriminating, no?

Is a killer going to openly admit he was having an affair with her? Really? Self incriminating, no?

What does one do when having an affair, especially in the 70's? Meet at odd hours. Make excuses for needing more time than it should really take. Ensure no one can find contact information for him. Ensure no one sees you together. Ensure your cover story is difficult to confirm. Play down any suspicions. All of that was present here. Dismissing it outright because you believe everything you're told, or are relying on someone's interpretation from long ago is foolhardy. There are a lot of things from the 70's we don't do or believe in anymore, and we aren't so naive about human nature like most were back then.

No doubt it may have been a serial killer from out of town. That has been investigated. Fail. Great. Now you have to start over with a fresh take.

Where is the evidence it was a stranger? From the same source. Witnesses. If you insist on iterpreting their words one way only... then you will have unsolved cases.
 
Just watch any episode of "The First 48". Thankfully, the investigators there take nothing at face value.
 
OutOfTheDarkness said:
Just watch any episode of "The First 48". Thankfully, the investigators there take nothing at face value.
Click to expand...

Was thinking the same thing - however they do act on evidence they can find rather than introducing speculation with no back-up. No wild goose chases - just the chase.
 
We also have to look at the lie detector test. It doesn't matter if he passed. They could be fooled, especially back then. Why was there a need to take one if he had an iron clad alibi?

He obviously had a window of opportunity there somewhere, and someone obviously suspected him.
 
September 15, 1971 - She Disappears
April 17, 1972 - Body Found
April 24, 1972 - Funeral
May 1, 1972 - Meets New Woman
June 3, 1972 - They Get Engaged
August 12, 1972 - They Get Married

Less than 4 months after she was found... less than a year after she disappeared... remarried.
 
Where did JP meet the new wife? Could he have already known her? Can you provide your source?
 
OutOfTheDarkness said:
September 15, 1971 - She Disappears
April 17, 1972 - Body Found
April 24, 1972 - Funeral
May 1, 1972 - Meets New Woman
June 3, 1972 - They Get Engaged
August 12, 1972 - They Get Married

Less than 4 months after she was found... less than a year after she disappeared... remarried.
Click to expand...

The second wife was from Edmonton. I believe they had two girls.

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FL1S-BQX

A 1976 ad for his book tour...

[video]http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm176/pleasestandby2/jacobplett_zps6tcraeaz.png[/video]

70,000 copies x $1.95 per copy = $136,500.00 Not much of a return on his money after costs. I did note in researching news articles on the murder that Jacob Plett was a church pastor before and after the murder. None of the articles relating to the murders in 1971-72 mentioned that fact, possibly because he was going to school at the time?
 
Pg 61 of the google book indicates Jake called the Looma property owners, thought of calling MaryAnn's mother but didn't, then called a babysitter. After making babysitting arrangements he called the realty office back and said "I've called around and can't track MaryAnn down".

Were the property owners the only folks he called in his attempts to track her down?

https://books.google.ca/books?id=kh...edir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=mary ann plett&f=false
 
OutOfTheDarkness said:
It's the meeting multiple times before the murder, the fact she seemed to go along with calls and meetings at 'all hours' as it was described, and her seemingly keeping others away that sets of the skeptical alarms.

Why didn't the perp just do it the first time? Was he building up the courage? That is a big risk to take, meeting multiple times and calling the office more than once... not leaving a number and odd behaviour just draws attention to yourself.
Click to expand...

Very good points, but I honestly think this was a situation where she simply wasn't thinking clearly. She was a woman in a competitive occupation so who knows why she wouldn't have taken any safety precautions with "Mr. Cooper". It all seems very strange, she really should have insisted that Cooper meet her at her office and a third showing shouldn't have been arranged without someone going with her to show the property with Mr. Cooper. If she lost a sale, big deal, her life and safety was much more important than a sale.
 
Mary Ann left her office to meet Mr. Cooper at 10:00 AM, just as Jake's only class for the day ended. He was home well before noon.
Click to expand...

By 8:00 the next morning, when Jake Plett had not arrived to pick up his sister-in-law for their regular drive to the university...
Click to expand...

One can see, by both instances in the book, previously quoted, that Jake didn't get out of class until 10:00 AM, the same time his wife left for her appointment and that he picked up his sister-in-law at 8:00 AM. Assuming it's a one hour class and he picks the S-I-L up, as usual, at 8:00 AM, if it takes an hour to get there, it also takes an hour to get back home so it would be eleven before he got home. The book says well before noon which I take as 11:30 AMish tops. (Would Mary Ann have waited at the mall an hour/hour and a half?)

Assuming that grade school gets out at 3:00 PM, that makes only a 4 hour window of opportunity in which Jake goes to the mall, incapacitates his wife, throws her in the trunk (where her wig falls off), drives through city traffic and then 170km/105mi at 55mph for 1.91 hours to the Ft. Assinibone area, dumps her body off in one location, drives to another location and disposes of her clothes off the side of the road, drives to another location, gets rid of her suitcase, drives to yet another location, gets rid of real estate papers, then makes the 170km/105mi 1.91 hour trip back to Edmonton doing 55mph, drives through city traffic and gets home in time to pick his kids up from school, or meet them at home, at 3:00 pm.

I highly doubt it. If the statement by the woman about the victim and killer being seen out at the acreage is true, that would make the above scenario that much more incredible.

Considering that a serial killer didn't get her, which is probably what happened, I'd say the next best scenario was she was taking business away from another (jealous) realtor who was losing business because of her success. That's why the paperwork was hidden, in two locations, no less, and not brought back. The killer thought there would be something in the papers implicating him in the crime and he was making sure there was no evidence being brought back. That's the angle I'd pursue, second to a serial killer scenario.

As far as Jake marrying so soon after the murder, he came to grips with reality and moved on with his life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 192 more.
Total: 4,490 (members: 193, guests: 4,297)

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
4,297
Total visitors
4,490
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,007
Messages
17,979,667
Members
228,984
Latest member
fbifedora
Back
Top