MA MA - ALBERT DESALVO, The Boston Strangler, 1960's

[bessie]

Help me out someone, cuz I'm feeling really dumb.

Why was the body exhumed a second time?? Are the agencies not sharing?

And if DNA didn't match in 2009, why does it match now?

Is Suffolk County claiming an error in the 2009 testing? And if so, why is there no mention of it?

I'm sure I've overlooked something obvious, so what the heck is it? :waitasec:

February 11, 2009, 9:23 PM
James Starrs, a professor of forensic science and law at George Washington University, said investigators found DNA evidence on the remains of Mary Sullivan and compared it with DNA from the remains of DeSalvo, whose body was exhumed just before Thanksgiving.

"We have found evidence and the evidence does not and cannot be associated with Albert DeSalvo," Starrs said at a news conference.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/18/national/main302130.shtml

Published: July 11, 2013
BOSTON — Investigators said Thursday that they had linked the man believed by many to have been the Boston Strangler to DNA found in the home of a woman thought to be the Strangler’s last victim...

...had recently tested seminal fluid samples taken from Ms. Sullivan’s body, and the blanket on which it was found. They identified a near-certain match with Albert DeSalvo...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/us/dna-evidence-identified-in-boston-strangler-case.html?_r=1&

 

[wfgodot]

It's either "exciting new advances in DNA technology in these last four years" or "Boston D.A. wanting publicity to set up run for future office."

 

[believe09]

"Boston D.A. wanting publicity to set up run for future office."

LOL, wfgodot! This one is my vote.

 

[STANDREID]

Help me out someone, cuz I'm feeling really dumb.

Why was the body exhumed a second time?? Are the agencies not sharing?

And if DNA didn't match in 2009, why does it match now?

Is Suffolk County claiming an error in the 2009 testing? And if so, why is there no mention of it?

Don't feel bad - I'm wondering same.:findinglink:

 

[bessie]

Lab: Confessed Boston Strangler's DNA on slain woman's body

By CNN Staff updated 2:05 PM EDT, Fri July 19, 2013

A lab test confirms DNA evidence taken from the body of a murder victim matches Albert DeSalvo, who at one point confessed to being the Boston Strangler, Massachusetts authorities said Friday.

I figured out what I was missing. LOL The previous exhumation wasn't done in 2008, it was in 2001!

This is from the CBS article Backwoods referenced earlier.

CBS/ February 11, 2009, 9:23 PM
DNA evidence taken from one of the 11 women killed by the Boston Strangler does not match that of Albert DeSalvo, who police have said was the infamous 1960s killer, a scientist said Thursday.

James Starrs, a professor of forensic science and law at George Washington University, said investigators found DNA evidence on the remains of Mary Sullivan and compared it with DNA from the remains of DeSalvo, whose body was exhumed just before Thanksgiving.

But below the article:

© MMI, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.

The link even reads 2001, but I didn't notice it. And here's a link to a NYT article from 2001:

By PHILIP J. HILTS
Published: November 20, 2001
Now, forensic scientists hired by the families of DeSalvo and the final victim, Mary Sullivan, have exhumed the bodies and examined them for DNA and other evidence. They say their analysis, nearly complete, has produced enticing new clues -- and some new mysteries.
The forensic team expects to make a detailed report in Washington in a few weeks, said its leader, James E. Starrs, a law professor at George Washington University. The team says it expects to announce these findings, among others:
*DNA found on Miss Sullivan's body is not hers and may be that of her killer -- whether DeSalvo or someone else, the forensic team will not say.
*The forensic team found a hair, missed at the time of the killing, in the young woman's teeth. The scientists say it may be from her killer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/20/science/new-clues-and-puzzles-in-boston-strangler-case.html

Now it makes sense when they say the latest test came about through "new technology". :facepalm: :floorlaugh:

 

[STANDREID]

I can see the first test being inconclusive and then later shown to be DeSalvo but I'd like to see an explanation of how one could exclude him and one include him. It is possible that the tests were from two different samples and if so then either DeSalvo had an accomplice or it was unrelated to the crime.

 

[STANDREID]

I can see the first test being inconclusive and then later shown to be DeSalvo but I'd like to see an explanation of how one could exclude him and one include him. It is possible that the tests were from two different samples and if so then either DeSalvo had an accomplice or it was unrelated to the crime.

Or, there's some sort of corruption either accidental or intentional in one or the other test.

 

[believe09]

thank you Standreid-I agree completely.

 

[bessie]

Or, there's some sort of corruption either accidental or intentional in one or the other test.

In 2001, a forensic expert hired by the DeSalvo and Sullivan families through their attorneys, excluded DeSalvo based on a DNA profile obtained from DeSalvo's exhumed remains.

Now, forensic scientists hired by the families of DeSalvo and the final victim, Mary Sullivan, have exhumed the bodies and examined them for DNA and other evidence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/20/s...es-in-boston-strangler-case.html?pagewanted=1

"We have found evidence and the evidence does not and cannot be associated with Albert DeSalvo," Starrs said at a news conference.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/18/national/main302130.shtml

LE, on the other hand, didn't have a "usable" DNA profile for comparison until recently. The DNA for that profile was extracted from the saliva of DeSalvo's nephew, obtained from a discarded water bottle. According to the July 11 NYT article, the testing was done by two private labs.

But early attempts to recover usable DNA samples were inconclusive...

Investigators said they used a test of male chromosomes passed from generation to generation, and found a match that gave them virtual certainty of Mr. DeSalvo’s guilt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/us/dna-evidence-identified-in-boston-strangler-case.html?_r=2&

Subsequently, DeSalvo's body was exhumed for a second time.

DNA test ties Albert DeSalvo to Boston Strangler victim

Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY 2:15 p.m. EDT July 19, 2013

Conley said authorities now have an "unprecedented level of certainty" DeSalvo raped and strangled Mary Sullivan in her Charles Street apartment in Boston on a January afternoon in 1964...

Authorities obtained a search warrant and dug up DeSalvo's remains after an initial test on seminal fluid found at the Sullivan murder site showed a "familial match" to DNA taken secretly from a DeSalvo relative.

So to answer your question, different samples were used, but both were extracted directly from DeSalvo's remains. The latest results, however, are bolstered by the preliminary "familial match". IMO, the earlier results are questionable.

 

[STANDREID]

If it's legitimate, the first result actually seems more reliable to me. Both sides got the result they wanted at any rate.

 

[STANDREID]

At least we should have DeSalvo's DNA results on file now so we don't have to dig him up again.

 

[STANDREID]

I guess we need a tie breaker now.

 

[STANDREID]

It is possible that the tests were from two different samples and if so then either DeSalvo had an accomplice or it was unrelated to the crime.

I haven't seen any testimony either from DeSalvo or witnesses that indicated that he could have had an accomplice.

 

[STANDREID]

It is possible that the tests were from two different samples and if so then either DeSalvo had an accomplice or it was unrelated to the crime.

I haven't seen any testimony either from DeSalvo or witnesses that indicated that he could have had an accomplice.

 

[STANDREID]

Fifty years ago next month and after about a 12 week break, the killer was winding down his activities with his penultimate murder.

 

[STANDREID]

Fifty years ago next month and after about a 12 week break, the killer was winding down his activities with his penultimate murder.

If the "older women" murders were by another hand, that culprit had already ended his killing.

 

[STANDREID]

The last older woman murdered was early September of 63 and there are some doubts about that one because of some variation.

 

[Dragonfyree]

I thought I read somewhere or saw on TV that Mary Sullivan's family accepts the new DNA match.

I still don't believe whoever the Boston Strangler was, that he murdered all the women, I think they're more unalike than alike, and the police just lumped them all together.

The Patricia Bissette one is really different from the others. The care taken with her body and her peacefully (as much as you can be after you're murdered) laying in her bed.

I think the older victims were different from the younger victims.

I also don't know why there was only DNA in Mary Sullivan's case?

 

[STANDREID]

The last Strangler victim, 19-year-old Mary Sullivan, was found murdered 50 years ago tomorrow.

 

[STANDREID]

DeSalvo continued to perpetrate Green Man crimes for months more however.