Discussion in 'Serial Killers' started by STANDREID, Jun 21, 2012.
Not as far as I know, in terms of the DNA. The Commonwealth officially considers the case closed now (again), and they've said that all the other evidence in the case is too deteriorated.
Thank you so much for ordering my book!
Didn't he have a sister? Is sibling DNA similar?
Thank you. Another issue here--insofar as the Sullivan case is concerned--is that DeSalvo claimed to have visited some of the crime scenes in the aftermath of the murders. He was a pretty skilled b & e guy, except when he got caught (grin), and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he was in the Sullivan apartment. It would not have been difficult. Even in 1992, you could still walk right into the building; there was no lock on the front door.
More to the point: DeSalvo was addicted to masturbation, so often every day that he'd make himself bleed. He also masturbated in the presence of one of his Green Man victims, according to her own testimony. I don't think it's at all unlikely that he might have masturbated and ejaculated onto the Sullivan blanket.
Sorry if that was TMI, but it seems relevant.
Yes, several siblings. Richard, his brother, repeatedly offered his own DNA sample to the Commonwealth for testing, and they always refused the offer.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Didn't Schereschewsky have a sister?
I doubt she'd be willing to implicate a family member, even a deceased one. She herself may not be alive any longer.
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.
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?
I just really wanna say............... ^^How cool is that ?^^
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.
And the Lawrence victim, Joann Graff, was a friend of the mother of one of my sister's classmates; she attended our Lutheran church.
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.
No, they wouldn't have. It was a big local story, but there was no reason for the Hilton murder, or the previous one, to have gotten nationwide coverage. Of course, that all changed a few years later.
I see your point about paid experts. But, in this case, the autopsies were performed by Baden and a team of forensics experts. The DNA samples were then analyzed by a scientist at George Washington University who had no vested interest in the outcome. I observed the second autopsy of DeSalvo, and it was performed very professionally. I was particularly impressed by the care they took to preserve the tissue samples, and by the precautions taken to avoid adulteration. Everyone present, for example, had to submit a sample of his or her own DNA in order to eliminate any cross-contamination.
As you say, the really striking differences in the ages and races of the various victims is a big, big red flag. Thank you for ordering my book; I hope you enjoy it.
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.
The de-escalation is a oddity and certainly not common in serial killers. However, it was generally never believed that they were married men living "normal" lives when they weren't committing murders either, except BTK and Gary Ridgeway shot that theory all to heck.
I just fail to see how DNA is not conclusive evidence that DeSalvo was the killer. I haven't gotten to the Mary Sullivan chapter yet, but I assume the prime suspect was known to her on some level? But DeSalvo was not. So, how on earth was his DNA there?
That is just a bit too much coincidence for me. The DNA of the guy who confessed to 13 murders, including Mary Sullivan, is found at the murder scene. He did not know her socially. What other possible explanation is there?
He has to be the killer of Mary. Given that, and given the various profiles of his victims in the sex crimes, that do not seem to be disputed, it stands to reason he was the Boston Strangler.
Prior to the DNA, for years and years, I was convinced he was not the strangler. I hate it when my theories get shot to heck. This is the second big theory I held onto for as long as I could, and finally had to give up but I really don't see any other conclusion on this one. At least I was right on Sam Sheppard.
Of course, that doesn't mean he killed all of them, although I am also leaning to him being the killer of Sophie Clark. I realize he described her shoes incorrectly but the high heels could have been part of his fantasy. Obviously he really was nuts. I had previously held her death as one of the ones that really made no sense with her being African American and, of course, the first young viticm. But I really don't think that is relevent in this particular case.
In spite of what the OJ jury tought, IMO, DNA does not lie.