In Massachusetts, police are preparing to exhume the body of Albert DeSalvo (died 1974), who is suspected of being the “Boston Strangler” murderer. This is being done to see if his DNA matched that of a sample of DNA, which was found on the body of the last victim (murdered in 1964).
Now, I know that open crimes should be closed, but given that DeSalvo and most of the original investigators are long dead, why spend the money? Plus, does this really prove that DeSalvo was the only murderer? Suppose the (1964) forensic examination of the body inadvertently cross-contaminated the samples?
Because if he didn’t do that particular murder, then someone is still on the loose [or was and died in the meantime]
maybe I am different, but if my mother or aunt had been murdered and it turned out after all these years it wasn’t the guy we thought it was, I would want to know. Probably a bit late, but I could stop being pissed off at the wrong person. [not that it would make one bit of difference to the dead guy]
Also, if I was the child of someone wrongly accused of murder, I’d want to know (although I don’t think that’s an issue in this case).
Closure for the victim’s families as well. If it was your family member that was murdered, wouldn’t you want to know who did it?
I know someone who is the daughter of the prosecutor in that case. She wants an end to the theories that the wrong man was convicted. It may not seem like important public policy on that basis alone, but it’s the same reason such questions affect everyone involved, not to mention that simply setting the record straight is the proper thing to do.
And there you go - conspiracy believers will always find some way to justify their fave theories.
But for the rational folks, further closing the books on this notorious case is worthwhile, for previously cited reasons. And I doubt an exhumation and DNA testing are that costly.
See, I think all the money spent on that just to satisfy your idle curiously isn’t enough justification. They revisit the case every year, which sounds like a lot of man hours not being spent on current law enforcement. Aren’t things like this better left to National Geographic or the History Channel or something?
It’s a cold case, but it’s still an open murder investigation. A lot of people still harbor doubts that it was actually DeSalvo, including families of some of the victims who would very much like to see much more effort put into finding the “real killer.” If it were someone else, the killer could still be alive; getting a positive DNA match closes the case and puts any doubts to rest as well as any argument that police should be investigating the “real killer,” at least as concerns that victim. It’s really not something that can be left up to the History Channel - when a judge orders a grave dug up they call it exhumation, but when the crew from the History Channel does it they start calling it nasty things like desecration and grave robbing.
Then you and I fundamentally disagree on a lot of things, from the Hubble Space Telescope to whether President Zachary Taylor was assassinated. I mean, he probably wasn’t, but it took an exhumation and autopsy in 1991 to pretty much confirm it.
I do believe that DeSalvo’s cellmate did some of them. His name was something like George Nassar, and unlike DeSalvo had a genius IQ. DeSalvo’s consistently tested out in the low 90s.
One of the younger victims was pregnant, although it was so early she may not have even suspected it herself, and there’s evidence that the man believed to be the baby’s father did that one.
I like the the idea that the state will never stop its pursuit of the perpetrator of murder.
Most people expect this now, and it’s an important consideration. Law enforcement could in theory make a decision to focus resources on more solveable homicides within the last year, or the last five years, or what have you, and let cold cases go. People demand more than that now, though, and expect law enforcement to solve homicides for as long as it takes because nobody should be able to wait 5 years or 15 years or 50 years and know that after a while nobody cares anymore. If you commit murder society expects that law enforcement will look for you until you die.
From a psychological standpoint, Nassar was exactly the wrong type to have conned his way into women’s homes - he was a cold and rather scary guy, from accounts I’ve read.
DeSalvo on the other hand was a born con man (i.e. his career as the “Measuring Man”), a skilled burglar and serial rapist - it’s hard to imagine a more likely suspect.
It ain’t for nothin’ they chose Tony Curtis to play him.
The people involved don’t think it’s “idle”; for many people that case produced a huge impact that still affects them nowadays. What is your criteria to “leave things to National Geographic or the History Channel”? After five years? Ten? Does it change depending on what the subject is?
I wasn’t really talking about the victims’ immediate family. I was talking about the public being nosy and curious so we spend LE money on it. I think that’s for TV.
If the victims have siblings, spouses and parents still around and wondering, then sure.
It’s another example of wasting taxpayer money and resources just because “they can”. As if these goobers didn’t have a large stack of current cases to solve.
The police also use the new investigation to fine tune their investigative apparatus. See what they missed, what they did right, and what they did wrong.