Talk:Boston Strangler

Old discussion

He died on November 25, and was found on November 26 in his cell.

---

While "Unsolved Mysteries" suggests there was another killer, & deSalvo knew him, the book The Boston Strangler (1968?) mentions the first (or first 3) vics were all in their 60s, while later ones were in their 20s. It may not be a rule, but cert rule of thumb among profilers----

Isn't it true that Roy Smith was convicted of a murder that they only now credit to the Boston Strangler? A writer and reporter from Belmot, Mass., has a book on this, in fact.

Here is an excerpt from a 1963 Time article on this woman...

Bessie Goldberg, 62, wife of a real estate man, lay on the living-room floor of her Dutch-colonial home in Belmont, a well-to-do Boston suburb. Around her neck was a nylon stocking that had been stripped from her left leg. She was dead. Headlined the Boston Herald: HOUSEWIFE TENTH STRANGLE VICTIM.The ten women, all from the Boston area, have been strangled in the past nine months, throwing the city into panic. The Animal Rescue League cannot keep up with the demand for watchdogs. Hardware stores report a run on chain locks. Detectives have combed the dossiers of more than 2,000 known sex offenders.... Thenewsgeek 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of true, and it's worth including in the article. CNN has a story today on this subject here. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Move

I have reverted the move of this page. Please discuss the move before doing it. Thanks!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

This is a request for comments regarding the article. Substantial evidence has shown that Albert DeSalvo was NOT the Boston Strangler, nor a serial killer at all. I don't think it is appropriate to portray him as such, as the first sentence of the article does, nor to have "Boston Strangler" redirect to "Albert DeSalvo".

Oblyvia 08:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide links or sources to this evidence? Hominidx 16:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. http://www.unsolved.com/0216-Strangler.html : Explains that DNA proved he did not kill Mary Sullivan, the Strangler's 11th victim.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/boston/14.html : Explains that several people who saw the strangler before a killing could not identify DeSalvo. In fact, every witness failed to even claim to recognize DeSalvo in a photograph.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/boston/15.html : Explains that the only survivor of the attacks identified George Nassar, DeSalvo's jail mate, as possibly being the man who attacked her, but was absolutely positive DeSalvo was not the man. She described her attacker as slender with sharp, thin features and honey-colored hair. DeSalvo was a large man with large features and black hair. Another witness said the exact same thing--that Nassar was possibly the man she saw, but DeSalvo was definitely not.

The book "The Boston Stranglers" by Susan Kelly provides a near complete transcript of Desalvo's confession, and points out the blatant errors in his descriptions.

Interviews with the Boston Police Department lead to the conclusion that not only do the police not believe DeSalvo was the strangler, they also do not believe that any single person was. Too many differences in victim choice, MO and crime scene evidence force anyone with knowledge of serial killers to conclude there were at least 3 seperate killers at work. Oblyvia 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Parts of his confession are inconsistent but he was never cleared of all charges or found innocent in all murders attributed to the Boston Strangler, so language like "cracked the case" and "Showed that he was not the Boston Strangler" is inappropriate.

When a known rapist confesses to crimes and backs some of these claims up with knowledge only the killer should have, it takes more than an "expose" by some lady to exhonorate him. Witnesses not identifying the culprit, police suspecting someone else and the confessed possibly claiming other people's work as their own (which isn't all that uncommon) does not "prove" the innocence of a man that died claiming to be guilty, especially in an encyclopedia.

Unless it's been proven (not suggested or speculated) that he didn't kill any of the victims attributed to the BS, then he is the Boston Strangler. He seems to have killed at least 2 of the victims and no one else has been convicted of the other crimes. Perhaps you should reword to say he most likely didn't kill all, or possibly any (though I find this a stretch) of the supposed BS victims as he claimed, but stating emphatically that he is not the Boston Strangler and that this has been proven is misleading. 68.166.68.84 22:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree ... though there were discrepancies in the confessions there were also a lot of accuracies not all of which had been made public. So he either got these from 'the real strangler' ( many speculate that it could have been his cell mate George Nassar) or he was the strangler for at least some of the attributed murders. Confessing to additional crimes that he may not have committed ( not unusual for killers who may want to use insanity as a defence) does not show that he didn't commit any of the crimes. In my view there are just too many co -incidences to declare Desalvo innocent of all the murders. The fact that he does not fit the pattern that behavioural profilers expect for a serial killer is also not a convincing reason to show innocence .. it is not an exact science. Doctorpete 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to victims

Seems there has been a huge amount of vandalism to the victims section, spanning several months. Someone care to get a verified list of the actual victims names?

yes there has! I have now reverted the list back to the original eleven which the police believed to be correct at the end of their investigations.... until an official investigation shows it to be incorrect then I feel we have to stick to it. Doctorpete 11:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)