February 3, 2025 • 34 mins
Marjorie Jackson, an eccentric millionaire heiress, becomes a target for robbery and intrigue due to her vast concealed wealth, leading to her tragic murder in 1977. This episode explores themes of vulnerability, societal neglect, and the dark intersections of wealth and crime.
• Marjorie's early life and ascent to wealth
• Her distrust of banks and the resulting hoarding behavior
• The initial robbery incident that heightened her vulnerability
• A deeper look into her eccentric lifestyle and public perception
• The final robbery and subsequent murder
• The trial of Howard Willard and the societal implications
• Discussion on the missing cash and public fascination with crime
• Reflection on victim protection and societal responsibility
www.deviantcriminology.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
One of my favorite things that interests me is the
fact that we have these grandfacilities in the United States
and around the world wherepeople put their money to
protect it, so you don't have toworry about things like people
breaking into your house and youbecoming a target Me and my
father which he seems to be arunning theme in this like, hey,
shout out to my dad who totallydoesn't listen.
But one thing he told me aboutand this case happened, as
(01:03):
you'll hear, like back aroundthe 1970s.
But there was a grocery heiressby the name of Marjorie Jackson
in Indianapolis.
She was kind of an eccentricwoman and kept a lot of cash in
her house.
Unfortunately, it made her atarget for different criminals,
not one or two like there.
She had many crimes that werecommitted against her because of
(01:29):
her eccentric behavior and herdistrust of the banking system,
which, oddly enough, I'mstarting to have a distrust of
the banking system.
So this week we're going totalk about Marjorie Jackson and
her murder.
My name is Richard.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
This is Heather.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
And we are Deviant Criminology.
So let's get started.
So again, marjorie Jackson wasthis eccentric millionaire
heiress who was murdered in thisreally shocking situation in
Indianapolis in 1977.
So today we'll kind of delve ina little bit about her life,
because it's kind of aninteresting life Hers, her
husband, and then her tragicdeath, and then kind of a little
(02:00):
bit of the aftermath, becauseof just what happened to her and
some of the lights it showed onsome issues and some things
that we identified that reallymake this case interesting.
So we will get started, nancy,guide us along the way.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Marjorie Viola O'Connell was born November 30th
1910.
So that gives you a little bitof framework about what her
generational life would havebeen like as far as Great
Depression and trusting banks.
Her early life took anunexpected turn when she met
Chester H Jackson while workingat Murphy's Five and Dime store
(02:37):
in downtown Indianapolis.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
If you go back and look at old pictures of
Indianapolis and I think we'veprobably talked about this
before when we talked about JohnDillinger but what it was back
in the 1910s, 20s and 30s is notwhat Indianapolis is now.
So it's very interesting tothink about what the store would
have looked like, looking athistoric pictures of the city
and then knowing that that's allbeen tore down for commerce and
(03:01):
these historical buildings andstuff are just gone.
Which is really sad.
It is, in my, really sadbecause indianapolis had some
beautiful uh shop frontsdowntown and the circle was not
nearly what it is today.
There was a good transit systemlike hey, fucking indianapolis,
catch on that.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Once you actually had a decent transit system and now
you can barely get around yeah,well, same in c in Cincinnati
we had awesome trains and thengot rid of them all.
So not all but too many.
But anyway, at the time Chesterwas still married to his first
wife Scandalous but he had anaffair with Marjorie for several
(03:38):
years and in 1952, Chesterdivorced his first wife and
married Marjorie.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
I saw her ankles and they were just so tempting.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Right, exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
I saw her at the Five and Dime.
It was so unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Now his wife's saying damn it, I should have done my
own shopping, I shouldn't haveever let him go to the Five and
Dime.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Why did I ever let him go to other grocery stores?
Speaker 3 (03:58):
So Chester Jackson, he was no ordinary man and he
was the president of StandardGrocery Company, which was a
chain that had expanded to morethan 250 stores around
Indianapolis and the surroundingcities.
Chester had taken over thecompany in 1931, following the
murder of his father and storefounder Lafayette Andrew Jackson
(04:21):
.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Not going to be a Broadway play about that guy,
andrew Jackson Not going to be aBroadway play about that guy.
So the Jackson fortune.
In 1947, chester sold thegrocery chain to the National
Tea Company and he reinvestedhis money in various ventures
and by the time of his death in1970, the Jackson estate was
worth an estimated $25 millionand when he passed, marjorie
(04:43):
inherited approximately $14million, which by 2020 standards
would be about $94 million.
So one thing that's interestingabout this is I and my father
kind of said it too he kind ofalways referred to this as the
Kroger heiress.
But that's actually wrong.
Like I did a lot of research onlike what happened from the
(05:05):
standard grocery company to whenit went to the National Tea
Company and kind of like a lotof businesses between I don't
know 1930 and today had beensold so many times rebranded
that it's almost untraceable towho actually owns those stores
or if any part of what wasstandard grocery even exists, or
if any part of what wasstandard grocery even exists.
(05:26):
Chester and her had like reallyeccentric behavior.
They were kind of known asthese eccentric aristocrats in
Indianapolis for their level ofwealth.
So once he passes away,marjorie becomes increasingly
reclusive and even moreeccentric than they were kind of
already seen, as Neighborsreported strange behaviors, such
as talking to animals, which Idon't think that's strange.
(05:47):
I'm going to call that out,that's what I thought, too.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
I'm like, if that's strange, then I'm in trouble.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Like I talk to my pit bulls all the time they talk
back sometimes in Britishaccents, so I'm not sure but
practicing odd religious ritualsagain, define odd, def, define
odd, define odd and then alsodefine like we're not just kind
of telling tall tales about thecrazy old lady on the block,
like a lot of movies and tvshows are kind of based off of.
(06:13):
Like oh, the crazy old lady onthe block, the um, coming out of
the christmas season home alonelike the guy on the street that
everybody's like he's ahorrible man.
he murdered his family andreally just a sad old man that
just kind of has recused himselfbecause family issues.
But the last one is kind ofmaking racial, racial epitaphs,
and I'm just going to be honest.
This is 1970s in Indianapolis.
Of course she was a littleracist, um, indianapolis, um.
(06:36):
So she set aside four days ofthe week as holy days for
meditation and organ playing.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Which I want to set aside four days of the week for
meditation.
I think that sounds like a goodidea.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Yeah, you're a multimillionaire.
But again, like I think theproblem with some of these
stories you hear and stuff is alot of this was collected.
I mean, now there are a lot ofthings about her eccentric
behavior, but some of these Iwonder how much is like the
facts that were really going onand then kind of like the tall
tales that grew around thiseccentric woman, um, marjorie
distrust, uh, she distrustedbanks, um, she didn't like them.
(07:11):
Um, and this dislikeintensified after learning that
a bank employee had embezzledseven hundred thousand dollars
from her account.
So in response she beganwithdrawing massive amounts of
cash from her bank accounts,often demanding up to a million
dollars at a time.
So over four months shewithdrew nearly $8 million,
(07:31):
storing the money in variouslocations throughout her home.
Now her husband and her one ofthe eccentric behaviors that was
kind of notified before evenhis death was his kind of
hoarding of money and cashinside.
I couldn't find much about hisfather's murder.
So, hoarding of money and cashinside, I couldn't find much
about his father's murder, so Idon't know why that occurred.
I also kind of didn't go downthat wheelhouse but the not
(07:55):
storing it and then people knewthat she was doing this and
that's kind of a bad combinationRich, eccentric woman that
people already know about andthen knowing, and people kind of
reporting on this bad behavior.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
I think that was a sign of that generation, though,
too, because my grandparentswere born uh, she was born in
1910, I think we said and mygrandparents were born within
the 10 years after that, andthey I don't know if you would
say had a distrust of banks perse, but they did keep a lot of
cash at home, a lot of thingslike hidden.
Even us grandkids we didn'tknow where it was, and when my
(08:29):
grandfather's sister passed away, it was kind of a joke.
We needed to check every canand check every cookie jar and
check everything else, cause whoknows where she might have
money tucked and um, a lot ofthings like that.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Well, and when I look at it now and God, this dude's
name is going to haunt me, Iswear to God but like this was
also when she would have beenher early twenties and stuff,
and her meeting her husbandworking in five and nine and
stuff like this is when bankrobbers John Dillinger and Van
Meter and all these people,bonnie and Clyde, were huge.
So not only do I wonder and Idon't, I can't prove this,
obviously we can't go back ahundred years for me to be like
(09:04):
hey, so let me ask you aboutthis but I do kind of wonder if
there was also there.
We know, in that time periodthere's a distrust of banks.
People hated the banks, I hatedthe government because of what
happened with that, the greatdepression and everything but
also just like this distrust ofkeeping your money there because
bank robbers and peoplestealing your money.
And then here, lo and behold,somebody steals her money from
(09:25):
the bank and she's like you knowwhat?
Everything I learned as a kidis right you can't trust leaving
your money in the bank.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
That was a tale to go off of.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Confirmation bias Exactly so.
Around May 16th 1976, there wasa robbery at Jackson's home
where she was robbed of $800,000in cash and jewelry, which I
thought was ironic because shehad lost the $700,000 at the
bank and that made it so thatshe didn't want to trust the
(09:53):
bank anymore.
But being robbed of $800,000did not make her all of a sudden
decide I shouldn't have moneyand jewelry in my house.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Which I very much always and you and I have kind
of like really based the wholepodcast off of this.
Like this is a victim thatunfortunately ends up very
tragically, but at the same time, when you look at this just in
itself, like this seems like abad return on investment.
Like, okay, I'm taking my moneyout because I lost $700,000.
Now I've lost $100,000 on topof that initial stole.
(10:21):
I would have been safer leavingin the bank and having them
steal $700,000 because I've nowlost an extra $100,000.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
Yeah, exactly.
So on top of that, she refusedto press charges and I'm sure
that attracted more negativeattention to herself, because
the suspects were arrested andshe called it a will, the will
of god, that they had taken hermoney.
And, despite her reluctance,the three men were later
prosecuted.
(10:47):
Uh, in connection with thisrobbery, because you don't, you
don't actually have to have thevictim in order to prosecute the
crime.
Um, a lot of people don't knowthat.
Um, but if you think of it likea murder, if you didn't have
the victim's testimony in amurder case, would you still be
able to convict?
Yes, so anything?
Speaker 2 (11:05):
and I think that's sometimes what people understand
like a lot of time and Ilearned this like when I became
a cop this wasn't something Iknew is almost all charges, when
they're brought, it's the stateversus somebody.
It's not me prosecuting you,it's the state.
The state is the one bringingthe charges in protection of the
victim.
So even if she I don't want youto prosecute it's the state
(11:27):
bringing the charges, not her.
She doesn't really have theoption to appoint, she didn't
choose not to testify, butthat's kind of how I've always
interpreted it and that's kindof the interesting thing of
state versus so-and-so.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
And it's exactly right, because as a prosecutor
or as a police officer, you'resupposed to be protecting the
community at large.
So just because she doesn'twant to stop this person doesn't
mean that we don't have apublic interest in stopping that
person from doing this again tosomebody else, which of course
you see with familiarrelationships, like if a brother
(11:59):
does something to a sister shemight say I don't want to
prosecute.
Well, that doesn't mean that wedon't want that brother taken
off the street and, you know,put someplace else.
We don't want him runningaround doing this to other
people, type of a thing.
So you're absolutely right,like she would have had input.
And there's actually victimsbill of rights that have been
passed in several states sayingwe have to consider the victim
(12:20):
input at certain key points.
And in Colorado thatspecifically means that there
are hearings like bail hearings,where the victim has a right to
be heard by the judge.
So if they decide to be presentand wish to be heard, the judge
has to hear them.
And as a prosecutor we had aduty to notify the victim when
(12:41):
the hearing was taking place.
So if the judge asked was thevictim notified of this court
date, if we said no, they had toactually reschedule the court
date so that the victim wouldhave a chance to appear for that
court date.
And it was the important thingslike sentencing and bail
hearings and things like that.
So she at this point in time Idon't know how much input she
would have had in the case, butfor sure she couldn't have just
(13:03):
said forget it, I'm not pressingcharges.
And you mentioned that you candecline to testify.
That's only true to a certainpoint, because if you are
subpoenaed you have to show up.
And if you show up and thejudge says you have to answer
that question and you don't,then they can hold you in
contempt of court.
So your silence only goes sofar.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
And I think the other thing that, like, I may bring
up again, I don't know because Imay cover it here, but this
would have been a huge case like$800,000, which means this
would have been in the media.
Oh yeah, so there's part of meand I couldn't find anything
about this.
Again, we're talking over 50years ago, roughly, where it
(13:42):
talked about, like if there weremedia reports or anything like
a lot of this comes fromdocumentation about the crime,
but they didn't really get intolike what news stories are out
there?
But the point is the media.
Is there some ethical thing inthe media where they may have
made her a target by publishinglike, oh, she had over $800,000
in cash and jewels in her houseand they robbed her and she
(14:02):
didn't want to press charges.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
So now are you inviting people to be like wait,
she's an arc which we'll getinto in a second yeah, I mean,
especially given how much shehad to begin with, like if it
was just, you know, jane doe,you'd be like, oh shit, they
took her life savings.
But given that people alreadyknew her as a public figure,
they would know well, there'sprobably a lot more than just
what was taken there.
So Because of that, like wesaid, there were also
(14:28):
undocumented break-ins and therewas at least one other break-in
, and possibly more, where she,again, being distrustful of law
enforcement, never reported theincidents and her eccentric
behavior and distrust ofauthorities likely contributed
to her vulnerability as a target.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
These prior incidences highlighted the
ongoing risk Jackson had fromsecurity external forces, the
people kind of not even aroundher, and that was something that
will come up here in a second.
But like a lot of this isoutside forces, it's not what I
would have expected.
Like when I started researchingthis I was like, oh, there's
going to be maids involved instuff.
(15:05):
It's not.
It seems that she is verytargeted by people that have no
connection to her.
So the the final robberyattempt that we know of, which
resulted in her murder, occurredon may 7th 1977 when howard
willard and, manually, robinrobinson idly shot jackson
(15:25):
during a burglary on her home.
This tragic event brought anend to the series of crimes
targeting this eccentricmillionaire widow.
So I was kind of interested inlike what the connection was
Like.
I said like I would havethought this was kind of an
inside job, but from everythingbased on available information
(15:46):
there does not in the courtsshow that there was no direct
personal link between marjoriejackson and her killers.
Their connection to her wasprimarily motivated just by the
criminal intent to rob her.
So willard and robinson learnedabout marjorie jackson's
unusual habits of keeping largeamounts of cash in her home,
doesn't?
I couldn't find like how theylearned that, but again we know
(16:08):
that ind Indianapolis is a bigcity, so they may have known
people that knew her, or just ifthere were news stories coming
about the prior crimes that hadhappened, because the burglary
that ended up going to trial was1976, and then this is 1977.
So what articles could they haveread that made them see her as
a possible target?
(16:29):
What articles could they haveread that made them see her as a
possible target?
So this knowledge of herextended habits led them to
target her residence forburglary.
Willard reportedly referred toJackson's home as the witch's
house, which again kind of goesback to these stories of weird
rituals, religious behaviors.
It's worth noting that Jacksonhad again been the victim of a
(16:53):
previous robbery in 1976.
And then, in essence, the linksbetween Marjorie Jackson and
her killers again don't appearto be anything more than just
criminal in nature.
She didn't know them, did nothave interaction with them, and
they hadn't had interactionswith her at a personal or social
level.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
He referred to her as the witch's house.
It sounds like he didn't reallycare for her.
It was not considering her ahuman.
Dehumanizing her, making iteasier to victimize her,
probably made it easier for himto rationalize I'm taking this
money.
She doesn't need it.
She's just some crazy old batand totally discounting her
feelings or validity as as ahuman being absolutely, and it
(17:35):
was, it was.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
I couldn't pull information like the actual and
we try not to get into graphicsanyway, but we'll kind of see,
as how the crime unfolds, thatthere may be some some issues
with that as well.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
So it basically sounds like they were just
taking an opportunity that wasavailable to them to target her,
because they knew that shewould have large amounts of
money on hand at her house andthey knew that she stored cash
in her home.
So on May 2nd 1977, howardWilliam and Manuel Lee Robinson
(18:10):
burglarized Marjorie Jackson'shouse and made off with about
$800,000 worth of jewelry andcash.
Tragically, they returned twodays later, on May 4th, leading
to a confrontation that wouldend her life.
During the second burglaryattempt, which you know, of
course, they couldn't just behappy with the first $800,000.
They had to go back for more.
She was shot and killed with a22 caliber rifle and, in an
(18:34):
attempt to cover up their crime,willard and Robinson started a
fire to um burn the house down.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
So that was kind of what I was wondering as well.
Like they had the first attempt, I don't know if they went with
the intent to murder, but Ithink this kind of comes down to
the look what you made me doLike I didn't murder, she made
me have to kill her, which iskind of this weird war of kind
of like we thought like you'redehumanizing and you're blaming
(19:03):
the victim for really what'syour crime because you're trying
to take some of that burden offyourself.
But yeah, like you got awaywith it once and then two days
later you're like oh, I've gotto go back.
Like you don't think thatpeople might be heightened at
this point or something.
So these were not the brightestcrowns in the box by any means.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
That.
Or maybe they saw how easy itwas to get in and out and
thought well, this will beanother quick and easy score,
especially if she didn't haveanybody to talk to Like, even if
she was on heightened alert.
If she doesn't trust lawenforcement and she's not
calling them, she's not pressingcharges, she's isolated, who's
she going to call to say hey, Ineed help?
Speaker 2 (19:46):
And there's not other people in the house.
That may have been a deterrentif there's more people in the
house or anything.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
And there's not other people in the house.
That may have been a deterrentif there's more people in the
house or anything, and it's thisfrom what I understand.
Again, I don't think this houseis there anymore, but it was a
big house Like this is not asmall like two bedroom house
Like this was an eccentricbillionaire's house.
So they also may have been likeoh, she's not going to find us
on this side of the house ormaybe she's gone to bed at this
point.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
Yeah, exactly, find us on this side of the house, or
maybe she's gone to bed at thispoint.
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
If she's asleep, then she won't catch us, and even
then, it wasn't until may 7ththat marjorie's body was
discovered.
The firefighters, who wereresponding to a neighbor's call
about a smoky blaze, broke intojackson's house and found
marjorie dead on the kitchenfloor.
As police searched the premises, they uncovered a shocking
scene.
Approximately Approximately $5million in cash was scattered
throughout the house, hidden intoolboxes, drawers, a vacuum
(20:35):
cleaner bag and even a garbagecan.
So they left behind like $5million in cash that was stored
there, and come to find outthere's more money that's still
missing.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Which is crazy when you think about it.
That's a lot of money,especially since they had
already killed her and,especially since you look at it,
it was from May 4th to May 7thbefore anybody figured out
something was going on.
They potentially had a ton oftime that they could have looked
for this extra money.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
I think it's sad there's again this is just me
and my social worker in thebroader society, but that this
woman was alone, like peoplewere seeing this eccentric
behavior.
At what point could?
And she's in her, she's 67, 68at this time, so where were?
Where was society to provide,like a social worker that could
(21:25):
have tried to provide or makecommunication with her?
Where is the responsibility onthat bank teller that stole that
seven hundred thousand dollars?
That led to her distrust, thatled to her hoarding her cash,
that led to her becoming atarget and being murdered for it
?
Like there's so many littlethings that we look at the
repercussions of our actionsdown the road and what we could
(21:47):
have done as individuals in thesociety along the way, like, oh,
we're making up these horriblestories.
Where were the people thattried to be that, that ear, that
voice and help?
And where were the courts thatcould have stepped in and been
like you know what?
Maybe we do need to put sometype of guardianship over this
individual because they'reshowing dangerous behaviors.
(22:08):
And even just me, like as asocial worker I think this is
kind of a question for you Likeyou could have put a petition
when she's already been robbedfor $800,000.
She's hoarding more cash Likehey, maybe we do need to put
some type of guardianship toprotect herself from harm.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
Which then you have to have somebody who is pushing.
That, I guess, is the best wayto put it.
If she had had somebody else tocount on, like a child or you
know, a cousin or something likethat, who would have gone to
the court to petition for that,it would have been easier for it
to happen.
But it sounds like she had noone, so it would have been adult
protective services who wouldhave needed to do that, and most
(22:46):
of those agencies are alreadyspread extraordinarily thin.
So I'm guessing that theyprobably wouldn't have wanted to
take that on one, becausethey're already overworked and
nobody's.
You know the whole squeakywheel.
There's nobody screaming aboutthis lady needs to be helped.
And then, on the flip side ofthat, she had so much money and
she already didn't trust thebanks.
(23:06):
I'm guessing she wouldn't havetrusted, you know, the court or
conservatorship or anything likethat, so she probably would
have fought that tooth and nail.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
Yeah, there's just a yeah, I guess, for me.
I just like there's somethingin this tragic homicide that
just look back and like there'sso many points and even then
like I don't know if adultprotective services really
existed at that point.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
That's true too.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Like that's something that's really become big.
I know in the last 15 years,especially with the growth of
the internet and people scammingand taking advantage of the
elderly, that we more cautiousof that, but I I'm also
wondering how much of that was.
Well, she's a millionaire.
She could buy security.
She wanted it.
It's not our responsibility.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Yeah, I could see that too.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
So, within a month of the murder, authorities
arrested howard willard and hisformer wife, marjorie pollitt,
in tempe, arizona, don't knowwhy I did not know how to say
tempe.
The couple had attempted topurchase a motor home with money
from the robbery.
And then manuel robinson wasapprehended separately while
buying a new car with stolencash Again, not the brightest
(24:10):
stars in the sky.
One of the things you hear inevery theft movie ever the
Italian Job, which is a greatmovie, don't hold that against
me, it is a good movie or theOcean's movies is don't go
buying flashy stuff right aftera crime.
It kind of links it to you,especially when you're somebody
that's low-level criminal,doesn't have a lot of money.
(24:32):
Suddenly you have cash to buyexpensive cars.
A new motor home might bringsome attention to you.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Which is amazing how many people actually do that.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
It is insane because it's the easiest way to get
caught.
Not little purchases, not maybego rent a car that looks nice.
If you're trying to be flashybecause you have a little bit of
money, which again that's notprobably going to work.
But you know, lay low, travelsomewhere and say no, they want
to go out.
Because I guess that's thegreed that comes with why you
committed the crime in the firstplace.
I want all this stuff and Iwant it now.
(25:01):
You don't have the time where anormal person like I want a
really nice car, I'll go get ajob, save up and get it.
The criminal mind in thissituation is more like oh I just
got $800,000 from murdering androbbing this old lady, I'm
going to go buy $800,000 worthof new stuff.
And that really catchespeople's attention.
Howard Willard's trial was alandmark case in Indiana, being
(25:21):
the first major trial in thestate to allow video recordings
inside the courtroom.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
So here we are a little bit of criminal justice
history in Indianapolis Throughthe practice though the practice
was short lived due tointervention by the Indiana
Supreme Court, which I don'tknow.
Your feelings on cameras incourtrooms.
Do you have any strong feelingsone way or the other?
Speaker 2 (25:43):
For me, yes, and it goes to the same reason.
I hate cop shows that are liveshows.
People act differently when acamera's involved, even if they
don't psychologically see it.
I believe that you see people,they either can be more
aggressive because, like on thecop shows, they're trying to be
more macho and look at me, lookat the authority I have, or they
(26:03):
make mistakes because they'remore concerned about the cameras
that are around and thatattention that it brings.
So I've never been a big fan ofcameras in the courtroom or
with these live cop shows.
And then the flip side of thatas well is what if you're
innocent and that's gone out toeverybody, no matter.
And we see this in othercriminal cases throughout some
(26:26):
of the history at least the uscriminal justice system I know
of a lot of people that arefound innocent.
They didn't do the crimes, butbecause it was so publicized and
they were so publicly shown,they're always ostracized anyway
Because in the court of publicopinion they're still guilty.
Well, they didn't prove you didit, but we know you did.
So I'm not a big fan of it.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
I'm actually not either, because I feel like it
puts too much pressure onwitnesses, especially victims or
lay witnesses, um police kindof.
You know you sign up for it.
You know that's part of the job.
Most officers don't have totestify very often because most
cases are pled out.
I think at one point, um, oneof the statistics we had, uh was
about 80% of our cases werebeing pled out at the first
appearance.
So that doesn't even count.
You know, going to trial it'sjust the very first appearance
when they come through.
So you know, on that sense, alot of times police officers
(27:18):
don't testify on cases.
They don't go to court everyday, it's not a regular
occurrence.
So I'm sure that they getnervous too when they have to
testify, same as lay people andI can't imagine.
Yeah, absolutely too, when theyhave to testify, same as lay
people, and I can't imagine yeah, yeah, absolutely from the
other side of it.
you can, you can handle thatpart of it and you can become
combative and I've seen that,like with defense attorneys rule
(27:40):
, they'll try to bait people andthings like that.
And again, just like you'retalking about, if there's
cameras involved, I think thatthat would be worse, because I
think it is an additionalaudience besides the judge,
besides the jury, besides thedefendant that now you have to
worry about, and especially forvictims who are like, for you
know, marjorie here.
If she had gone forward on oneof those cases, if she was that
(28:03):
reclusive, if she had socialanxiety, I can't imagine her
trying to go into a courtroomwith a judge, a jury, the
defendants and then cameras ontop of that.
Everybody would have beenwatching it if she was in there.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Yeah no, I've just never been a fan of it.
I think it's putting unduepressure, undue spotlights on
people that may not be guilty.
You're putting victims outthere and you're putting their
appearances and everything elsefor cases, especially anytime
you start talking about moresensitive stuff, Like we talked
with domestic violence, sexualassault.
It's already hard enough to getvictims to testify, and now
(28:37):
you're going to put it live onTV.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
Which the hypocritical part of me.
I do watch some of those things, so I have to admit that.
But yeah, I mean personally Iwould say it's not a good idea
in practice.
So I'm glad that they didintervene and stop that practice
.
In December 1977, howardWilliam was found guilty of
(29:02):
Marjorie Jackson's murder andsentenced to life in prison.
Manuel Robinson, on the otherhand, was found not guilty of
murder and armed robbery but wasconvicted on six other counts
related to the crime.
Related to the crime, marjoriePollitt was convicted of
conspiracy to transport stolenmoney interstate and received a
five-year sentence.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Yeah, and Howard Williams really makes out the
sorry.
Howard Willard really kind ofmakes out the worst in all this.
I don't know if they may havehad evidence or I didn't see
anything about Manuel.
Robinson may have turnedstate's evidence on him to like
he committed the murder.
I didn't.
I don't.
Robinson may have turnedstate's evidence on him to like
he committed the murder.
I didn't, I don't know.
Like again we in 1977, like Idon't.
The court records aren'tdigitized.
(29:45):
Now.
It's not that easy.
You know, I don't mind givingbrief overviews and talk about
cases.
I'm not going to the courthouseto try and pay $150 to get
court records from like 50 yearsago.
If you'd like that, please doit upon yourself and I will back
you all day.
But one thing that was found outabout this is that there were
still millions of dollars thatare missing.
So one of the most intriguingaspects of this case is the fate
(30:06):
of stolen money.
While much of it was recovered,reports suggest that a
significant sum remains missing.
Some speculate that an FBIagent working on the case might
have stolen the unaccounted forcash.
I really think that that's justthat the media likes to hype,
that possibly cops are dirty.
I'm probably going to saythere's a very small amount of
truth in that, if there is anyat all.
(30:27):
I just think it's more thatthey had the ability to hide it.
I mean they were found dayslater.
There were probably otherpeople involved If we were able
to track their steps afterwardshouses they went to and stuff
places they were found dayslater, or probably other people
involved, if we were able tochase the track their steps
afterwards houses they went toand stuff places they were
buried it.
I mean we know, god damn it.
I know John Dillinger wasnotorious for like going back to
(30:47):
his home and burying cash onthe property.
So I think it's more realistic.
They may have hidden the money,shared it, given it to other
people to show stuff.
Then it is an FBI agentcommitted a crime.
Not saying it's not possible,though.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
Or it might've just been lost, Like they found some
in a vacuum bag who's to saythat?
And a trash can too.
Who's to say that it didn't gethidden somewhere and nobody saw
it and it got thrown out?
Like who's going to search avacuum bag to look for money.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Or other people when they knew about this, like again
, I've I've secured crime scenesand this was not a small crime,
this is a big house came to thehouse searching at night or
broke in, or people from youknow, people from the
neighborhood, people that watch.
There are people if you don'tknow this, here's a little tip
people that read the obituariesand people that read, like
(31:37):
people to watch face.
Like again, this would havebeen facebook time, but you know
there are people out there thatwatch facebook across the
obituaries and stuff to tagspecifically people's homes to a
target during funeral hours andthings like that.
So there are people that justtake advantage of these
situations to rob or loot afterthe fact.
So to say there was a cop oranything like that I think is
(31:59):
just sensationalizing.
But adding another layer of themystery to the already
sensational story is here we are50 years later and none of that
money has been found.
So I'm sure there are treasurehunters out there that are like
we're going to go find thismoney and so far nobody's found
it.
And finally, the MarjorieJackson case remains one of the
most infamous crimes inIndianapolis history.
I want to take it from ourlittle podcast to overcoming
(32:23):
John Dillinger.
I want to see this lovelywoman's face as kind of
remembering the victim of ahorrific crime, instead of John
Dillinger's dirty face, as likethe face of Indianapolis let's
change.
So this is kind of a tale ofwealth, eccentricity and then,
sadly, the tragedy that cancontinue to captivate true crime
(32:44):
enthusiasts of a wealthy personsecluding themselves and
becoming the target of greed andcrime.
I want to thank you all so muchfor listening to our little
podcast.
This is created with love andpassion for criminal justice and
true crime.
So if you're enjoying thepodcast, please follow us, like
(33:05):
or rate us on whatever systemyou're listening to us on,
subscribe to our podcast anddownload episodes.
Downloads are important for ourgrowth, as is growing our
listeners.
So if you wouldn't mind, takethe time to ask your friends,
family, co-workers, tell themabout us through word of mouth,
social media I don't care if youeven scream at strangers on the
(33:28):
streets.
To help us kind of get outthere who we are.
If you're interested inlearning more, you could visit
our website atwwwdeviantcriminologycom.
There you'll find some stuffabout our backgrounds,
references, show notes for eachepisode.
You can also follow us on ourFacebook page at Deviant
Criminology.
(33:48):
We also have an Instagram page,which is Deviant, underscore
Criminology, or find me atDrrichardweaver on Instagram.
And as we grow, we hope todevelop a community that will
grow with us.
So again, thank you for takingthe time to listen and have a
good week.
Thank you.
One of my favorite things that interests me is the
fact that we have these grandfacilities in the United States
and around the world wherepeople put their money to
protect it, so you don't have toworry about things like people
breaking into your house and youbecoming a target Me and my
father which he seems to be arunning theme in this like, hey,
shout out to my dad who totallydoesn't listen.
But one thing he told me aboutand this case happened, as
(01:03):
you'll hear, like back aroundthe 1970s.
But there was a grocery heiressby the name of Marjorie Jackson
in Indianapolis.
She was kind of an eccentricwoman and kept a lot of cash in
her house.
Unfortunately, it made her atarget for different criminals,
not one or two like there.
She had many crimes that werecommitted against her because of
(01:29):
her eccentric behavior and herdistrust of the banking system,
which, oddly enough, I'mstarting to have a distrust of
the banking system.
So this week we're going totalk about Marjorie Jackson and
her murder.
My name is Richard.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
This is Heather.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
And we are Deviant Criminology.
So let's get started.
So again, marjorie Jackson wasthis eccentric millionaire
heiress who was murdered in thisreally shocking situation in
Indianapolis in 1977.
So today we'll kind of delve ina little bit about her life,
because it's kind of aninteresting life Hers, her
husband, and then her tragicdeath, and then kind of a little
(02:00):
bit of the aftermath, becauseof just what happened to her and
some of the lights it showed onsome issues and some things
that we identified that reallymake this case interesting.
So we will get started, nancy,guide us along the way.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Marjorie Viola O'Connell was born November 30th
1910.
So that gives you a little bitof framework about what her
generational life would havebeen like as far as Great
Depression and trusting banks.
Her early life took anunexpected turn when she met
Chester H Jackson while workingat Murphy's Five and Dime store
(02:37):
in downtown Indianapolis.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
If you go back and look at old pictures of
Indianapolis and I think we'veprobably talked about this
before when we talked about JohnDillinger but what it was back
in the 1910s, 20s and 30s is notwhat Indianapolis is now.
So it's very interesting tothink about what the store would
have looked like, looking athistoric pictures of the city
and then knowing that that's allbeen tore down for commerce and
(03:01):
these historical buildings andstuff are just gone.
Which is really sad.
It is, in my, really sadbecause indianapolis had some
beautiful uh shop frontsdowntown and the circle was not
nearly what it is today.
There was a good transit systemlike hey, fucking indianapolis,
catch on that.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Once you actually had a decent transit system and now
you can barely get around yeah,well, same in c in Cincinnati
we had awesome trains and thengot rid of them all.
So not all but too many.
But anyway, at the time Chesterwas still married to his first
wife Scandalous but he had anaffair with Marjorie for several
(03:38):
years and in 1952, Chesterdivorced his first wife and
married Marjorie.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
I saw her ankles and they were just so tempting.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Right, exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
I saw her at the Five and Dime.
It was so unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Now his wife's saying damn it, I should have done my
own shopping, I shouldn't haveever let him go to the Five and
Dime.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Why did I ever let him go to other grocery stores?
Speaker 3 (03:58):
So Chester Jackson, he was no ordinary man and he
was the president of StandardGrocery Company, which was a
chain that had expanded to morethan 250 stores around
Indianapolis and the surroundingcities.
Chester had taken over thecompany in 1931, following the
murder of his father and storefounder Lafayette Andrew Jackson
(04:21):
.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Not going to be a Broadway play about that guy,
andrew Jackson Not going to be aBroadway play about that guy.
So the Jackson fortune.
In 1947, chester sold thegrocery chain to the National
Tea Company and he reinvestedhis money in various ventures
and by the time of his death in1970, the Jackson estate was
worth an estimated $25 millionand when he passed, marjorie
(04:43):
inherited approximately $14million, which by 2020 standards
would be about $94 million.
So one thing that's interestingabout this is I and my father
kind of said it too he kind ofalways referred to this as the
Kroger heiress.
But that's actually wrong.
Like I did a lot of research onlike what happened from the
(05:05):
standard grocery company to whenit went to the National Tea
Company and kind of like a lotof businesses between I don't
know 1930 and today had beensold so many times rebranded
that it's almost untraceable towho actually owns those stores
or if any part of what wasstandard grocery even exists, or
if any part of what wasstandard grocery even exists.
(05:26):
Chester and her had like reallyeccentric behavior.
They were kind of known asthese eccentric aristocrats in
Indianapolis for their level ofwealth.
So once he passes away,marjorie becomes increasingly
reclusive and even moreeccentric than they were kind of
already seen, as Neighborsreported strange behaviors, such
as talking to animals, which Idon't think that's strange.
(05:47):
I'm going to call that out,that's what I thought, too.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
I'm like, if that's strange, then I'm in trouble.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Like I talk to my pit bulls all the time they talk
back sometimes in Britishaccents, so I'm not sure but
practicing odd religious ritualsagain, define odd, def, define
odd, define odd and then alsodefine like we're not just kind
of telling tall tales about thecrazy old lady on the block,
like a lot of movies and tvshows are kind of based off of.
(06:13):
Like oh, the crazy old lady onthe block, the um, coming out of
the christmas season home alonelike the guy on the street that
everybody's like he's ahorrible man.
he murdered his family andreally just a sad old man that
just kind of has recused himselfbecause family issues.
But the last one is kind ofmaking racial, racial epitaphs,
and I'm just going to be honest.
This is 1970s in Indianapolis.
Of course she was a littleracist, um, indianapolis, um.
(06:36):
So she set aside four days ofthe week as holy days for
meditation and organ playing.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Which I want to set aside four days of the week for
meditation.
I think that sounds like a goodidea.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Yeah, you're a multimillionaire.
But again, like I think theproblem with some of these
stories you hear and stuff is alot of this was collected.
I mean, now there are a lot ofthings about her eccentric
behavior, but some of these Iwonder how much is like the
facts that were really going onand then kind of like the tall
tales that grew around thiseccentric woman, um, marjorie
distrust, uh, she distrustedbanks, um, she didn't like them.
(07:11):
Um, and this dislikeintensified after learning that
a bank employee had embezzledseven hundred thousand dollars
from her account.
So in response she beganwithdrawing massive amounts of
cash from her bank accounts,often demanding up to a million
dollars at a time.
So over four months shewithdrew nearly $8 million,
(07:31):
storing the money in variouslocations throughout her home.
Now her husband and her one ofthe eccentric behaviors that was
kind of notified before evenhis death was his kind of
hoarding of money and cashinside.
I couldn't find much about hisfather's murder.
So, hoarding of money and cashinside, I couldn't find much
about his father's murder, so Idon't know why that occurred.
I also kind of didn't go downthat wheelhouse but the not
(07:55):
storing it and then people knewthat she was doing this and
that's kind of a bad combinationRich, eccentric woman that
people already know about andthen knowing, and people kind of
reporting on this bad behavior.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
I think that was a sign of that generation, though,
too, because my grandparentswere born uh, she was born in
1910, I think we said and mygrandparents were born within
the 10 years after that, andthey I don't know if you would
say had a distrust of banks perse, but they did keep a lot of
cash at home, a lot of thingslike hidden.
Even us grandkids we didn'tknow where it was, and when my
(08:29):
grandfather's sister passed away, it was kind of a joke.
We needed to check every canand check every cookie jar and
check everything else, cause whoknows where she might have
money tucked and um, a lot ofthings like that.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Well, and when I look at it now and God, this dude's
name is going to haunt me, Iswear to God but like this was
also when she would have beenher early twenties and stuff,
and her meeting her husbandworking in five and nine and
stuff like this is when bankrobbers John Dillinger and Van
Meter and all these people,bonnie and Clyde, were huge.
So not only do I wonder and Idon't, I can't prove this,
obviously we can't go back ahundred years for me to be like
(09:04):
hey, so let me ask you aboutthis but I do kind of wonder if
there was also there.
We know, in that time periodthere's a distrust of banks.
People hated the banks, I hatedthe government because of what
happened with that, the greatdepression and everything but
also just like this distrust ofkeeping your money there because
bank robbers and peoplestealing your money.
And then here, lo and behold,somebody steals her money from
(09:25):
the bank and she's like you knowwhat?
Everything I learned as a kidis right you can't trust leaving
your money in the bank.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
That was a tale to go off of.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Confirmation bias Exactly so.
Around May 16th 1976, there wasa robbery at Jackson's home
where she was robbed of $800,000in cash and jewelry, which I
thought was ironic because shehad lost the $700,000 at the
bank and that made it so thatshe didn't want to trust the
(09:53):
bank anymore.
But being robbed of $800,000did not make her all of a sudden
decide I shouldn't have moneyand jewelry in my house.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Which I very much always and you and I have kind
of like really based the wholepodcast off of this.
Like this is a victim thatunfortunately ends up very
tragically, but at the same time, when you look at this just in
itself, like this seems like abad return on investment.
Like, okay, I'm taking my moneyout because I lost $700,000.
Now I've lost $100,000 on topof that initial stole.
(10:21):
I would have been safer leavingin the bank and having them
steal $700,000 because I've nowlost an extra $100,000.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
Yeah, exactly.
So on top of that, she refusedto press charges and I'm sure
that attracted more negativeattention to herself, because
the suspects were arrested andshe called it a will, the will
of god, that they had taken hermoney.
And, despite her reluctance,the three men were later
prosecuted.
(10:47):
Uh, in connection with thisrobbery, because you don't, you
don't actually have to have thevictim in order to prosecute the
crime.
Um, a lot of people don't knowthat.
Um, but if you think of it likea murder, if you didn't have
the victim's testimony in amurder case, would you still be
able to convict?
Yes, so anything?
Speaker 2 (11:05):
and I think that's sometimes what people understand
like a lot of time and Ilearned this like when I became
a cop this wasn't something Iknew is almost all charges, when
they're brought, it's the stateversus somebody.
It's not me prosecuting you,it's the state.
The state is the one bringingthe charges in protection of the
victim.
So even if she I don't want youto prosecute it's the state
(11:27):
bringing the charges, not her.
She doesn't really have theoption to appoint, she didn't
choose not to testify, butthat's kind of how I've always
interpreted it and that's kindof the interesting thing of
state versus so-and-so.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
And it's exactly right, because as a prosecutor
or as a police officer, you'resupposed to be protecting the
community at large.
So just because she doesn'twant to stop this person doesn't
mean that we don't have apublic interest in stopping that
person from doing this again tosomebody else, which of course
you see with familiarrelationships, like if a brother
(11:59):
does something to a sister shemight say I don't want to
prosecute.
Well, that doesn't mean that wedon't want that brother taken
off the street and, you know,put someplace else.
We don't want him runningaround doing this to other
people, type of a thing.
So you're absolutely right,like she would have had input.
And there's actually victimsbill of rights that have been
passed in several states sayingwe have to consider the victim
(12:20):
input at certain key points.
And in Colorado thatspecifically means that there
are hearings like bail hearings,where the victim has a right to
be heard by the judge.
So if they decide to be presentand wish to be heard, the judge
has to hear them.
And as a prosecutor we had aduty to notify the victim when
(12:41):
the hearing was taking place.
So if the judge asked was thevictim notified of this court
date, if we said no, they had toactually reschedule the court
date so that the victim wouldhave a chance to appear for that
court date.
And it was the important thingslike sentencing and bail
hearings and things like that.
So she at this point in time Idon't know how much input she
would have had in the case, butfor sure she couldn't have just
(13:03):
said forget it, I'm not pressingcharges.
And you mentioned that you candecline to testify.
That's only true to a certainpoint, because if you are
subpoenaed you have to show up.
And if you show up and thejudge says you have to answer
that question and you don't,then they can hold you in
contempt of court.
So your silence only goes sofar.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
And I think the other thing that, like, I may bring
up again, I don't know because Imay cover it here, but this
would have been a huge case like$800,000, which means this
would have been in the media.
Oh yeah, so there's part of meand I couldn't find anything
about this.
Again, we're talking over 50years ago, roughly, where it
(13:42):
talked about, like if there weremedia reports or anything like
a lot of this comes fromdocumentation about the crime,
but they didn't really get intolike what news stories are out
there?
But the point is the media.
Is there some ethical thing inthe media where they may have
made her a target by publishinglike, oh, she had over $800,000
in cash and jewels in her houseand they robbed her and she
(14:02):
didn't want to press charges.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
So now are you inviting people to be like wait,
she's an arc which we'll getinto in a second yeah, I mean,
especially given how much shehad to begin with, like if it
was just, you know, jane doe,you'd be like, oh shit, they
took her life savings.
But given that people alreadyknew her as a public figure,
they would know well, there'sprobably a lot more than just
what was taken there.
So Because of that, like wesaid, there were also
(14:28):
undocumented break-ins and therewas at least one other break-in
, and possibly more, where she,again, being distrustful of law
enforcement, never reported theincidents and her eccentric
behavior and distrust ofauthorities likely contributed
to her vulnerability as a target.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
These prior incidences highlighted the
ongoing risk Jackson had fromsecurity external forces, the
people kind of not even aroundher, and that was something that
will come up here in a second.
But like a lot of this isoutside forces, it's not what I
would have expected.
Like when I started researchingthis I was like, oh, there's
going to be maids involved instuff.
(15:05):
It's not.
It seems that she is verytargeted by people that have no
connection to her.
So the the final robberyattempt that we know of, which
resulted in her murder, occurredon may 7th 1977 when howard
willard and, manually, robinrobinson idly shot jackson
(15:25):
during a burglary on her home.
This tragic event brought anend to the series of crimes
targeting this eccentricmillionaire widow.
So I was kind of interested inlike what the connection was
Like.
I said like I would havethought this was kind of an
inside job, but from everythingbased on available information
(15:46):
there does not in the courtsshow that there was no direct
personal link between marjoriejackson and her killers.
Their connection to her wasprimarily motivated just by the
criminal intent to rob her.
So willard and robinson learnedabout marjorie jackson's
unusual habits of keeping largeamounts of cash in her home,
doesn't?
I couldn't find like how theylearned that, but again we know
(16:08):
that ind Indianapolis is a bigcity, so they may have known
people that knew her, or just ifthere were news stories coming
about the prior crimes that hadhappened, because the burglary
that ended up going to trial was1976, and then this is 1977.
So what articles could they haveread that made them see her as
a possible target?
(16:29):
What articles could they haveread that made them see her as a
possible target?
So this knowledge of herextended habits led them to
target her residence forburglary.
Willard reportedly referred toJackson's home as the witch's
house, which again kind of goesback to these stories of weird
rituals, religious behaviors.
It's worth noting that Jacksonhad again been the victim of a
(16:53):
previous robbery in 1976.
And then, in essence, the linksbetween Marjorie Jackson and
her killers again don't appearto be anything more than just
criminal in nature.
She didn't know them, did nothave interaction with them, and
they hadn't had interactionswith her at a personal or social
level.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
He referred to her as the witch's house.
It sounds like he didn't reallycare for her.
It was not considering her ahuman.
Dehumanizing her, making iteasier to victimize her,
probably made it easier for himto rationalize I'm taking this
money.
She doesn't need it.
She's just some crazy old batand totally discounting her
feelings or validity as as ahuman being absolutely, and it
(17:35):
was, it was.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
I couldn't pull information like the actual and
we try not to get into graphicsanyway, but we'll kind of see,
as how the crime unfolds, thatthere may be some some issues
with that as well.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
So it basically sounds like they were just
taking an opportunity that wasavailable to them to target her,
because they knew that shewould have large amounts of
money on hand at her house andthey knew that she stored cash
in her home.
So on May 2nd 1977, howardWilliam and Manuel Lee Robinson
(18:10):
burglarized Marjorie Jackson'shouse and made off with about
$800,000 worth of jewelry andcash.
Tragically, they returned twodays later, on May 4th, leading
to a confrontation that wouldend her life.
During the second burglaryattempt, which you know, of
course, they couldn't just behappy with the first $800,000.
They had to go back for more.
She was shot and killed with a22 caliber rifle and, in an
(18:34):
attempt to cover up their crime,willard and Robinson started a
fire to um burn the house down.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
So that was kind of what I was wondering as well.
Like they had the first attempt, I don't know if they went with
the intent to murder, but Ithink this kind of comes down to
the look what you made me doLike I didn't murder, she made
me have to kill her, which iskind of this weird war of kind
of like we thought like you'redehumanizing and you're blaming
(19:03):
the victim for really what'syour crime because you're trying
to take some of that burden offyourself.
But yeah, like you got awaywith it once and then two days
later you're like oh, I've gotto go back.
Like you don't think thatpeople might be heightened at
this point or something.
So these were not the brightestcrowns in the box by any means.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
That.
Or maybe they saw how easy itwas to get in and out and
thought well, this will beanother quick and easy score,
especially if she didn't haveanybody to talk to Like, even if
she was on heightened alert.
If she doesn't trust lawenforcement and she's not
calling them, she's not pressingcharges, she's isolated, who's
she going to call to say hey, Ineed help?
Speaker 2 (19:46):
And there's not other people in the house.
That may have been a deterrentif there's more people in the
house or anything.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
And there's not other people in the house.
That may have been a deterrentif there's more people in the
house or anything, and it's thisfrom what I understand.
Again, I don't think this houseis there anymore, but it was a
big house Like this is not asmall like two bedroom house
Like this was an eccentricbillionaire's house.
So they also may have been likeoh, she's not going to find us
on this side of the house ormaybe she's gone to bed at this
point.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
Yeah, exactly, find us on this side of the house, or
maybe she's gone to bed at thispoint.
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
If she's asleep, then she won't catch us, and even
then, it wasn't until may 7ththat marjorie's body was
discovered.
The firefighters, who wereresponding to a neighbor's call
about a smoky blaze, broke intojackson's house and found
marjorie dead on the kitchenfloor.
As police searched the premises, they uncovered a shocking
scene.
Approximately Approximately $5million in cash was scattered
throughout the house, hidden intoolboxes, drawers, a vacuum
(20:35):
cleaner bag and even a garbagecan.
So they left behind like $5million in cash that was stored
there, and come to find outthere's more money that's still
missing.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Which is crazy when you think about it.
That's a lot of money,especially since they had
already killed her and,especially since you look at it,
it was from May 4th to May 7thbefore anybody figured out
something was going on.
They potentially had a ton oftime that they could have looked
for this extra money.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
I think it's sad there's again this is just me
and my social worker in thebroader society, but that this
woman was alone, like peoplewere seeing this eccentric
behavior.
At what point could?
And she's in her, she's 67, 68at this time, so where were?
Where was society to provide,like a social worker that could
(21:25):
have tried to provide or makecommunication with her?
Where is the responsibility onthat bank teller that stole that
seven hundred thousand dollars?
That led to her distrust, thatled to her hoarding her cash,
that led to her becoming atarget and being murdered for it
?
Like there's so many littlethings that we look at the
repercussions of our actionsdown the road and what we could
(21:47):
have done as individuals in thesociety along the way, like, oh,
we're making up these horriblestories.
Where were the people thattried to be that, that ear, that
voice and help?
And where were the courts thatcould have stepped in and been
like you know what?
Maybe we do need to put sometype of guardianship over this
individual because they'reshowing dangerous behaviors.
(22:08):
And even just me, like as asocial worker I think this is
kind of a question for you Likeyou could have put a petition
when she's already been robbedfor $800,000.
She's hoarding more cash Likehey, maybe we do need to put
some type of guardianship toprotect herself from harm.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
Which then you have to have somebody who is pushing.
That, I guess, is the best wayto put it.
If she had had somebody else tocount on, like a child or you
know, a cousin or something likethat, who would have gone to
the court to petition for that,it would have been easier for it
to happen.
But it sounds like she had noone, so it would have been adult
protective services who wouldhave needed to do that, and most
(22:46):
of those agencies are alreadyspread extraordinarily thin.
So I'm guessing that theyprobably wouldn't have wanted to
take that on one, becausethey're already overworked and
nobody's.
You know the whole squeakywheel.
There's nobody screaming aboutthis lady needs to be helped.
And then, on the flip side ofthat, she had so much money and
she already didn't trust thebanks.
(23:06):
I'm guessing she wouldn't havetrusted, you know, the court or
conservatorship or anything likethat, so she probably would
have fought that tooth and nail.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
Yeah, there's just a yeah, I guess, for me.
I just like there's somethingin this tragic homicide that
just look back and like there'sso many points and even then
like I don't know if adultprotective services really
existed at that point.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
That's true too.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Like that's something that's really become big.
I know in the last 15 years,especially with the growth of
the internet and people scammingand taking advantage of the
elderly, that we more cautiousof that, but I I'm also
wondering how much of that was.
Well, she's a millionaire.
She could buy security.
She wanted it.
It's not our responsibility.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Yeah, I could see that too.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
So, within a month of the murder, authorities
arrested howard willard and hisformer wife, marjorie pollitt,
in tempe, arizona, don't knowwhy I did not know how to say
tempe.
The couple had attempted topurchase a motor home with money
from the robbery.
And then manuel robinson wasapprehended separately while
buying a new car with stolencash Again, not the brightest
(24:10):
stars in the sky.
One of the things you hear inevery theft movie ever the
Italian Job, which is a greatmovie, don't hold that against
me, it is a good movie or theOcean's movies is don't go
buying flashy stuff right aftera crime.
It kind of links it to you,especially when you're somebody
that's low-level criminal,doesn't have a lot of money.
(24:32):
Suddenly you have cash to buyexpensive cars.
A new motor home might bringsome attention to you.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Which is amazing how many people actually do that.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
It is insane because it's the easiest way to get
caught.
Not little purchases, not maybego rent a car that looks nice.
If you're trying to be flashybecause you have a little bit of
money, which again that's notprobably going to work.
But you know, lay low, travelsomewhere and say no, they want
to go out.
Because I guess that's thegreed that comes with why you
committed the crime in the firstplace.
I want all this stuff and Iwant it now.
(25:01):
You don't have the time where anormal person like I want a
really nice car, I'll go get ajob, save up and get it.
The criminal mind in thissituation is more like oh I just
got $800,000 from murdering androbbing this old lady, I'm
going to go buy $800,000 worthof new stuff.
And that really catchespeople's attention.
Howard Willard's trial was alandmark case in Indiana, being
(25:21):
the first major trial in thestate to allow video recordings
inside the courtroom.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
So here we are a little bit of criminal justice
history in Indianapolis Throughthe practice though the practice
was short lived due tointervention by the Indiana
Supreme Court, which I don'tknow.
Your feelings on cameras incourtrooms.
Do you have any strong feelingsone way or the other?
Speaker 2 (25:43):
For me, yes, and it goes to the same reason.
I hate cop shows that are liveshows.
People act differently when acamera's involved, even if they
don't psychologically see it.
I believe that you see people,they either can be more
aggressive because, like on thecop shows, they're trying to be
more macho and look at me, lookat the authority I have, or they
(26:03):
make mistakes because they'remore concerned about the cameras
that are around and thatattention that it brings.
So I've never been a big fan ofcameras in the courtroom or
with these live cop shows.
And then the flip side of thatas well is what if you're
innocent and that's gone out toeverybody, no matter.
And we see this in othercriminal cases throughout some
(26:26):
of the history at least the uscriminal justice system I know
of a lot of people that arefound innocent.
They didn't do the crimes, butbecause it was so publicized and
they were so publicly shown,they're always ostracized anyway
Because in the court of publicopinion they're still guilty.
Well, they didn't prove you didit, but we know you did.
So I'm not a big fan of it.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
I'm actually not either, because I feel like it
puts too much pressure onwitnesses, especially victims or
lay witnesses, um police kindof.
You know you sign up for it.
You know that's part of the job.
Most officers don't have totestify very often because most
cases are pled out.
I think at one point, um, oneof the statistics we had, uh was
about 80% of our cases werebeing pled out at the first
appearance.
So that doesn't even count.
You know, going to trial it'sjust the very first appearance
when they come through.
So you know, on that sense, alot of times police officers
(27:18):
don't testify on cases.
They don't go to court everyday, it's not a regular
occurrence.
So I'm sure that they getnervous too when they have to
testify, same as lay people andI can't imagine.
Yeah, absolutely too, when theyhave to testify, same as lay
people, and I can't imagine yeah, yeah, absolutely from the
other side of it.
you can, you can handle thatpart of it and you can become
combative and I've seen that,like with defense attorneys rule
(27:40):
, they'll try to bait people andthings like that.
And again, just like you'retalking about, if there's
cameras involved, I think thatthat would be worse, because I
think it is an additionalaudience besides the judge,
besides the jury, besides thedefendant that now you have to
worry about, and especially forvictims who are like, for you
know, marjorie here.
If she had gone forward on oneof those cases, if she was that
(28:03):
reclusive, if she had socialanxiety, I can't imagine her
trying to go into a courtroomwith a judge, a jury, the
defendants and then cameras ontop of that.
Everybody would have beenwatching it if she was in there.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Yeah no, I've just never been a fan of it.
I think it's putting unduepressure, undue spotlights on
people that may not be guilty.
You're putting victims outthere and you're putting their
appearances and everything elsefor cases, especially anytime
you start talking about moresensitive stuff, Like we talked
with domestic violence, sexualassault.
It's already hard enough to getvictims to testify, and now
(28:37):
you're going to put it live onTV.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
Which the hypocritical part of me.
I do watch some of those things, so I have to admit that.
But yeah, I mean personally Iwould say it's not a good idea
in practice.
So I'm glad that they didintervene and stop that practice
.
In December 1977, howardWilliam was found guilty of
(29:02):
Marjorie Jackson's murder andsentenced to life in prison.
Manuel Robinson, on the otherhand, was found not guilty of
murder and armed robbery but wasconvicted on six other counts
related to the crime.
Related to the crime, marjoriePollitt was convicted of
conspiracy to transport stolenmoney interstate and received a
five-year sentence.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Yeah, and Howard Williams really makes out the
sorry.
Howard Willard really kind ofmakes out the worst in all this.
I don't know if they may havehad evidence or I didn't see
anything about Manuel.
Robinson may have turnedstate's evidence on him to like
he committed the murder.
I didn't.
I don't.
Robinson may have turnedstate's evidence on him to like
he committed the murder.
I didn't, I don't know.
Like again we in 1977, like Idon't.
The court records aren'tdigitized.
(29:45):
Now.
It's not that easy.
You know, I don't mind givingbrief overviews and talk about
cases.
I'm not going to the courthouseto try and pay $150 to get
court records from like 50 yearsago.
If you'd like that, please doit upon yourself and I will back
you all day.
But one thing that was found outabout this is that there were
still millions of dollars thatare missing.
So one of the most intriguingaspects of this case is the fate
(30:06):
of stolen money.
While much of it was recovered,reports suggest that a
significant sum remains missing.
Some speculate that an FBIagent working on the case might
have stolen the unaccounted forcash.
I really think that that's justthat the media likes to hype,
that possibly cops are dirty.
I'm probably going to saythere's a very small amount of
truth in that, if there is anyat all.
(30:27):
I just think it's more thatthey had the ability to hide it.
I mean they were found dayslater.
There were probably otherpeople involved If we were able
to track their steps afterwardshouses they went to and stuff
places they were found dayslater, or probably other people
involved, if we were able tochase the track their steps
afterwards houses they went toand stuff places they were
buried it.
I mean we know, god damn it.
I know John Dillinger wasnotorious for like going back to
(30:47):
his home and burying cash onthe property.
So I think it's more realistic.
They may have hidden the money,shared it, given it to other
people to show stuff.
Then it is an FBI agentcommitted a crime.
Not saying it's not possible,though.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
Or it might've just been lost, Like they found some
in a vacuum bag who's to saythat?
And a trash can too.
Who's to say that it didn't gethidden somewhere and nobody saw
it and it got thrown out?
Like who's going to search avacuum bag to look for money.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Or other people when they knew about this, like again
, I've I've secured crime scenesand this was not a small crime,
this is a big house came to thehouse searching at night or
broke in, or people from youknow, people from the
neighborhood, people that watch.
There are people if you don'tknow this, here's a little tip
people that read the obituariesand people that read, like
(31:37):
people to watch face.
Like again, this would havebeen facebook time, but you know
there are people out there thatwatch facebook across the
obituaries and stuff to tagspecifically people's homes to a
target during funeral hours andthings like that.
So there are people that justtake advantage of these
situations to rob or loot afterthe fact.
So to say there was a cop oranything like that I think is
(31:59):
just sensationalizing.
But adding another layer of themystery to the already
sensational story is here we are50 years later and none of that
money has been found.
So I'm sure there are treasurehunters out there that are like
we're going to go find thismoney and so far nobody's found
it.
And finally, the MarjorieJackson case remains one of the
most infamous crimes inIndianapolis history.
I want to take it from ourlittle podcast to overcoming
(32:23):
John Dillinger.
I want to see this lovelywoman's face as kind of
remembering the victim of ahorrific crime, instead of John
Dillinger's dirty face, as likethe face of Indianapolis let's
change.
So this is kind of a tale ofwealth, eccentricity and then,
sadly, the tragedy that cancontinue to captivate true crime
(32:44):
enthusiasts of a wealthy personsecluding themselves and
becoming the target of greed andcrime.
I want to thank you all so muchfor listening to our little
podcast.
This is created with love andpassion for criminal justice and
true crime.
So if you're enjoying thepodcast, please follow us, like
(33:05):
or rate us on whatever systemyou're listening to us on,
subscribe to our podcast anddownload episodes.
Downloads are important for ourgrowth, as is growing our
listeners.
So if you wouldn't mind, takethe time to ask your friends,
family, co-workers, tell themabout us through word of mouth,
social media I don't care if youeven scream at strangers on the
(33:28):
streets.
To help us kind of get outthere who we are.
If you're interested inlearning more, you could visit
our website atwwwdeviantcriminologycom.
There you'll find some stuffabout our backgrounds,
references, show notes for eachepisode.
You can also follow us on ourFacebook page at Deviant
Criminology.
(33:48):
We also have an Instagram page,which is Deviant, underscore
Criminology, or find me atDrrichardweaver on Instagram.
And as we grow, we hope todevelop a community that will
grow with us.
So again, thank you for takingthe time to listen and have a
good week.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.