The Boston Strangler

This podcast discusses The Boston Strangler and his horrific childhood. His case is surrounded by those who believe DNA solved the cold case and others who believe it's still unsolved.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/composition-of-a-killer--5602919/support.

Episode Transcript

(00:10):
Hey, Composition of a Killer Fans, Doctor Cassidy. Here today, we're
going to be talking about the BostonStrangler. As always when we are doing
podcasts about this subject matter, noneof the things that we talk about are
meant to be considered a clinical diagnosis, so keep that in mind. I
also want to make sure that youremember most of these podcasts have some pretty

(00:36):
disturbing information in it, so I'vestarted putting trigger warnings on the reels that
I share just so people are aware. I just want you to be aware
that there are some things on herethat may actually trigger someone who has had
similar early childhood trauma, So keepthat in mind as well. Please.

(01:00):
All right, So, I don'tknow how much you know about the Boston
Strangler. I know that I've heardabout the Boston Strangler for I mean pretty
much all my life. There's beenfilms about it. There was a nineteen
sixty eight film, there was atwenty twenty three film. And the person
responsible, the person that they calledthe Boston Strangler. He murdered thirteen women

(01:25):
in the Greater Boston area during theearly nineteen sixties, and originally the crimes
were attributed to Albert DeSalvo based onhis confession on details revealed in court during
a separate case. And you'll remember, I'm sure that we talked about in
many cases the police keep back certainpieces of information from the media in the

(01:51):
public so that if they do findsomebody and they start questioning them, they
will have details of the murder thatno one else knows, and that was
the case here with Di Salvo.However, the funny thing is the police
didn't really believe he did it,so, I mean, he didn't seem
like the type of person that woulddo it. Certainly he was small in

(02:14):
stature, but they also thought thatperhaps the murders were committed by more than
one person, and that could certainlyhave been the case. But I think
we have a little bit of closureor more information on this than we've ever
had now. The original name thatthey called this person, the Boston strangle,

(02:42):
ended up being what he was mostwell known for, But some people
called him the mad strangler of Bostonbecause of a story that the Sandy Harold
wrote that said a mad strangler isloose in Boston, and then another article
was mad angler kills four women inBoston. They also had phantom fiend and

(03:05):
Phantom Strangler, and it's it's interestinghow the how the media seems to be
responsible for a lot of these nicknames like the Green River Killer, and
you have others that name themselves likeBTK, the BTK Killer, and that's

(03:29):
you know, their egos are reallywhat drives that. But this person was
I'm not gonna say smart really,but definitely smart enough to get away with
what he did for quite some time. He was really good at getting women

(03:50):
to allow him into their apartments.And in sixty three, two investigative reporters
for the Record America Record American,John Cole and Loreta McLaughlin wrote a four
part series about the killer, dubbinghim the Boston Strangler. And then by

(04:10):
that time, DeSalvo's confession was airedin open court and the name Boston Strangler
became a part of this crime lore. So what happened here was between June
fourteenth of nineteen sixty two and Januaryfourth of nineteen sixty four, thirteen single
women between the ages of nineteen andeighty five were murdered in the Boston area.

(04:34):
Most were sexually assaulted and strangled intheir apartments, and police believed that
one man was the perpetrator at thattime, with no sign of forced entry
into their homes. The women wereassumed to have led their assailant in,
either because they knew him or becausethey believed him to be an apartment maintenance
man, delivery man, or otherserviceman. The attacks continued despite extensive media

(05:00):
publicity after the first few murders,and that suggests that you have a murderer
out there who does not pay attentionto the media, who does not read
the newspaper. Of course, backin this back in the sixties, we
didn't have social media. It wouldhave just been the news, the local
news, or reading the newspaper.But obviously he didn't do that, or

(05:26):
they thought he didn't do that.The attacks continued, and many residents purchased
tear gas and new locks and deadbolts for their doors, and some women
even moved out of the area inresponse to the killings. The murders occurred
in several cities, including Boston,complicating jurisdictional oversight for prosecution. Massachusetts Attorney

(05:49):
General Edward W. Brook helped tocoordinate the various police forces. He permitted
para psychologist Peter Herkoes to use hisalleged extrasensory perception to analyze the cases for
which Herkos claimed that a single personwas responsible. The decision was controversial.

(06:10):
Herkos provided a minutely detailed description ofthe wrong person, and the press ridiculed
Brooke. The police were not convincedthat all of the murders were the actions
of one person, although much ofthe public believes so. The apparent connections

(06:31):
between a majority of the victims andhospitals were widely discussed. Now Dessel though
I mentioned earlier, he actually confessedto the crimes. But we know based
on past confessions that they're not alwaystrue, right, So that's one reason

(06:56):
that the police didn't believe that hewas the actual killer. He did not
fit the descriptions that people had givenon perhaps the person who was seen leaving
the apartments at the times of themurders. On October twenty seventh of sixty
four, a stranger entered a youngwoman's home posing as a detective. He
tied the victim to her bed,sexually assaulted her, and suddenly left,

(07:18):
saying I'm sorry as he went.The women's description of her attacker led police
to identify the assailant as DeSalvo.When his photo was published, many women
identified him as the man who hadassaulted them. Earlier. On October twenty
seventh, DeSalvo had posed as amotorist with car trouble and attempted to enter

(07:39):
a home in Bridgewater, Massachusetts.The homeowner, future Broughton police chief Richard
Sprouts, became suspicious and eventually fireda shotgun at DeSalvo. Talk about crazy
irony there, right. DeSalvo wasnot initially suspected, as I said,
of being involved with the strangling murders. After he was charged with rape,

(08:01):
however, he gave the detailed confessionof his activities as the Boston Strangler.
He initially confessed to his fellow inmate, George Nasser, and NASA reported the
confession to his attorney f Lee Bailey. That name Ringabelle, one of the
most famous attorneys of all time,who also took on the defense of DeSalvo.

(08:22):
And this is one of the reasonshe became quite famous, is because
he was defending the Boston Strangler.The police were impressed at the accuracy of
DeSalvo's descriptions of the crime scenes,but there were some inconsistencies. DeSalvo was
able to cite details that had beenwithheld from the public, which we know
they do. He states that inhis seventy Bailey states in his nineteen seventy

(08:46):
one book, The Defense Never reststhat DeSalvo got one detail right that one
of the victims was wrong about.Dsalvo described a blue chair in the woman's
living room, and she said itwas brown, and photographic evidence proved that
Dessalvo was correct, but no physicalevidence substantiated substantiated his confession. Because of

(09:11):
that, he was tried on chargesfor earlier unrelated crimes of robbery and sexual
offenses, in which he was knownas the green Man and the measuring Man,
respectively. And he was called themeasuring man interestingly enough, because he
would claim to be a male modeland get the women to be comfortable around

(09:33):
him, even you know, likehim, so that he could take advantage
of that. Bailey brought up toSalvo's confession to the murders as part of
his client's history at the trial inorder to assist in gaining a not guilty
by reason of insanity verdict to thesexual offenses, but it was ruled as

(09:54):
inadmissible by the judge. DeSalvo wassentenced to life in prison in nineteen sixty
seven, and in February of thatyear, he escaped with two fellow inmates
from Bridgewater State Hospital, triggering afull scale manhunt. So he wasn't put
into a regular prison. He wasput into a state hospital, which is
typically for the criminally insane. Anote was found on his bunk, address

(10:18):
to the superintendent, and in it, Thesalva stated that he had escaped to
focus attention on conditions in the hospitaland his own situation. Immediately after his
escape, DeSalvo disguised himself as aUS Navy Petty Officer third class, but
he gave himself up the following day. After the escape, he was transferred
to the maximum security Walpole State Prison. Six years after the transfer, he

(10:41):
was found stabbed to death in theprison infirmary and his killers or killer were
never identified. And that's also commonanyone who anyone who goes in and kills
people who are considered to be defenseless, children, babies, even some women.

(11:01):
I mean, there are certain codesthat criminals follow. That's what happened
with not Ted Bundy. But ohmy goodness, I'll think of it in

(11:22):
a second. It's just on thetip of my tongue. He was killed
in prison. He was doing hiswork, and the donor, Jeffrey Doner,
he was doing his work mopping thefloor in the cafeteria and somehow another
prisoner was able to gain access tohim and he killed him in there with

(11:48):
no There was no cops, noother no one else was in there,
and somehow he got loose to comein there, which kind of the idea
that there was a conspiracy and thatprison guards had led him out to do
that, but that's never been proven, and it could be the same case
here. That's why I say thatit happens very often, and many times

(12:16):
no one ever knows who did it, or people do know who did it,
but it's never going to be talkedabout. As far as his childhood
goes, this is this is what'sso crazy. Really. He grew up

(12:37):
in a very violent household, andso violent in fact, that he witnessed
so many things that his father didto his mother. And this is kind
of where that empathy comes in forme. It's not that I certainly don't
agree with anything that he did,but it just makes me so sad that

(13:00):
there are people out there who arein these type of households and yet have
no coping mechanisms or things like thatto help them change and be a different
person. So it's just upsetting tome when we think about what children go

(13:26):
through and what happens well Thestalvo's.De Salvo's father was an alcoholic and was
very brutal. He would beat thechildren, He would beat his wife in
front of the children, and hewould also have sex with prostitutes in front
of his children. He at somepoint he and his siblings were actually sold

(13:50):
by his father, and De Salvosaid he and his brother were regularly beaten,
but he one of the most disturbingthings for him, he said.
He later recalled that he once watchedhis father knock my mother's teeth out,
quote unquote and then break every oneof her fingers quote unquote, which I

(14:16):
mean. I hope that you've learnedthrough the course of this these podcasts and
talking about early childhood development. Ihope that you've learned the importance of that
attachment with the mother and if achild has attached to the mother properly,
anything that happens to her, youknow, if she's beaten up, if

(14:43):
she's murdered, if she's molested orsexually abused, or if any of those
things happen and you're a child andyou see it or you know about it,
it's devastating. It's devastating to youand many children. You'll see on
a lot of different shows, manychildren will try to defend their mother from
whoever it is that's abusing them,to the point of them being beaten or

(15:05):
hid or what it may be,even killed for trying to take care of
their mother. So it never Itdoesn't say anywhere that he did not have
a good relationship with his mother,but living in that type of a household,
I would make an educated guess thatthe mother was very beaten down and

(15:28):
just took whatever he gave, shetook it could not really protect her children
as she probably wanted to. Again, I don't there's just not much about
his early childhood with his mother.Does talk about his father quite a bit,
but the fact that he and hissiblings were sold at one point leads

(15:48):
me to believe that the mother wasjust incapable of really helping herself and her
children. So it's just I don'tknow these kind of stories. We don't
know what our children come to class, what they've seen what they're experiencing.
We don't know as they move,as they get older, how typically abused

(16:14):
gets worse the older the children are. If it's just a continual thing,
it's there's never anything good about it, obviously, and we don't know the
extent until things happen. Right,we didn't No one knew about the horrible
childhood that DeSalvo had, or ifthey did, they didn't do anything about
it. You know, we don'tknow these things until after something bad happens,

(16:38):
and that's reacting to a situation insteadof being proactive about a situation.
And being proactive is one hundred percentwhat my mission is. You know,
we want to be able to identifythese children who are being abused, identify
these children who are in environments whothat are just horrific like this, and

(17:06):
do something about it. I mean, I don't know if you're aware of
this or not, but the ChildProtective Services it's called different things across the
country, but six to one halfdoes of another. If someone is if
a child, someone calls in toChild Protective Services and says, my neighbor's

(17:29):
kid is always by themselves, thehouse is nasty. I don't know that
they have any food in the house. I really think you need to come
to a welfare check on them.You know, they have different levels that
they look different things that they lookfor, and it's at different levels of
what they of how they're going torespond to that. Fortunately, you know,
years and years ago, like inthe fifties, the culture was very

(17:52):
different, Right, You could makethat same call in the fifties and they
might rush out and take that childaway and make the parents clean the house
up. And I mean it wouldhave been a different response than it is
today. Today, we have thingsthat are so much more escalated that we

(18:15):
have children who do live in adirty home, that do live with you
know, food insecurity, that areperhaps mistreated based on our opinion, that's
mistreatment. But when DCS goes in, if they have running water and they

(18:37):
have some food, they will typicallynot take the child out of that home.
They will they will tell them theyneed to clean the place up.
They will tell them that you know, they'll be maybe they'll be checking on
them from time to time, butit doesn't result in the child being removed
from that environment. And that's notto say it's not to say that children

(19:00):
who live in all children who livein you know, a messy or a
dirty home, or a home thatwe wouldn't think is appropriate. Maybe it's
shack if you will. That doesn'tmean that they're mistreated. There are people
who are just poor. They're justpoor and they love their children. That's

(19:22):
not what I'm talking about. I'mtalking about the difference in the cultures.
Years ago, you could have calledand gotten some action for a child who
is just in those in that typeof an environment. Today, that does
not happen. That doesn't happen.They might if they have multiple people call,

(19:45):
they may go out and check onthe house, but it's pretty rare.
They may call the family and say, we've had a we've had you
know, a couple of people callabout your situation, concern about it.
You know, what can we doto help you? What is there?
You know, do you have yourresources? Let me share some resources with

(20:07):
you. They may do that,but as far as going into a home
and taking children out of a home, it has to be really severe anymore
because they have too many cases.Their case loads are way too high.
It's very difficult to keep people inthose jobs because it's overwhelming. It's overwhelming
and they have too many children totake care of and watch over, so

(20:29):
they get very frustrated about that.And I get it. I get it.
I mean I get frustrated about Backwhen I was in public school,
I was very frustrated because there werea lot of things I wanted to be
able to do with special education,with interventions, but we just didn't have
enough people. And unfortunately that's thecase in many, many different things.

(20:53):
So today, if you called andsaid, I, you know, this
kid told me what was going onin this house. We're being abused,
my mother's being beaten, her mother'smy mom's teeth are knocked out, that
kind of thing, they more thanlikely would come and take those children away,

(21:14):
and they should they should. Butalso recall that one of the main
things that they want to do isget that child back into the same home,
and they try to do that byeducating the parents, you know,
help making sure that they are taughtdifferent things, different ways to do things,

(21:38):
making sure that they get the resourcesthat they need. Sometimes the courts
will require them to go to parentingclasses before they can get their children back.
So things like that do happen.And I completely support our child protective
services no matter where they are,they do the best job that they can,
and they have certain guidelines that theyhave to follow. But it's hard

(22:00):
for us as educators to see thesechildren come in day after day after day
wearing the same exact outfit and smellingbad, and knowing how that social rejection
that they will get from other childrenis so impactful in their life. And
I think we see that in manyof these serial killers. We see this

(22:21):
rejection, we see this abuse,and I keep noticing. Maybe you do
too, but I definitely keep noticingthat more and more of the serial killers
when they're interviewed, talk about bullyingand rejection. It's very very common theme,

(22:45):
and it makes it for me.It makes me wonder to what extent
bullying in schools and that type ofthing maybe equally as bad as being abused
at home, because our social interactionwith another human being is so very important,

(23:07):
our acceptance in a community, ina learning community, in a classroom
is so very important for us developmentallythat I don't think it's I think it
could be considered right up there withas important as children who are not abused

(23:30):
by their parents or sexually abused ormentally abused. I mean, I think
that it should be right up therewith that. It's so important. So
throughout this case, years and yearsand years they had they had many different

(23:53):
theories. There's several people who stillbelieve that it was just the Boston Strangler
doing it alone, but there areso many more who think that not just
one person could not be able todo those kind of killings. So for
years, I mean nineteen sixty eight, you've got a medical director who insisted

(24:18):
that DeSalvo was not the Boston Strangler. It wasn't until July eleventh of twenty
thirteen that the Boston Police Department announcedthat they had found DNA of and it's
that linked DeSalvo to the murder ofMary Sullivan, and I believe that was
his last murder. DNA found atthe scene was a near certain match to

(24:41):
why DNA taken from a nephew ofDeSalvo. And if you recall, you
know DeSalvo was already dead at thistime. But DNA has become so advanced
that they can take the DNA froma someone kin to you and can identify

(25:03):
this why DNA and say, yes, some person in this family was the
perpetrator. And so they of courseknow that it's in this case, it
was Deslo. They were trying tojust find another just another level of proof
that he is the Boston strangler.I personally feel like it has been solved.

(25:29):
I feel like if they found DNAat Mary Sullivan's that matched his,
I have faith in that. Ihave faith in that DNA system. So
for me, cases closed. Andhe did confess. I mean, they
said some of the psychiatrists that interviewedhim said that he was He constantly would

(25:53):
confess to something, whether it wasto get attention or whether it was to
whatever was going on in his mind. He wanted to say what he thought
they wanted to hear. But Ithink in this case, you know,
maybe he was not the smartest person. Maybe they did think that he didn't

(26:15):
have the characteristics of a serial killer. But I'm telling you, there are
no black and white characteristics of aserial killer, and that's what makes them
so successful. We cannot put wecannot put all serial killers in a box.
Now, there are some general obviouslythere's some general characteristics, the number

(26:41):
one for me being having a veryhorrible childhood, having significant different sources of
abuse, whether it's mental, physical, sexual, whatever, and so when
you dig down into these though allof these serial killers had different experiences.

(27:03):
When you dig down into their lives, what was that one thing or was
it multiple things that caused this personto do these things? Obviously we don't
have the Boston Strangler here to askhim, but he did do some interviews
and there's many I mean, gosh, I can't even tell you how many
different shows are out here in theworld about the Boston Strangler. And it's

(27:30):
because it's so interesting that there wereall these murders. You had this person
who did not fit the profile,who confessed, and yet the police did
not believe him, and for years, years, years and years, they
went on and on trying to findthe killer, when all along he was
in prison. And I get it. Cold cases are difficult, and until

(27:52):
you get that DNA evidence, youknow, sometimes you're just sitting there spinning
your wheels. But I feel likethere's far more evidence suggesting or proving even
that he was the murderer than thereis evidence that he was not. I

(28:15):
think it weighs heavily that he was. So there's the interest. This is
kind of interesting. I don't knowthat I would want to be called this
but the Philadelphia seventy six Ers playerAndrew Tony was dubbed the Boston Strangler because
of his outstanding performance against the BostonCeltics. And notable example is Game seven

(28:37):
of the nineteen eighty two Eastern ConferenceFinals. I really don't think I'd want
to be dubbed the Boston Strangler.There was a nineteen sixty four film called
The Strangler that was inspired by theunsolved killings. There was a nineteen sixty
eight film called The Boston Strangler whereTony Curtis, and Tony Curtis was Albert

(28:59):
the same and Henry Fonda Coast Arts, so you've got big names. You
know. This was really a popularsubject and a popular case. There was
a nineteen ninety five film called Copycatthat made references to Boston Strangler. And
then there was a two thousand andseven novel called The Strangler by William Landay

(29:21):
that depicts the family of an attorneyon the Strangler task Force. And I
love it when they do that.I love it when they take a twist.
You know. There's there's a hundreddifferent books about the Boston Strangler,
but let's talk. Let's do abook about the police officers who have worked
that case for twenty years. Let'sdo a story on the families of the

(29:42):
people who were killed and how thisimpacted their life. I love to look
at these things from very different anglesbecause you learned so much more about about
the atmosphere during that time. Youlearn so much about how people react to
these type of murders, these typeof killings. Interestingly enough, I keep

(30:06):
saying that today that must be myword of the day. During this time
in the sixties, when he waswhen the Boston Strangler was active, there
was a huge shortage of dogs.All these people in neighborhoods were trying to
get these dogs, big dogs toprotect themselves from the Boston Strangler, thinking

(30:26):
that the big dog would bark andscare them away. And so there's all
these little things that are happening inthe environment around these killers that is just
so different and so out of theordinary man who would have thought. I
get that people move out of anarea. I get that people maybe move

(30:47):
in with a roommate, or maybemove back home where there's strength in numbers.
Right, you feel safer at homewith your parents or your siblings.
But thinking that, I'm oh,my gosh. During this time, there
was a shortage in dogs because everyonewas getting a dog to protect themselves from

(31:07):
this Boston strangler. It's crazy.It's crazy, that very true. Millie
Kate has joined us and she iscurrently whining if you hear her in the
background. So there are tons ofmaterial on this. If this really interests
you, there's so much work donejust on the theory that there was more

(31:33):
than one killer. I mean,they really pursued that for years and years
and years, like decades, Sothere's information on that. If Lee Bailey's
book The Defense Never Rests, that'san excellent, very interesting piece of work.
He published that in nineteen seventy one. I read it years ago.
I don't recall major specifics about itbecause it was probably twenty years ago when

(31:59):
I read it. But his bookwas it was a pretty much a like
you know, it was a kindof a different book for that time,
so it was pretty well sensationalized.Again, there's tons of different books,
there are tons of journal articles,there's popular culture. He's referenced in in

(32:25):
an album by the Rolling Stones,the Midnight Rambler. Well, the song
is the Midnight Rambler. The albumis let it Bleed, which was released
in sixty nine, and so thisstory became the it became a decade,

(32:50):
a mark of that decade. Itbecame nearly thought it was a part of
their popular culture back then that thatwe see these type we see these news
these uh not just news, butwe see h comedies that make references to

(33:12):
the Boston Strangler. There's a comicbook that came out about the Boston Strangler.
Waxworks were talked about Albert when hewas in prison, Albert the Southwell,
the Salvo. He made wax figures, wax sculptures, and those were

(33:36):
referenced in a British comedy. Soit's just crazy the things that are out
there. You can literally just googleit and a million things pop up.
So if you're interested in more detailon that, check all those out.
I think that for me, Iwant I wanted to find more information on

(34:00):
his childhood, of course, andI found several different pieces of information,
but most of them were the same. There's a couple that introduced some new
things, like his mother getting herteeth knocked out, and he saw that
those very very specific details just haven'tbeen discussed all that much. But again,

(34:20):
people don't really people back in thesixties even up to the eighties didn't
really talk about the early childhood experiencesbecause we didn't really know that much about
how important positive early childhood experiences werefor a child's development. Now we do,
so we talk about it. That'sone of the very first things that

(34:40):
that is the first thing that Ithink of when someone comes on the news,
you know, like Brian Coburger,I want to know what his childhood
looks like. I want to knowif there was something that happened, if
there was one event that happened thatcaused him to do something like this.
I know he's innocent until proven guilty, but you are typically not put in

(35:04):
jail and kept in jail if there'sif there's not an overwhelming amount of evidence
against you, that's just facts.So and unfortunately we do live in that
kind of a society. The minutesomeone is accused, they are canceled,
right, people lose their jobs.I don't agree with that per se,

(35:29):
but I think that what other things, what else could you do? You
know, people who are being investigatedfor really horrific crimes, let's say they're
a school teacher, should they beable to stay in that classroom because you
were innocent until you're proven guilty.Well we can I don't think we can

(35:50):
take that chance with children. Youcan't let someone who's suspected of murder or
rape, or child pornography or humantrafficking or anything like that. You can't
allow them to continue to have accessto a population that is typically they're victims.
But I think you would have to, and we see this in a
lot of cases, you would haveto take them off of work with pay,

(36:15):
with full pay, so that theydon't lose their home or whatever,
because they aren't technically guilty yet.But popular culture immediately cancels them. So

(36:37):
we see a lot of We seeso much of that, and I don't
know if it's good or bad.I think if it happened to me,
if someone accused me of something andI lost everything, I would I mean,
you'd be devastating. You'd be devastatingto be accused of something that you
didn't do. Equally devastating to befired from your job, or for your
family to completely disown you and turntheir back on you. All those things

(36:59):
have all the time, and insome cases not a ton. But in
some cases these people are found innocentand it turns out to be just a
really horrible time in that person's life. You can literally google that as well
and find where people have gone throughall of this, all of these different

(37:27):
court hearings, they go through,I mean years and years and years of
their life being canceled out while theywere to prove their innocence. And there's
all kinds of stories about that.There's also stories about people who are put
in prison who aren't guilty. Manypeople felt like the Boston strangler was wrongfully
accused of being the Boston strangler.Yeah, he was guilty of other things,

(37:51):
so they put him in jail forthose other things until they could make
a better case for the murders.And that's exactly what they did. And
you'll see that happen time and timeagain. Here. You can watch any
police show any kind of law storyabout law and criminology, and they will
do that. They'll find any kindof small even if it's like a bunch

(38:15):
of traffic tickets, to keep youincarcerated legally until they get further evidence that
can keep you that can put youin jail until you're court hearing or until
you get bailed. If you doget bailed, so you see that quite
often, and of course we sawthat in this case back in the sixties.
So I hope you enjoyed this thispodcast. I think that the Boston

(38:44):
Strangler is a great example of howwe envision a serial killer to be a
monster, to look like a monster, to be someone that repulses us,
and that was just not the casehere. And then of course, the
more we find out about his earlychildhood and his experience is there. For

(39:07):
me, it just clicks, itmakes sense, and with the DNA,
I think it's proven. I thinkit's a closed case. But that's a
big debate, so i'd be interestedto know what you think about it.
Do you think he is the BostonStrangler or do you think that they just
chose to take the information that theyhad his confession and then finally, of

(39:30):
course the hy DNA and say,yep, that's enough evidence for me.
We're going to call it closed.It's no longer a cold case. I'd
be interested to hear your opinion onthat. So you can always reach me
at doctor Kimberly Cassidy eighty nine atgmail dot com and be sure to look

(39:51):
for another case that we're going tolook at next week. It'll be out
some time later in the week becauseschool starts back for me on Monday,
and I'm going to be quite busyjust getting back in the groove of that.
So I hope you have a wonderfulweek. Obviously, I want you
to have a happy new Year andkeep tuning in and sending me questions.

(40:13):
Have a great day.