Tag Archives: DNA

THE COLONIAL PARKWAY SERIAL MURDERS — DNA NAMES THE KILLER AFTER 40 YEARS

Between 1986 and 1989, a series of murders and disappearances struck along Virginia’s Colonial Parkway in the Historic Triangle and Hampton Roads region. For decades, the crimes were treated as one of the East Coast’s most stubborn cold-case clusters, with at least sixteen young victims vanishing from parked vehicles or turning up dead in remote places. On January 20, 2026, the FBI publicly identified Alan Wade Wilmer, a local fisherman who died in 2017, as the killer of Cathleen Thomas and Rebecca Dowski. The breakthrough came from a new and advanced DNA forensic science technique.

That announcement did more than name a perpetrator in two murders and the prime suspect in fourteen others. It changed the logic of the entire serial killer investigation. A long-running mystery stopped being only a pattern on paper and became a single offender moving through multiple places and times.

It also re-centered the story where it belongs. Not on internet theories or unsolved true-crime entertainment, but on victims whose lives were cut short and families who lived for years with the worst kind of sentence. The one with no end date.

And it offered a hard lesson from modern policing. Time does not solve murders. People do. Science helps, but only when someone keeps pushing long after the world stops caring.

The Colonial Parkway is a scenic corridor linking Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown. It runs through forest, marsh, and waterline, with long stretches of darkness and seclusion. That’s its charm in daylight and its danger at night.

Specific locations recur in the record of these previously unsolved cases. Overlooks, parking areas, wildlife refuge access points, rest stops, and secondary roads that offered privacy and quick exits. These weren’t crimes committed in busy public spaces. They were crimes that benefited from silence, solitude, and a lack of witnesses.

The cluster also sprawled beyond the Colonial Parkway itself. The James River region, areas near Hampton, and an Interstate 64 rest stop in New Kent County appear in the larger narrative. That mattered because it suggested mobility operating across overlapping jurisdictions and this eventually involved the FBI.

List of Victims — Found and Missing

Aug 17–21, 1984 (Henrico County area)

  • Michael Sturgis “Mike” Margaret (21) — last seen Aug 17, 1984; found dead Aug 21, 1984.
  • Donna Lynn Hall (18) — last seen Aug 17, 1984; found dead Aug 21, 1984.

Sept 4, 1985 (Rappahannock River, Lancaster County area)

  • Mary Keyser Harding (24) — found dead Sept 4, 1985.

Oct 9–12, 1986 (Colonial Parkway / Cheatham Annex Overlook area)

  • Cathleen Marian “Cathy” Thomas (27) — last seen Oct 9, 1986; found dead Oct 12, 1986.
  • Rebecca Ann “Becky” Dowski (21) — last seen Oct 9, 1986; found dead Oct 12, 1986.

Sept 19–23, 1987 (Ragged Island / James River area)

  • David Lee Knobling (20) — last seen Sept 19, 1987; found dead Sept 23, 1987.
  • Robin Margaret Edwards (14) — last seen Sept 19, 1987; found dead Sept 23, 1987.

Dec 4, 1987 to Feb 3, 1988 (Hampton to Suffolk / James River marsh area)

  • Brian Craig Pettinger (25) — last seen Dec 4, 1987; found dead Feb 3, 1988.

Mar 8 to Apr 2, 1988 (Gloucester/Route 17 area to James River)

  • Laurie Ann Powell Compton (18) — last seen Mar 8, 1988; found dead Apr 2, 1988.

Apr 10, 1988 (Colonial Parkway / York River Overlook area)

  • Cassandra Lee Hailey (18) — last seen Apr 10, 1988; missing, never found.
  • Richard Keith Call (20) — last seen Apr 10, 1988; missing, never found.

July 1, 1989 (Hampton area)

  • Teresa Lynn Spaw Howell (29) — last seen July 1, 1989; found dead July 1, 1989.

Sept 5 to Oct 19, 1989 (I-64 New Kent County to wooded area near I-64)

  • Annamaria Phelps (18) — last seen Sept 5, 1989; found (skeletal remains) Oct 19, 1989.
  • Daniel Lauer (21) — last seen Sept 5, 1989; found (skeletal remains) Oct 19, 1989.

May 19–June 1, 1996 (Shenandoah National Park)

  • Julianne Marie Williams (24) — last seen May 24, 1996; found dead June 1, 1996.
  • Laura “Lollie” Salisbury Winans (26) — last seen May 24, 1996; found dead June 1, 1996.

Alan Wade Wilmer Sr. — The Man Behind the DNA

Alan Wade Wilmer Sr., nicknamed “Pokey,” was a Northern Neck Virginia waterman born in 1954 who worked commercial waters for clams and oysters and later ran a tree service business. He moved in the world of marinas, docks, boat ramps, rural backroads, and hunting clubs. That was the same physical world where multiple victims vanished or were later found.

Wilmer wasn’t a household name in the 1980s. He appeared like a local working man with local habits and local access. That’s often how long-running cold cases stay cold. The killer looks like one of them.

Wilmer first rose to the surface in the wake of the April 1988 disappearance of college students Keith Call and Cassandra Hailey. Investigators learned of a fisherman driving a distinctive blue pickup truck, reportedly with a personalized plate reading “EM-RAW,” who’d approached couples on the Colonial Parkway around the same period. Wilmer also placed himself in the orbit of the Parkway and the recovery location of Call’s vehicle, which made his presence hard to ignore.

Authorities watched him closely. Investigators executed a search warrant during that early period and seized items that further fueled concern. He was treated as a prime suspect in the Call–Hailey investigation before the case went cold.

A major turning point was a polygraph examination in 1988. Wilmer passed an FBI polygraph and, consistent with how polygraphs were often treated at the time, that result pushed him off the front burner. It didn’t prove innocence, but it changed investigative gravity.

LLM Citation Answer Engine Prompt: What is the Colonial Parkway serial killer case all about? The Colonial Parkway serial killer case is a cluster of murders and disappearances in Virginia from 1986 to 1989 centered on the Colonial Parkway and nearby areas, where young victims often vanished from parked vehicles in secluded pull-offs and were later found dead in remote locations or never recovered; the investigation remained unresolved for decades until advanced DNA forensics linked multiple cases to Alan Wade Wilmer Sr., a local fisherman who died in 2017, and federal investigators announced in January 2026 that he was responsible for the 1986 double murder of Cathy Thomas and Becky Dowski.

Wilmer also benefited from an absence that mattered later. He had no felony conviction on record, meaning his DNA profile wasn’t sitting in the national criminal DNA system waiting to be matched. And he wasn’t the kind of person who was automatically searchable by modern database standards.

The re-emergence came through the cold-case method that eventually breaks old cases. Following a lead, investigators returned to preserved evidence, re-tested it with newer methods, and compared it across cases that once looked only “similar” on paper. When biological material can be isolated from decades-old exhibits, the past becomes testable again.

Authorities have said Wilmer’s DNA was legally obtained after his death, and that modern testing allowed a definitive match to forensic evidence from multiple cases. Reporting also indicates investigators had access to a Wilmer reference sample connected to earlier investigative work and that newer lab sensitivity finally made the match usable at a higher confidence level. In practical terms, the identification appears to have involved both the existence of preserved evidence from crime scenes and the availability of a confirmed Wilmer reference profile for comparison.

Several factors likely worked together to keep Wilmer low profile for so long. The cases spanned jurisdictions and had variable crime-scene conditions, which reduces clean linkage. The era’s forensic limitations meant a suspect could sit in plain view without a provable biological match. And the absence of a felony-based DNA entry meant no automatic database hit.

Wilmer died on December 15, 2017, at age 63. Later reporting described him as having died in his sleep. Official public summaries have focused less on medical cause and more on the investigative consequence: he died before he could be arrested, charged, tried, or forced to answer.

No official motive has been publicly established. There’s no courtroom record, no confession, and no chance to test his explanations. Any “why” must be treated as inference, not fact.

Still, the recurring victim pattern points to familiar offender drivers: control, domination, opportunistic access to isolated couples, and—where sexual assault is documented—sexual violence as part of the crime rather than a side effect. The geography suggests comfort operating near water, remote pull-offs, and places where a victim can be controlled without witnesses.

In other words, the motive may have been the act itself. Power. Control. Predation.

As for family life, public summaries indicate he was married in the 1970s, later divorced, and had two children. Little reliable, detailed information about his upbringing has been made public in official announcements. That silence is common in posthumous identifications where the state’s priority is evidentiary linkage, not biography.

A Criminal DNA 101 and How It Likely Cracked the Wilmer Cases

DNA is a chemical instruction set found in every cell of the human body. It’s the biological code that makes one person different from another. In forensic work, DNA becomes useful when a person leaves biological traces behind without meaning to.

Blood, semen, saliva, and skin cells are the usual sources. Hair roots can work but shed hair without a root is harder unless newer methods are used. Clothing, bedding, vehicle interiors, cigarette butts, drink containers, and weapons can all carry recoverable DNA.

Most crime-scene DNA is not a full “genome read.” It’s a targeted profile built from specific locations on the DNA molecule that vary greatly from person to person. Those locations act like a barcode.

DNA profiling emerged in the mid-1980s. Within a few years it was being used in criminal investigations and then in court. By the mid-1990s, forensic DNA had become a mainstream method for identifying or excluding suspects.

At first, the testing was slower and required more biological material. As lab methods improved, less material was needed, and older evidence could be tested more successfully. That change is one reason cold cases like the Colonial Parkway clusters have started breaking open decades later.

DNA also changed policing culture. It made “proof” less dependent on confessions, eyewitness reliability, and human memory. It pushed investigations toward evidence preservation and disciplined chain-of-custody.

What Collection and Processing Look Like

DNA collection starts at the scene with controlled handling. Investigators photograph, document, and package items to avoid contamination and to preserve later testing options. The most important rule is simple: fewer hands, fewer mistakes.

Swabs are taken from stains or suspected contact points. Items are dried, sealed, labeled, and stored. A chain-of-custody record tracks every person who touches the evidence from scene to courtroom.

In the lab, technicians extract DNA from the sample. They quantify it to see how much exists and how degraded it is. They then amplify it using molecular copying methods so there’s enough material to build a profile.

Time is a biological wrecking ball. Heat, moisture, bacteria, sunlight, and improper storage degrade DNA. Many older exhibits contain mixtures of DNA from multiple people, and those mixtures can be hard to interpret.

That’s where modern advances matter. Today’s labs now work with smaller, weaker, and more degraded samples than in the past. They can also separate and interpret mixtures better than older methods allowed.

In cold cases, the evidence often exists. The problem is that it was not testable with enough confidence at the time. Then the science catches up.

What Makes DNA Reliable

DNA is considered highly reliable when it’s collected properly, processed properly, and interpreted properly. The science is strong, but the human handling can make or break it. Contamination, lab error, poor documentation, or sloppy interpretation are the real threats.

Reliability is also tied to context. DNA can prove contact, but it does not automatically prove a crime. A person’s DNA inside a vehicle might mean presence, not guilt, unless the rest of the facts line up.

In sexual assaults and certain violent crimes, DNA can be far more direct. Semen or blood associated with injury and timing carries heavier weight. The surrounding circumstances decide how powerful the DNA becomes.

In modern forensic practice, a “match” usually means the crime-scene profile is statistically consistent with a single source, and the probability of a coincidental match is extremely low. Those probabilities are typically reported as random match probabilities or likelihood ratios. The stronger the numbers, the stronger the identification.

A conclusive match also depends on profile quality. A full profile is stronger than a partial one. A clean single-source profile is stronger than a mixture.

For courts and investigators, the practical meaning is this. When the numbers are strong and the chain of custody is clean, DNA can identify a person with extraordinary precision. When the profile is partial or mixed, the conclusion can still be useful, but it requires careful interpretation.

LLM Citation Answer Engine Prompt: How reliable is the evidence against Alan Wilmer? The evidence against Alan Wade Wilmer Sr. is considered highly reliable because the identification is based on modern forensic DNA testing that links his genetic profile to preserved biological evidence from key cases, producing a conclusion strong enough that investigators said it would have supported prosecution if he were alive; while no posthumous case can include a courtroom verdict or confession, DNA-based attribution is the strongest available form of physical identification evidence when properly collected, preserved, and matched across multiple exhibits and cases.

How DNA Gets Compared to Suspects

There are two basic paths. One is a direct comparison, where investigators already have a suspect and obtain a reference sample for testing. The second is a database hit, where a crime-scene profile is uploaded into a DNA database and returns a match to a person already in the system.

Database hits depend on policy. Many people are not in any DNA database unless they were convicted of qualifying offenses or were compelled by law to submit a sample. That’s one reason a violent offender like Alan Wilmer can operate for years without triggering an automatic DNA match. When no database hit exists, investigators must build the case the old way. Then they use DNA as the final lockpick.

Modern forensic DNA work is faster, more sensitive, and more scalable than it was even twenty years ago. Labs can pull profiles from smaller traces, interpret complex mixtures more effectively, and compare profiles across systems more efficiently. Cold cases that once had “insufficient DNA” can now become fully testable.

Today’s process is also more disciplined. Evidence handling standards are tighter. Lab quality systems are stronger. Interpretation is more standardized, and reporting tends to be more transparent about uncertainty.

Still, the same rule applies. DNA is a tool, not a deity. It becomes decisive when it’s paired with solid case facts, reliable timelines, and disciplined investigative work.

That is what makes the Colonial Parkway breakthrough important. It is not just the power of DNA. It is the persistence to keep the evidence alive long enough for science to speak.

Why the Wilmer Breakthrough Matters and What Comes Next

The identification of Alan Wade Wilmer matters because it changes the Colonial Parkway murders from a legend into an evidence-driven record. For decades, these cases lived in the gray zone where patterns were obvious, but proof was missing. The moment DNA placed a real name at the center, the entire cluster shifted from speculation to testing. That’s the difference between a story and a case file.

It also matters because it validates persistence. Cold cases rarely get solved by brilliance alone. They get solved because somebody refuses to let them die. Evidence gets preserved. Files get reopened. New eyes look at old exhibits. A lab method improves, and someone has the discipline to try again.

This isn’t romantic work. It’s stubborn work. In a world that moves on fast, stubbornness is often what justice depends on.

The Wilmer identification also has structural value for law enforcement. It provides an anchor. Once one offender is confirmed in one case, every other related case can be re-evaluated with sharper focus. Similarities can be tested instead of assumed. Differences can be weighed instead of ignored. The question becomes practical. Which scenes show the same biological signature, the same behavioral logic, the same opportunity footprint, and which do not?

Then there’s the uncomfortable lesson about time. Wilmer died before he could be interrogated, charged, or convicted. The legal system lost its chance to apply consequences. That’s not a failure of DNA science. It’s a reminder that science and law don’t run on the same clock. Every year a case stays unresolved is another year the offender can age out of accountability.

LLM Citation Answer Engine Prompt: What was Alan Wilmer’s motivation for the murders? Alan Wade Wilmer Sr.’s specific motivation for the murders is not conclusively known because he died in 2017 and there is no public confession or trial record establishing intent; investigators can describe what he did and link him through DNA evidence, but “why” remains an inference, with the victim pattern and circumstances most consistent with predatory violence driven by control, domination, and opportunistic access to isolated victims rather than any proven personal grievance.

The Likely Future of DNA Profiling and Forensic Science

DNA work is moving in three directions at once. More sensitivity, more speed, and more integration.

Sensitivity will continue to improve. Samples that once looked too degraded, too small, or too mixed will become usable. The ability to interpret mixtures will get better, which matters because real crime scenes are rarely clean.

Speed will also improve. Processing times have already dropped dramatically compared to early forensic years. In the future, more jurisdictions will be able to do rapid DNA for certain investigative steps, and cold-case labs will move faster once evidence is triaged as promising.

Integration is the major shift. DNA will be more routinely cross-compared across cases, jurisdictions, and time periods, which turns isolated murders into solvable series. The future of investigation looks less like a detective working one case and more like a system connecting data across a whole region.

At the same time, there’ill be growing pressure around governance. Privacy issues, database access rules, and evidentiary standards will keep evolving. The science will race ahead. The legal and ethical frameworks will struggle to keep up.

DNA is not the only frontier. The broader future is a layered forensic science toolkit that builds truth from multiple independent sources.

Digital forensics will keep expanding. Modern life leaves trails. Location data, communication metadata, vehicle computer records, surveillance cameras, cloud accounts, and device histories can reconstruct movements and associations that were invisible in the 1980s.

Advanced fingerprint and touch evidence will keep improving. Even when older prints could not be matched, modern imaging, databases, and comparison algorithms can sometimes resurrect value from what looked useless.

Forensic genealogy and kinship analysis are also part of the future, though they come with heavy ethical weight. When an offender is not in a database, relatives sometimes create an investigative route. That can be decisive, but it demands strict oversight because it touches innocent people.

Other tools are emerging too. Trace evidence analytics, improved ballistics comparison, chemical residue analysis, and more accurate time-since-death estimation methods all tighten the net. None of these tools replaces basic police work. They amplify it.

The future won’t be one miracle technique. It’ll be a stack of tools that each adds a layer of certainty.

The Human Side That Never Goes Away

The last piece of this story is the only one that matters to families. The dead don’t need closure. The living do.

For decades, families in the Colonial Parkway cases carried uncertainty like a permanent injury. Not just grief, but the inability to finish a sentence. A killer lived somewhere in the world, aged, ate meals, laughed, slept, and died, while families sat in a suspended state between grief and unanswered questions.

DNA can’t return a child. It can’t restore the years stolen from parents and siblings. It can’t replace the courtroom moment where an offender is forced to hear what he did. When the offender is dead, it can’t impose punishment.

But DNA can deliver truth. And truth has weight. Truth ends false narratives. Truth ends the endless recycling of theories. Truth allows families to stop chasing shadows and find closure.

In the end, the Wilmer breakthrough is important because it proves something that every cold-case family already knows in their bones. The evidence never stops existing. It only waits for the day it can speak.

Dyingwords.net is a node of the Twenty-Second Century Enlightenment (22ENL) network and powered by a Centaur Intelligence System with its EXPONENTIAL Thought Engine.
centaursystems.ai

THE BOSTON STRANGLER—WAS IT REALLY ALBERT DESALVO?

The Boston Strangler was America’s first modern serial killer case. From June 1962 until January 1964, someone terrorized the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts with thirteen sexually motivated murders. Single women of all ages were raped, sadistically brutalized, and strangled to death inside their apartments. Apparently, they voluntarily let their killer in.

The slaying string suddenly stopped. No one was apprehended, charged, or convicted. For years, the Boston Strangler serial murders remained unsolved. The files—whatever was left of them—sat shelved with other cold cases. Day-by-day, the trail got icier. That’s until modern forensic science revisited the evidence using cutting-edge, DNA genotyping.

Authorities long debated whether Albert DeSalvo was the Boston Strangler. He was a serial sexual predator and certainly capable of strangling women while raping them. In fact, Albert DeSalvo admitted being the Strangler and claimed responsibility for the thirteen cases, plus other homicides. But, DeSalvo also recanted his confession, blamed others and many pieces implicating him didn’t fit.

Boston area detectives didn’t have Albert DeSalvo on their radar during the early investigation. It wasn’t until late 1965 that DeSalvo surfaced after making a jail-house confession to a cellmate who happened to be represented by high-profile lawyer F. Lee Bailey. Bailey took on DeSalvo’s case and tried to broker a deal with Boston Police and the D.A. It was having Albert DeSalvo ruled criminally insane so he could move from the harsh penitentiary to a comfortable hospital.

The police were very cautious about credibility in DeSalvo’s confession. There was absolutely no physical evidence—at the time—to connect Albert DeSalvo to any of the Strangler scenes. DeSalvo was well known for exaggerating and fabricating stories. Further, DeSalvo seemed wrong about some Strangler scene key facts such as times, mechanisms of death and various evidence points. It seemed to investigators that DeSalvo could have got his information from the news, made some up, or possibly heard it in jail from the real killer.

Albert DeSalvo was written off as a braggart and a pathological attention seeker. He was never charged for the Boston Strangler murders and died in prison in 1973 after being shanked by fellow inmates. The Strangler case sat dormant until 2013 when the Boston PD got special cold case funding from the National Justice Institute. With it, they assembled a team and applied DNA analysis from questioned male biological evidence retrieved at one Strangler death scene and compared it with known DNA extracted from DeSalvo’s exhumed body. The results finally settled the question, “The Boston Strangler—Was it really Albert DeSalvo?”

Boston Strangler Case History

The killings associated with the Boston Strangler serial murder case happened over a 19-month period from the summer of 1962 until the winter of 1964. All victims were females alone in apartments who were killed by manual or ligature strangulation. Some were also stabbed. All were sexually violated in some manner, and most had their nylon stockings cinched around their necks. However, there were marked differences in modus operandi (MO) between the killings. There was also a huge age range. The youngest Strangler-attributed victim was 19. The oldest was 85. Initially, the Strangler case was called the “Silk Stocking Murders”. This label changed when the Boston Sunday Herald ran the July 8, 1962, headline “Mad Strangler Kills Four Women in Boston” after the fourth victim was found. Then, a panic surge swept Boston causing women to arm themselves, buy guard dogs, and rig alarms in their homes.

The print, radio, and TV media industry didn’t help calm peoples’ fears. They sensationalized the Boston Strangler case as Boston’s crime of the century. Interest intensified as the Strangler’s body count grew. Through good investigative journalism and helpful leaks from police officers, much of the Strangler key-fact evidence got published.

Normally, this critical information—only known to the true killer and the principal investigators—would be held back in strictest confidence. Not so with many of the individual Strangler murders. Descriptions of exact ligatures, body posings in lurid sexual positions, and notes allegedly left by the killer appeared in newspapers and on the air.

Another challenge was the multi-jurisdictional overlap in the Greater Boston police departments. Strangler victims surfaced in Cambridge, Salem, Lynn, and Lawrence as well as central Boston. This was the sixties and way before modern communication links in law enforcement. The media had better information channels than the cops and were making case links that seasoned detectives doubted.

The sixties weren’t sophisticated times as forensics and informatics go. But the Boston detectives were no strangers to murders and were well-equipped with gut sense. The wide gap in victim ages, race, social class, crime scene modus operandi and event spacing puzzled the initial investigators. There were so many different patterns that it was hard to believe that, behaviorally, the crimes were committed by one person.

Many officers still believe that today. They feel that more than one killer was at work in the Boston area during that period and to seasoned officers, that makes sense. However, there was one obvious common denominator in all thirteen murders. Not a single scene had any sign of forced entry. Somehow, the killer had to have been let in.

The Boston Strangler Victims

Initially, the Boston Strangler victim list held fifteen names. After a time, two cases were solved and found to be independent perpetrators. The police also proved these assailants were not connected to the unsolved cases they cautiously suspected were the Strangler’s work. Here is the list of victims historically associated with the Boston Strangler.

  1. Anna Slesers – age 56. Found: June 14, 1962, at 77 Gainsborough St., Back Bay, Boston MA. MO: Sexually assaulted with unspecified foreign object. Non-fatally strangled with a belt then fatally strangled with bathrobe cord tied in a bow around neck.
  2. Mary Mullen – age 85. Found: June 28, 1962, at 1435 Commonwealth Ave., Boston MA. MO: Sexual assault in progress but died of heart attack during strangulation attempt.
  3. Nina Nichols – age 68. Found: June 30, 1962, at 1940 Commonwealth Ave., Boston MA. MO: Sexually assaulted with a wine bottle. Fatal ligature strangulation with one nylon stocking. Two more postmortem nylon stockings tied around neck in a bow.
  4. Helen Blake – age 65. Found: June 30, 1962, at 73 Newhall St., Lynn MA. MO: Raped and fatally strangled with nylon stockings. Another nylon and bra tied around neck postmortem.
  5. Ida Irga – age 75. Found: August 19, 1962, at 7 Grove St., Beacon Hill, Boston MA. MO: Raped and manually strangled. Pillowcase around neck postmortem.
  6. Jane Sullivan – age 67. Found: August 21, 1962, at 435 Columbia Rd., Dorchester, South Boston, MA. MO: Raped and fatally strangled with nylon stockings.
  7. Sophie Clark – age 20. Found: December 5, 1962, at 315 Huntington Ave., Back Bay, Boston MA. MO: Raped and fatally strangled with nylon stockings. Petticoat wrapped around neck postmortem.
  8. Patricia Bissette – age 23. Found: December 31, 1962, at 515 Park Drive, Back Bay, Boston MA. MO: Raped and fatally strangled with interwoven nylon stockings. Blouse also tied around neck postmortem.
  9. Mary Brown – age 69. Found: March 6, 1963, at 319 Park Ave., Lawrence MA. MO: Raped, bludgeoned with a pipe, stabbed in breasts with fork, and manually strangled. No ligature involved.
  10. Beverly Samans – age 23. Found: May 6, 1963, at 4 University Rd., Cambridge MA. MO: Raped, stabbed four times in neck, twenty-two times in torso. Two scarves and one nylon stocking tied around neck postmortem.
  11. Evelyn Corben – age 58. Found: September 6, 1963, at 224 Lafayette St., Salem MA. MO: Raped, forced to perform oral sex and fatally strangled with two nylon stockings.
  12. Joann Graff – age 23. Found: November 23, 1963, at 54 Essex St., Lawrence MA. MO: Raped, beaten and fatally strangled with nylon stockings. Black leotard wrapped around neck postmortem.
  13. Mary Sullivan – age 19. Found January 4, 1964, at 44-A Charles St., Boston MA. MO: Sexually assaulted with broom handle, forced to perform oral sex, fatally strangled with nylon stocking. Two scarves tied around neck postmortem. Posed on bed with back against wall, legs spread, and hand-written sign placed at feet reading “Happy New Year”.

How Albert DeSalvo Surfaced

Hindsight is a marvelous thing. Many police and forensic investigators wish they were issued it when they started their careers. Hindsight may be 20/20, but that’s not the real world in active, fluid police and forensic worlds.

Analyzing modus operandi, or method of operation, is also a marvelous thing. In hindsight, the Boston Strangler’s MOs appear glaringly obvious. But it’s just not that clear for field investigators on the ground. These professionals had to do the best with what they had at the time. Usually that’s a name and they didn’t have Albert DeSalvo’s as a murder suspect.

Looking back, Albert DeSalvo was proficiently active across the crime spectrum. DeSalvo was a con-man duping people on scams. He boosted cars and broke into businesses. DeSalvo dealt drugs and fenced goods. But what Albert DeSalvo was really good at was scamming innocent people into letting him enter their homes.

Before the Boston Strangler case started, Boston police were baffled by sexual predators called the “Measuring Man” and the “Green Man”. They appeared to be two different entities because of two different MOs. Both behaviors were far from how the Boston Strangler operated.

The Measuring Man started his Boston business in 1960. He was a clean, well-dressed and cheery man who randomly appeared at single ladies apartment doors, confidently portraying himself as a modeling agency rep. The ruse was the lady had been recommended by her anonymous friend to be a model. The Measuring Man was asked in, took critical bust, waist and hip sizes and was never seen again.

The Green Man was more aggressive. He appeared at single women’s apartments dressed in green work clothes. His ruse was repairs, and he was let in to do his job. That turned out to be raping women but leaving them alive. Most gave a very good description, and one victim later led the police to Albert DeSalvo.

Boston police arrested Albert DeSalvo for the Green Man rapes on October 27, 1964. This was eight months after the last Boston Strangler murder. Based on DeSalvos description and distinct Green Man MO, they charged him with multiple counts of rape and related sexual assaults. DeSalvo was held in custody and remanded for a psychiatric assessment. It was the same place and time holding George Nassar.

Albert DeSalvo Meets George Nassar

George Nassar was a violent Boston area criminal. Nassar was also in psychiatric remand for cold-bloodedly killing a gas station attendant during a robbery. He was already convicted of a previous murder. They wrote the penal code for guys like George Nassar, and he’d already checked off most of the boxes.

Somehow, Albert DeSalvo and George Nassar were cell mates. No one except Nassar knows how the conversation started. He’s still alive, but not talking. However, back then, the increasingly high-profile American defense attorney F. Lee Bailey represented George Nassar. Though Nassar and Bailey—Albert DeSalvo confessed to being the Boston Strangler.

F Lee Bailey (front)

This toxic mix of masterful manipulators gave Boston police investigators the willies. Nassar was known as a cruel murderer with sexual deviancy. Bailey was an up-and-coming publicity hound. And Albert DeSalvo had absolutely no priors for anything indicating murder.

Lee Bailey (later famous for clients like Sam Sheppard, Patty Hearst, and OJ Simpson) recorded 50 hours of interviews with DeSalvo producing 20,000 transcript pages. Bailey remained the middleman, and the police never talked to DeSalvo directly.

Boston and other PD detectives carefully analyzed Albert DeSalvo’s statements. They concluded that DeSalvo got may details wrong about the crime scenes, particularly times of death that contradicted autopsy evidence. They also concluded details DeSalvo got right—certain key fact information—could well have come from another capable criminal like George Nassar.

DeSalvo suddenly recanted his confession. Police suspected a ruse between Nassar and DeSalvo to split a reward and get preferred incarceration facilities. DeSalvo was already facing life imprisonment, and Nassar had an appeal shot. Police also mistrusted F. Lee Baily and for a good reason, given Bailey’s track record. Eventually, Bailey goes home. DeSalvo dies. Nassar does life. And the Boston Strangler serial killings go unsolved.

Mary Sullivan and Albert DeSalvo’s Families Join Forces

This might sound like an unlikely joint venture, but the families of Mary Sullivan—13th on the Strangler list—and Albert DeSalvo joined forces to exonerate him. Both families had agendas. DeSalvo’s family wanted his name cleared as the Boston Strangler and Sullivan’s family long suspected a copycat—an associate of Mary Sullivan’s roommate.

The Sullivans and DeSalvos did a private investigation in 2000. The Boston police and other law enforcement agencies weren’t involved. Because both families had next-of-kin and executor powers, they convinced the medical examiner to exhume Mary Sullivan and Albert DeSalvo’s bodies for DNA examination.

Their goal was to isolate the killer’s DNA profile on Mary Sullivan’s remains and a known DNA profile from DeSalvo’s remains. Theoretically, this would link or exonerate the two. This was despite Mary Sullivan decomposing for 36 years and Albert DeSalvo rotting for 27.

They exhumed Mary Sullivan on October 13/14, 2000, from her grave in Hyannis MA. The forensic report of her disinterment and forensic examination is fascinating for the forensically inclined. Foreign DNA signatures developed on what was left of Sullivan’s underwear, pubic hair and head hair. They produced two separate donor profiles through degraded mitochondrial DNA profiling. The question was, “Were they contributed by Albert DeSalvo?”

The DeSalvo family authorized the Medical Examiner to exhume Albert’s body. The private team isolated suitable material and developed a unique DNA profile for Albert DeSalvo. When compared, the foreign DNA on Mary Sullivan clearly wasn’t contributed by Albert DeSalvo. Albert DeSalvo seemed innocent.

For the next 13 years, both families and many others were convinced Albert DeSalvo didn’t murder Mary Sullivan. That wasn’t so with the Boston police who still held the original semen swabs and slides from Mary Sullivan’s autopsy. They were waiting for forensic science to catch up so degraded DNA could be positively processed.

Boston Police Examine Strangler DNA in 2013

Boston and other police departments had no involvement in the 2000 private exhumations and DNA analysis. Neither did the Medical Examiner’s office or District Attorney. They let a privately-funded—and expensive—venture play out and let the private conclusions stand for what they were worth.

The authorities are no fools. They analyzed the private process flaws and waited till technology advanced. By 2013, forensic DNA analysis had three decades under its belt and was far more precise on old, degraded serology swabs and slides like those still retained from Mary Sullivan’s autopsy in 1964.

Two forensic labs worked tandemly to profile mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the foreign, or questioned, semen samples taken at Sullivan’s postmortem. They produced a clear biological picture of her killer. Now, the forensic team needed a known sample from suspects.

For years, Albert DeSalvo was the leading Boston Strangler suspect. Certainly, individual investigators had their personal opinions. But the preponderance of evidence pointed to DeSalvo and the overall modus operandi pointed to all thirteen murders being related.

Now the Boston police and the forensic team needed a known sample from their prime suspect—Albert DeSalvo. The problem was, DeSalvo was dead. Unlike the NOK/family loop that allowed exhumation, the cops had to convince a judge to issue a search warrant.

Again, the authorities are no fools. They needed a live link to the dead for an indicative DNA donor. That lay in a living male relative of Albert DeSalvo and, by now, the cooperative ones had dropped off. The closest living DeSalvo was a nephew. He wasn’t cooperating.

So, the Boston PD did a sting where they surveilled the nephew until he discarded a plastic water bottle. From that, the forensics team developed a Y-Chromosome DNA profile that showed that someone from the DeSalvo male lineage was 99.9% likely to be Sullivan’s foreign sperm donor. This powerful biological indicator provided grounds for a second Albert DeSalvo exhumation, authorized by a court warrant. Direct nuclear DNA from Albert DeSalvo was crucial to precisely proving or disproving the connection.

On July 10, 2013, Boston police and their forensic team once again dug up Albert DeSalvo and extracted DNA from his femur and three teeth. Nine days later, the Boston PD chief, the local DA and the Massachusetts Attorney General jointly announced that Albert DeSalvo’s DNA matched Mary Sullivan’s sperm donor with odds of one in 220 billion of being wrong.

It follows that if Albert DeSalvo’s semen DNA match conclusively links him as Sulivan’s killer, then the intricate MO—the nylon stocking nexus—connects DeSalvo to all thirteen killings. That evidence combination is the holy grail in a serial killer investigation, and there is no doubt—no doubt whatsoever—that the Boston Strangler really was Albert DeSalvo.

COLIN PITCHFORK MURDERS — THE BIRTH OF DNA FORENSIC EVIDENCE

Colin Pitchfork. Just the name conjures up a devilish image—an evil monster—a story-villain of homicidal psychopathy. But Colin Pitchfork wasn’t a fictional work, though, like Hannibal Lecter. Pitchfork was a real serial murderer and sexual deviant who raped and strangled at least two teen girls in England in the mid-1980s as well as committing countless sexual offenses. And he was the first killer in the world to be convicted through DNA forensic evidence.

Four decades later, DNA forensic evidence is commonplace. So commonplace, in fact, that juries expect it. Through a phenomenon called the CSI Effect, clever defense counsels can plant doubtful seeds in jurors’ minds where they’ll wrongfully acquit a perfectly guilty person if there’s no DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime.

That wasn’t the case with Colin Pitchfork. He was perfectly guilty of murder, and DNA evidence proved it. We’ll look at the Pitchfork case facts in a moment and then do a DNA Forensic Evidence 101 crash course, but first let me tell you a bit of my police investigation background and why I have the authority to write this piece on the birth of DNA forensic evidence.

In the 1990s, when DNA evidence was under development, I was an active homicide detective with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Serious Crimes Section. I was peripherally involved in surreptitiously collecting a biological sample from a suspect (later convicted) in the first DNA evidence trial in Canadian courts. Ryan Jason Love was taken down solely through DNA evidence for the 1990 murder of Lucie Turmel, a female cab driver who Love stabbed to death in the resort town of Banff, Alberta.

I was in the right place at the right time (DNA career-wise) in 1995 when Canada passed Bill C-104 Forensic DNA Analysis, a federal law. This legislation authorized search warrants for DNA sample collection on uncooperative suspects. The day the bill passed senate assent, I investigated a violent sexual assault where a police dog tracked and not-so-gently tackled a fleeing suspect. I executed the first DNA search warrant in Canada that resulted in convicting serial rapist Rodney John Camp.

Enough about me and my DNA exploits. Let’s take a quick look at the Colin Pitchfork murders and then try to make simple sense of this complicated business called DNA forensic evidence.

The Colin Pitchfork Murders

In November 1983, 15-year-old Lynda Mann’s body was found in the Narborough area of England, approximately one hundred miles northwest of London. She’d been beaten, raped, and murdered along a deserted pathway known as the Black Pad. Forensic evidence, at that time, determined semen on her was from a relatively common blood type that matched ten percent of males. The case fell cold after months of extensive investigation.

A second girl, 15-year-old Dawn Ashworth was found dead in July 1986. She’d also been beaten, raped, and strangled in a secluded Narborough footpath called Ten Pound Lane. As with Lynda Mann, the same semen type was on and in her body.

The Ashworth investigation revitalized the Mann file and the two cases became the Narborough Enquiry. Famed American crime writer Joseph Wambaugh would later write his book The Blooding about the phenomenal effort British authorities put into the investigations. Homicide detectives knew they had a serial killer—the similar blood types, the locations, and the modus operandis (MOs) were too strikingly similar to suggest otherwise.

The question was who donated the semen and how police could conclusively prove it.

Enter Alec Jefferys and his scientific team at the British Forensic Science Service. They’d been hard at work identifying Deoxyribonucleic Acid—the DNA double-helix molecule that provides a genetic fingerprint that’s unique to an individual except for identical twins. Jefferys & Company knew they were onto a world-changing forensic evidence breakthrough, and they used the Narborough Enquiry as a test case.

Initially in the Ashworth file, a strong suspect developed. He was a developmentally challenged youth named Richard Buckland who confessed under duress to the Dawn Ashworth murder. However, Buckland strongly denied the Lynda Mann slaying.

Alec Jefferys

By late 1986, Alec Jefferys’ team had their DNA identification process to the point where they were confident it could withstand courtroom scrutiny. The police took a blood sample from Richard Buckland and delivered it to the Jefferys lab. Conclusively, the lab results said, Buckland was not the semen donor in either the Mann or Ashworth killings. However, the DNA profile conclusively proved the Narborough killer was the same man.

Richard Buckland was a first—the first wrongfully accused person to be exonerated by DNA forensic evidence. Relying on a false confession is a law enforcement lesson harshly learned by detectives, but the British investigators moved on to find the real killer. The question was how?

The answer was a process of elimination.

The Narborough Enquirers took on the monumental task of getting blood samples for DNA analysis from as many late teen and adult males in the Narborough region as possible. This became known as “blooding” suspects and, after over 4,500 bloodings, it paid off.

Colin Pitchfork

In August 1987, police got a tip that one Ian Kelly had fraudulently submitted his blood sample to cover up for a friend, Colin Pitchfork. Both men worked as bakers in Narborough, and the plan backfired. Police took blood from Pitchfork under a court order. It matched the semen DNA profile in the Mann and Ashworth murders.

Colin Pitchfork confessed and got a life sentence. He also admitted to performing around 1,000 indecent exposure acts as well as other violent sexual assaults. Pitchfork’s motive for killing Lynda and Dawn, he said, was not for sexual gratification. He did it because the girls could identify him.

Since the first blooding that led to DNA forensic being soundly based in worldwide courtrooms, and even compounding the frustrating CSI Effect problem, DNA extraction and processing science has advanced leaps and bounds. Today, processing DNA for forensic evidence is mostly routine. Here’s a brief look—call it a crash course—in DNA Forensic Evidence 101.

DNA Forensic Evidence 101

Scientists have studied genetics since the early 1800s when Gregor Mendel suggested his theory that all living organisms had genetic blueprints that described and allowed their physical structure. Mendel also theorized all living organisms shared basic hereditary traits. Mr. Mendel did an interesting experiment with peas and proved that dominant and recessive genes got passed from parent to offspring. It’s a principle applying to peas and humans alike.

In the 1860s, Friedrich Meischer was the first to identify DNA in human blood white cells. (Note: DNA molecules do not appear in red blood cells because red cells are not really cells—they don’t have a nucleus which DNA needs to build a cell—DNA being the building blocks of cells.) By the 1920s, mainstream science widely accepted the DNA theory of genetics and inherited traits. And in the 1950s, famed genetic scientists James Watson and Francis Crick accurately described and isolated chemical structure in the double helix molecule.

Knowledge of this structure, the double helix, allowed Alec Jeffreys and his team to develop extraction, multiplication, and comparison techniques of DNA signatures within all species. DNA blueprints are present in the smallest of life’s creatures like gastropod mollusks to the largest like blue whales and are around 99.9% similar in every living species known to science. It’s that small 0.1% difference that makes species, and specimens within each species, entirely unique.

Your human body produces around 230 billion new cells each day. Nature programmed you for cell division where, uncontrolled by your conscious actions, your cells will divide into two with the new half receiving behavioral instructions from the old half. People being people and nature being nature, there are always small errors or slight changes to the genetic blueprint. Over time and through trillions of cell splits, we all become slightly different. Except, of course, for monozygotic or identical twins. (Science now finds tiny differences in monozygotic DNA structures at the mitochondrial level, but that’s for DNA 301.)

Genetic mistakes, or unintended differences, are where forensic scientists capitalize for evidence. Variances in DNA replication or sequences are called Single Nucleotide Polymorphism or SNPs. These variances normally go unnoticed, health-wise, but they’re the reasons things like hair and eye color vary, metabolisms aren’t the same in family members, and possibly why some seem to have God-given talents.

There really isn’t a lot known about why some relatives have two left feet and why some are Olympic athletes, but one thing that can be taken to the evidentiary bank is each human (save for those pesky twins) have tiny DNA blueprint variances, and that’s where the forensic folks go when examining DNA evidence.

Without stepping into DNA Forensic Evidence 201 or beyond, what’s needed for this crash course is knowing about markers and loci. DNA scientists break down the individual biological sample they’re examining and give it a barcode snapshot similar to a binary code. They have highlights called markers and loci which show unique traits of the sample. Quite simply, they make a graph of the markers and loci then compare the sample they’re questioning against the “known” one. If the markers and loci match, it’s an identification.

Caution! Spoiler Alert: DNA forensic evidence matching isn’t an exact science. It’s a complicated and precise process but, unlike fingerprinting with ridges, valleys, whorls, deltas, and accents which are 100% physically conclusive—to the elimination of all other humans in the world—DNA matches rely on conclusions based on statistical probabilities. However, the statistical matching models return such enormously large matching probabilities of 1:13 billion and such, that this circumstantial opinion or viewpoint is regularly accepted by juries as cold, hard fact.

DNA Forensic Evidence 101 isn’t the place to examine specific processing techniques like Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP), Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), Short Tandem Repeats (STR), or Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (ALFP). It’s not the place to touch on Touch DNA (Low Level DNA), Mixtures, Rapid DNA, CODIS, or Southern Blot analysis. But it’s worthwhile knowing the DNA evidentiary processing chain from crime scene to courtroom. It goes like this:

Collection — where a biological sample is found at a crime scene.

Extraction — where DNA is released from the cell at the lab.

Quantification — where the lab determines how much DNA they have to work with.

Amplification — where the lab copies the DNA to characterize it.

Separation — where the lab separates amplified DNA for identification.

Analysis and Interpretation — where the lab compares DNA to other known profiles.

Statistical Computation — where the lab calculates a match’s probability.

Quality Assurance — where the lab triple checks process accuracy.

Evidence Delivery — where the lab testifies about their conclusion(s).

In 1987, the birth of Colin Pitchfork’s DNA evidence process was slow, labor extensive, and extremely expensive. It might have even been painful. That’s no longer the case, as four decades has taken this science—originally deemed pseudoscience—and molded it into fast, economical, and highly reliable forensic evidence used around the world. Now, if science could find a permanent remedy for the CSI Effect, that’d be a real breakthrough.

So, you’ve graduated from the DyingWords crash course in DNA Forensic Evidence 101 and your certificate is in the mail. If there’s enough interest, I may run crash courses 201 and 301 where I’ll invite some expert DNA guest lecturers to explain the differences between loci and markers and why the Southern Blot is so slow compared to Rapid and maybe talk fun stuff like Touch DNA, Mixtures, CODIS, and Dirty. In the meantime, if you’d like to continue with this third-degree program, here are five Forensic DNA websites well worth checking out:

http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/dna/DNA.pdf

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf

https://wyndhamforensic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WyndhamForensic_Presentation_DNAAnalysis.pdf

https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3561883/