SOLVED MA - Jane Britton, 22, Harvard student, Cambridge, 7 Jan 1969

[Scrutin-eyes]

Per Macoldcase's extremely useful link...

"about an hour after the find, as i said before, gramly was escorted to the site after being notified and flew out of the vehicle in a complete psychotic rampage, that of a lunatic, making a complete fool of himself and shell-shocking the entire crew. It was about at this moment that he directed his drunken state of rage towards me.. he got within inches of my face, screaming at the top of his lungs. i could smell the alcohol on his breath and i got hit by spit overspray as he continued his vulgar,drunken,incomprehensible jargon. Time seemed to have stood still that evening around me at that moment and the only thing i remember gramly screaming was, and i quote.."and you call yourself an archeaologist!!!!!"

Extraordinary find!!! RMG has a dangerous temper, and what pushes him over the edge apparently, is when those around him do not act like the "archaeologist" that he fashions himself to be. That is, arguing over the meaning or method of such work seems to spark a rage that is in stark opposition to his otherwise academic demeanor. He has no ethics either, judging from the NY/Seneca Indian case against him, and the claims by this guy in this blog that RMG sold those pieces to private collectors. There must be more as Ausgirl points out. Does anyone know a PI that might be able to track down his movements over his career. If we can get that, then us amateur armchair sleuths can scan the various local papers/media for any clues that might show him being in the same place perhaps where other bodies besides Jane and Anne were found. I fell we are getting much closer...

 

[Pink Panther]

Per Macoldcase's extremely useful link...

"about an hour after the find, as i said before, gramly was escorted to the site after being notified and flew out of the vehicle in a complete psychotic rampage, that of a lunatic, making a complete fool of himself and shell-shocking the entire crew. It was about at this moment that he directed his drunken state of rage towards me.. he got within inches of my face, screaming at the top of his lungs. i could smell the alcohol on his breath and i got hit by spit overspray as he continued his vulgar,drunken,incomprehensible jargon. Time seemed to have stood still that evening around me at that moment and the only thing i remember gramly screaming was, and i quote.."and you call yourself an archeaologist!!!!!"

Extraordinary find!!! RMG has a dangerous temper, and what pushes him over the edge apparently, is when those around him do not act like the "archaeologist" that he fashions himself to be. That is, arguing over the meaning or method of such work seems to spark a rage that is in stark opposition to his otherwise academic demeanor. He has no ethics either, judging from the NY/Seneca Indian case against him, and the claims by this guy in this blog that RMG sold those pieces to private collectors. There must be more as Ausgirl points out. Does anyone know a PI that might be able to track down his movements over his career. If we can get that, then us amateur armchair sleuths can scan the various local papers/media for any clues that might show him being in the same place perhaps where other bodies besides Jane and Anne were found. I fell we are getting much closer...

Where are you linking this from? Could you please provide the link???

 

[Suthrnqt]

Where are you linking this from? Could you please provide the link???

See post #657. That is the original link to the info. I cannot link on my phone. HTH

 

[Scrutin-eyes]

Sorry Pink, it was post #657 from rhino-esq and not macoldcase. The physical aggressiveness of "mad mike" as he was known by his students is something many of us have experienced first-hand. The trigger for his violent inappropriate agitation again seems to be when his opinions are called into question, and I think you all can see how this scenario could easily have occurred with Jane, an advanced student ahead of RMG at Harvard, and Anne, a young critical thinker both of whom may have challenged him intellectually along with denying his advances. The more testimony from those who have had direct contact with him and who have had a bad experience with him would be helpful.

 

[Pink Panther]

Sorry Scrutin-eyes. I've read the whole string of postings from that forum and I now know where that came from! I had missed the most important post. What a story!

Thanks Rhino-Esq!

 

[Pink Panther]

Hey Don! Did you ever have occasion to bump into this guy???

 

[Donamena]

Has anyone contacted LE regarding the evidence box? If it's still not a closed case, shouldn't there still be a box?

 

[DonMitchell]

Hey Don! Did you ever have occasion to bump into this guy???

No, although he was teaching for a while at a college very near mine. I have friends who know him and, as one said, "he is a complex individual who I have generally avoided."

I have to say that I found the entire "amateur archaeologist" forum and postings appalling. I knew some of this stuff (people digging who don't know what they're doing, have no permissions, no training, no whatever you might name) went on, but I thought it was pretty much underground. It would seem not. It's wrong. If RMG is a part of it, and he seems to be, then it certainly speaks to his general ethical stance. Of course that's been said already here.

 

[Ausgirl]

If such a belligerent individual as RMG killed Jane in a high dudgeon rage (as seems typical for him..) it would be odd that no shouting or arguing is heard. Rather, nothing at all is heard, and if I am not mistaken, sound carried pretty well in the apartments - am I right there, Don?

So whoever killed her actually -sneaked- up there and killed her rather quietly, probably very quickly seeing as she had no chance to cry out for help. The act of which seems to me like the culmination of a sustained sort of grudge or anger, rather than a sudden fit of uncontrollable rage.

Not saying he doesn't make a good suspect, but that I am wondering whether he'd have any reason to act in such a way as I believe this was a crime that was planned, even if only planned that very same evening. Though I personally think it was probably an anger that had been stewing for longer than that.

 

[Scrutin-eyes]

Unless Jane knew her assailant, as she certainly knew gramly and the original argument took place somewhere else, say at a conference, a anthropology get together, a cocktail party, in a class room. if this guy has murdered multiple times and is not in prison, he must have some sort of control and shrewdness that allows him to evade detection. Think barely contained anger, Ausgirl, but just enough containment to not give himself away. The scenario you present for Jane's death relies on the assumption that he is always out of control and would not harbor a deep seated anger that he could unleash at the moment of his choosing, and that the argument took place in her apartment, and that she would have had time to scream out. If she was resuming a previous discussion with him, maybe over the meaning of this or that archaeological find, she would have had no reason to cry out for help. How about this. Maybe they were arguing over the interpretation of the actual murder weapon, the ancient hand axe, or something related to that ancient culture. One unexpected blow would have rendered her incapable of calling out. So again, gramly over the course of his career seemed to have both, moments of violent uncontrollable rage and sustained grudges.

 

[dotr]

If murder was premeditated, I would expect killer to bring his own weapon.
As for the" burial ritual" performed, that sounds like something someone would do, if they ever heard Jane discuss it.
They would try to make it look like a colleague may have committed the murder, but the ritual would be too obvious for real archeologist. imo.

 

[Ausgirl]

Good posts, both of you.

I have often pondered the crime scene as staged to look 'archaeological', and thus point away from the killer. If so, it certainly seemed to work. I have also pondered whether the ochre was thrown about incidentally, as part of a struggle, and the heaped coat etc over her body an act of "undoing" or self-loathing on the killer's behalf (I believe very few murderers feel any kind of immediate 'remorse' for their victims, so I don't use that word!) and then the whole lot was misinterpreted.

Scrutineyes, you're right, of course, this *may* have been the case. I'm just going on what I have read, re his temperament. He certainly could be charming when it suited him, or no-one would do business with him..

My conundrum here is - if the murder was NOT premeditated, and was the result of a conflict in Jane's apt, then WHO would go to see her at that time of night, and why, and then have the impetus/motive be able to kill her so brutally, without a sound being heard.. There's only so many motives (outside the realm of severe mental illness/psychopathology), for someone to brutally cave another person's head in like that.

If it WAS premeditated, then why not bring their own weapon? Maybe he/she did?

Having one of those days where the potential variables are just doing my head in. But still, there was no screaming, no loud crashes. Quick, sudden, relatively silent.. brutal attack primarily to head... kind of speaks to me of someone who was harbouring intent.

 

[December]

I have thought for a while the motive had to do with someone's desire to improperly handle antiquities and their concern Jane would figure out what was going on and report it.

 

[Veidt]

I haven't been around WS but I've been catching up on this thread. For my own reference when trying to think, I made some notes that I can share here, they recap some of the things that have been said like details about the case and theories that have been discussed. I can post it here if anyone thinks it might help.

December, I have wondered that too. I posted about it some pages back, I can try to find it for you if you'd like to discuss that theory. I think since Jane was reported as being happy and relaxed, that if it was that then maybe she didn't know the significance of something she'd seen herself. Maybe she saw something or knew something, but didn't think it was suspicious, but the perp became paranoid of what she could know and decided to kill her.

About RMG... definitely remove any references to his full name here or get a mod to do that. He hasn't been named as a POI in this case so it's a bad idea to use full names and not initials, I think that's against forum rules.

Don, if you're still reading, it's good to have you here. I highly recommend getting yourself verified as an insider in this case. That would be very helpful.

There are some questions and observations I'd like to make.

Someone here has mentioned another scholar who did work on a similar subject to Jane's undergraduate thesis. I don't think he's of much interest here, IMO. She had moved on quite clearly from that specific field and it's not unusual for people to choose similar topics, it's not even a way obscure one. You can't find her thesis online because it seems like some older ones aren't online yet. It shows up in Harvard's catalogue though.

I've read here that Jane smoked French cigarettes or that it was said she did. What brand of cigarette was found at the scene? Did her boyfriend smoke? Don, if you were in Jane's apartment that day or earlier, did you or your wife smoke?

The ax in the turtle tank, could it have been the murder weapon? Talking about an old ax makes me think it could be blunt like a hammer. Could there have been something else? People here have said that if there were artifacts in Jane's apt that was a big no no, Don has said that it wouldn't have been impossible for students to borrow them from the museum. I'm wondering if it could have been a replica too, sometimes when you go to historical places like ruins, local shops and vendors sell replicas of things. Maybe that could have been something she kept in her apartment.

I'm also wondering about the museum's security being so lax about artifacts. Was there some kind of written record of which people were borrowing what for their studies? This has made me wonder if the weapon could have been something borrowed from the museum.

I'm also wondering about the guy who reported seeing men fleeing into the car. I don't think we've seriously looked at that angle yet, beyond wondering about the guy himself. Could there have been multiple perps, honestly? I find this difficult to believe in, Jane seemed to know and maybe trust whoever killed her, thinking that it would have been multiple people she knew seems less likely. I also think more people entering, based on the layout of the apt Don has described, would make more noise. Maybe some were waiting in the car? Someone who had shady business asking his friend for a favor, going upstairs, then going into the car? Do we know more about this report or theory?

 

[December]

Veidt, yes I can easily imagine that she saw or even knew something that she did not yet know the significance of... or somehow was in possession of information that, if she put it all together, she would see what was taking place. But, as of the time she was murdered, she probably had no idea.

The murderer might have brought some items to leave in Jane's room so if that angle got explored by the police, then she would appear (the murderer hoped) to be in on it. Thus, casting suspicion on Jane and people around her. But, this whole angle never seems to have been explored much. Perhaps because Jane really had no suspicions yet and, so, had not talked to anyone the police would be interviewing, about that subject at all.

 

[Veidt]

The murderer might have brought some items to leave in Jane's room so if that angle got explored by the police, then she would appear (the murderer hoped) to be in on it. Thus, casting suspicion on Jane and people around her. But, this whole angle never seems to have been explored much. Perhaps because Jane really had no suspicions yet and, so, had not talked to anyone the police would be interviewing, about that subject at all.

You know... I'd never thought about that. Thank you for sharing that idea.

Now I really do wonder if there were any artifacts around Jane's apartment when she was killed. Don has mentioned an ax that seemed like it had been cleaned, inside the turtle tank. The media announced that a rock of some kind that had been missing from Jane's flat had been retrieved by LE and then the media blacked out. I wonder how this all fits in together. Was the rock a part of the inaccuracies that LE complained about from the media or not? If not, then why was it stolen (and not left at the scene to make it look like Jane was in on it)? Maybe the perp left something there, but took the rock for some reason... needing it for a business, perhaps? I wonder if that part of the story was reported correctly and if so, what kind of artifact it was.

By the way, it's been mentioned here in this thread that Jane's brother became a radio DJ. Is he still alive? I wonder if there could be some way to ask him to help out if he'd be willing to help.

 

[December]

You know... I'd never thought about that. Thank you for sharing that idea.

Now I really do wonder if there were any artifacts around Jane's apartment when she was killed. Don has mentioned an ax that seemed like it had been cleaned, inside the turtle tank. The media announced that a rock of some kind that had been missing from Jane's flat had been retrieved by LE and then the media blacked out. I wonder how this all fits in together. Was the rock a part of the inaccuracies that LE complained about from the media or not? If not, then why was it stolen (and not left at the scene to make it look like Jane was in on it)? Maybe the perp left something there, but took the rock for some reason... needing it for a business, perhaps? I wonder if that part of the story was reported correctly and if so, what kind of artifact it was.

By the way, it's been mentioned here in this thread that Jane's brother became a radio DJ. Is he still alive? I wonder if there could be some way to ask him to help out if he'd be willing to help.

I think murderers sometimes do things to make the police waste time. I feel the murderer did some things to the crime scene with an eye to this and, if his motive as misused antiquities, to delaying on that front as well. Of course, the police would find Jane never did anything wrong, but as long as they waste their time is all that matters. But, this is only if the crimes are linked due to motive of the killer.

Remember the lie detector test of the unknown person? I think this is why we will never know who that was because this was someone who took the test to try to help unsnarl this mess. But, is innocent.

 

[csb]

My first post here, but I had heard about this case maybe 15 years ago, and have now and then checked in on this forum. I am an archaeologist in academia. I was also told about the latest POI being discussed on this forum by someone (now deceased) who was in the department with him at SUNY Stony Brook during the Anne Abraham case. A second colleague also identified this individual, probably knowing him through work in NY archaeology. Both my sources were confident about their conclusions, and so strong suspicions among colleagues go back to at least the mid 1970s.
I have been very impressed by the contributions of Don Mitchell, and would like to him ask one question. You mentioned that your own suspect had given a confession of sorts to someone you knew, but that this source then died before being interviewed by the police. I appreciate you not wanting to mention names of these people. I'm wondering whether your source had the initials DP?

 

[dotr]

My first post here, but I had heard about this case maybe 15 years ago, and have now and then checked in on this forum. I am an archaeologist in academia. I was also told about the latest POI being discussed on this forum by someone (now deceased) who was in the department with him at SUNY Stony Brook during the Anne Abraham case. A second colleague also identified this individual, probably knowing him through work in NY archaeology. Both my sources were confident about their conclusions, and so strong suspicions among colleagues go back to at least the mid 1970s.
I have been very impressed by the contributions of Don Mitchell, and would like to him ask one question. You mentioned that your own suspect had given a confession of sorts to someone you knew, but that this source then died before being interviewed by the police. I appreciate you not wanting to mention names of these people. I'm wondering whether your source had the initials DP?

Welcome to Ws csb, looking forward to any further info you may have, glad you decided to join here!

 

[DonMitchell]

I have been very impressed by the contributions of Don Mitchell, and would like to him ask one question. You mentioned that your own suspect had given a confession of sorts to someone you knew, but that this source then died before being interviewed by the police. I appreciate you not wanting to mention names of these people. I'm wondering whether your source had the initials DP?

My source's initials weren't DP, but DP was the person who reported the incident to another archaeologist who then reported it to my source (who wasn't an archaeologist but was an anthropologist).