PA PA - Betsy Aardsma, 22, murdered in Pattee Library, Penn State, 29 Nov 1969

[Gina_M]

Is it possible that the person who killed her was hired to do so by someone else? That would explain the lack of "crime of passion" overkill, if the guy was just "doing a job". It could also explain the "Somebody better help that girl" - the hired killer could have gotten a twinge of guilt after he did the deed.

 

[kline]

I think perhaps that the person or persons decided to kill her, but motive as yet remains the hardest part of this. It may have been a sexual predator, or someone who was into a thrill kill, but again, why in the library? Most sexual predators will want to spend time with their victims, so to speak. A thrill kill seems most likely, or a specific silencing that had to be done immediately, because if someone was targeting her and knew enough about her to follow her there, they would have had a much better opportunity to commit the crime in her dorm, etc., where there would be less potential witnesses.

Derek

Yes thats another aspect that really puzzles me...why there?
Your right,if someone wanted to kill her there had to be better places with less risk involved then there.
Same applies to someone just wanting to kill for the sake of killing someone.
There would have to be a thousand and one better places to accomplish it.
Its just bizzare.
I dont buy the 'drug deal in the stacks' theory either.The idea that she saw some idiot selling a fellow student a few buds so they decided to run her through with a hunting knife to keep her quiet is ridiculous. (Though Im sure that notion seemed entirely plausible in some circles in 1969. )
It still seems that if someone was obsessed enough with her or was fixated enough to kill her ,they would have left some trace of themselves in her life for investigators to pick up on.
A friend she told about some creepy awkard guy in some class who kept trying to talk to her or a note or something.
Unless who ever did it existed in a complete social vaccum(possible I guess) you would think he would have said something about her to someone.
"Hey Steve,You know that chick you keep going on about everytime your drunk?Someone killed her!"
This is definately one of those facinating mysteries.The more you look at it the more of a mystery it becomes.

 

[littlehorn]

Is it possible that the person who killed her was hired to do so by someone else? That would explain the lack of "crime of passion" overkill, if the guy was just "doing a job". It could also explain the "Somebody better help that girl" - the hired killer could have gotten a twinge of guilt after he did the deed.

I thought about that too, but like Kline, I would think a hired killer would be more selective about his location for committing the hit. It still seems too risky, and again, who would know that she was heading into that particular part of the library at that particular time on a day that she was supposed to be home on break...

Derek

 

[littlehorn]

Yes thats another aspect that really puzzles me...why there?
Your right,if someone wanted to kill her there had to be better places with less risk involved then there.
Same applies to someone just wanting to kill for the sake of killing someone.
There would have to be a thousand and one better places to accomplish it.
Its just bizzare.
I dont buy the 'drug deal in the stacks' theory either.The idea that she saw some idiot selling a fellow student a few buds so they decided to run her through with a hunting knife to keep her quiet is ridiculous. (Though Im sure that notion seemed entirely plausible in some circles in 1969. )
It still seems that if someone was obsessed enough with her or was fixated enough to kill her ,they would have left some trace of themselves in her life for investigators to pick up on.
A friend she told about some creepy awkard guy in some class who kept trying to talk to her or a note or something.
Unless who ever did it existed in a complete social vaccum(possible I guess) you would think he would have said something about her to someone.
"Hey Steve,You know that chick you keep going on about everytime your drunk?Someone killed her!"
This is definately one of those facinating mysteries.The more you look at it the more of a mystery it becomes.

The drug deal theory kind of bothers me, too. I cant' believe anyone would get that worked up over someone seeing them pass the herb to think it would require killing her.

And like you say, I can't believe if it was a crazy stalker-type guy, that no one else would have known...A roommate? A classmate? A friend?

And the fact that no one has ever talked about it is the most bizarre part. Typically this sort of thing comes out -- you get popped for something else, you plea bargain out by ratting out your bud, who you know killed Betsy. Or you get drunk or guilty or afraid and you talk to someone who can't keep a secret. Etc.

I have to admit, the deeper I dig, it seems like the less I understand.

I think the missing part that's causing the sticking here is motive: who would hate/love/fear/envy her that much that they decided she had to die.
Find that, and you can find the killer.

Derek

 

[kline]

The drug deal theory kind of bothers me, too. I cant' believe anyone would get that worked up over someone seeing them pass the herb to think it would require killing her.

And like you say, I can't believe if it was a crazy stalker-type guy, that no one else would have known...A roommate? A classmate? A friend?

And the fact that no one has ever talked about it is the most bizarre part. Typically this sort of thing comes out -- you get popped for something else, you plea bargain out by ratting out your bud, who you know killed Betsy. Or you get drunk or guilty or afraid and you talk to someone who can't keep a secret. Etc.

I have to admit, the deeper I dig, it seems like the less I understand.

I think the missing part that's causing the sticking here is motive: who would hate/love/fear/envy her that much that they decided she had to die.
Find that, and you can find the killer.

Derek

Exactly!
And thats what keeps hanging me up:someone with that much emotional investment in her,to the point of killing her with a knife,a very up close and personal way to kill someone...in a library no less..should have left some trace of themselves in her life.
Something investigators who started digging back then and now should have come accross.
Or conversly say he got this spun about her from a distance with minimal contact with her(Which seems unlikely) its hard to beleive he wouldnt have said something about her prior to the murder to someone.
And anyone who had that kind of steam it would take to walk up to someone in a library and ram a blade into someone's body...you wouldnt think covering their tracks would be high on their list of priorities.
Yet nothing.
None of it makes any sense yet it happened.

 

[littlehorn]

Exactly!
And thats what keeps hanging me up:someone with that much emotional investment in her,to the point of killing her with a knife,a very up close and personal way to kill someone...in a library no less..should have left some trace of themselves in her life.
Something investigators who started digging back then and now should have come accross.
Or conversly say he got this spun about her from a distance with minimal contact with her(Which seems unlikely) its hard to beleive he wouldnt have said something about her prior to the murder to someone.
And anyone who had that kind of steam it would take to walk up to someone in a library and ram a blade into someone's body...you wouldnt think covering their tracks would be high on their list of priorities.
Yet nothing.
None of it makes any sense yet it happened.

I agree with you completely. Any theories I come up with seem to peter out when exposed to the light of day. There's no one overwhelming reason for doing it. I keep coming back to the fact that maybe the reason for doing it wasn't something a sane person would understand. Maybe it was done just for the hell of it. Maybe she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But then you have the issue of...what happened to this guy next? Surely someone who would do this for giggles isn't going to just stop. So where'd he go?

Derek

 

[Stella]

Maybe it was a thrill killer who needed to prove himself to himself only once. If so, they'll never find him. I'm talking about the kind of smugness where the killer doesn't feel the need to share his secret. Or maybe she was pregnant and the father hired someone to get rid of her? I don't know if they checked that thoroughly during her autopsy and back then, I don't think they would have made that public anyway. Would be nice to check that off the list of possibilities though.

 

[kline]

Boy,I can see where this case would drive someone to distraction real quick.
I pity the original investigators.
Ive only known about it for a week and its enough to make me beat my head on the table.
Dont feel bad Littlehorn every scenario Ive concocted falls apart in a big way everytime I try to take it to its logical conclusion.
Example: The killer is someone she didnt know therefore investigators have absolutely zero to show for the hours they spent looking at her life and talking to everyone she did know.
So,why would someone she didnt know kill her?
If it was a paranoid schizoprenic or disasscociative psychotic why didnt they find them two hours later walking down mainstreet naked or screaming at a telephone pole?
Thrill killer.If it was someone who just wanted to kill a stranger to see what it felt like there would be a million safer places to do it then there because the logical assumption anyone would HAVE to make is if you kill someone in a freaking library you are going to be seen by many witnesses and caught just about immediatly.Period.
And some sick punk or predator who just wants a taste of murder is not going to want to get caught for it.
And if by some miracle he got away wheres the next young girl murdered?
Some one kills a girl they dont even know to see what it feels like and just goes"Well that was interesting...I wonder what hang gliding would be like.."????
So there you go.:waitasec:

 

[littlehorn]

Maybe it was a thrill killer who needed to prove himself to himself only once. If so, they'll never find him. I'm talking about the kind of smugness where the killer doesn't feel the need to share his secret. Or maybe she was pregnant and the father hired someone to get rid of her? I don't know if they checked that thoroughly during her autopsy and back then, I don't think they would have made that public anyway. Would be nice to check that off the list of possibilities though.

I'm leaning towards the thrill killer idea. Perhaps he derives his satisfaction from being "smarter than everyone else."

The autopsy report has been available to some folks through the years. No evidence of pregnancy has ever been inferred from it. I have spoken with a couple of her friends now and the response is always the same: "If she had any secret boyfriend other than her fiancee, we had no idea about it."

Derek

 

[littlehorn]

Boy,I can see where this case would drive someone to distraction real quick.
I pity the original investigators.
Ive only known about it for a week and its enough to make me beat my head on the table.
Dont feel bad Littlehorn every scenario Ive concocted falls apart in a big way everytime I try to take it to its logical conclusion.
Example: The killer is someone she didnt know therefore investigators have absolutely zero to show for the hours they spent looking at her life and talking to everyone she did know.
So,why would someone she didnt know kill her?
If it was a paranoid schizoprenic or disasscociative psychotic why didnt they find them two hours later walking down mainstreet naked or screaming at a telephone pole?
Thrill killer.If it was someone who just wanted to kill a stranger to see what it felt like there would be a million safer places to do it then there because the logical assumption anyone would HAVE to make is if you kill someone in a freaking library you are going to be seen by many witnesses and caught just about immediatly.Period.
And some sick punk or predator who just wants a taste of murder is not going to want to get caught for it.
And if by some miracle he got away wheres the next young girl murdered?
Some one kills a girl they dont even know to see what it feels like and just goes"Well that was interesting...I wonder what hang gliding would be like.."????
So there you go.:waitasec:

My thoughts exactly. Each scenario you have pointed out falls apart exactly the way you described. And that's what makes beating your head against a table seem like fun -- at least it feels good when you stop doing it.

I keep coming back to someone being interrupted in some way with something illicit, and feeling whatever misguided fear or need they felt at the time, that they had to silence her to keep her from revealing them. Not that she may have even known what it was she wasn't supposed to know, or have been inclined to tell anyone about it anyway. That's the only somewhat sane emotion strong enough to make someone do something so bold, and so final: the thought that something worse will happen to them if they don't.

Regards,

Derek

 

[Rhett]

Maybe she was being followed. Maybe someone followed her into the library. It could have been someone she used to go to school with that would not be noticed or recognized on that campus. Maybe she was two timing the finance at her old school and that person killed her after she blew him off. Another possibility is that it could have been a drug deal she witnessed there. I think it is a good spot for a drug deal. What if it was two medical or nursing students participating in a drug deal and it would have ruined their careers if they were caught dealing drugs not to mention being kicked out of school for it. It might have been something stronger than pot. That might be a strong enough motive to kill a potential eye witness. And, if they were hopped up on drugs they may have made a rash decision to kill her. If it were a medical student dealing drugs they would have known just where to stab her to be most effective. Also, could a girl have committed this murder? Maybe a jealous female. Maybe some other girl had been having a fling with Betsy's finance and when Betsy came to school it ruined their fling and she was jealous. Not jealous but in mad love and enough to kill for it. Just some ideas for thought.

 

[MaryLiz]

Since reading about this case, I have always kind of thought in the back of my mind that someone did follow her to the library, and may have been watching her in the days or weeks preceding the crime. I just have a hard time believing this was random. This is one of those cases that when you first read about it, your first thought is one of disbelief that it hasn't been solved, especially right after it happened, given the location. But the more you dig into it and the more you read, you can honestly see why police haven't been able to solve it. There is just NOTHING in the way of evidence, motive or witnesses.

 

[littlehorn]

Maybe she was being followed. Maybe someone followed her into the library. It could have been someone she used to go to school with that would not be noticed or recognized on that campus. Maybe she was two timing the finance at her old school and that person killed her after she blew him off. Another possibility is that it could have been a drug deal she witnessed there. I think it is a good spot for a drug deal. What if it was two medical or nursing students participating in a drug deal and it would have ruined their careers if they were caught dealing drugs not to mention being kicked out of school for it. It might have been something stronger than pot. That might be a strong enough motive to kill a potential eye witness. And, if they were hopped up on drugs they may have made a rash decision to kill her. If it were a medical student dealing drugs they would have known just where to stab her to be most effective. Also, could a girl have committed this murder? Maybe a jealous female. Maybe some other girl had been having a fling with Betsy's finance and when Betsy came to school it ruined their fling and she was jealous. Not jealous but in mad love and enough to kill for it. Just some ideas for thought.

These are all good thoughts. I never thought of the med student drug dealing/career ruining angle. I would say that the medical students at PSU go to a different campus; in Hershey, PA, about an hour and a half away. So it would have been unusual for one to be in the library in that particular section at that time for any normal research purpose.

I can say that I have heard the theory that it was a woman posited before, and it's pretty much ruled out due to the eyewitness testimony of others, who noted two men standing a few rows away in the stacks talking, and that two men came out and left quickly after she was murdered.

As much as the "other man" theory makes sense, I can't find a single bit of evidence or testimony that she was anything but a young girl who was engaged to be married and was in love with that guy. They had dated in Michigan and she came to PSU to be closer to him while he finished med school. She drove down every weekend to Hershey to spend the weekend with him.

Derek

 

[littlehorn]

Since reading about this case, I have always kind of thought in the back of my mind that someone did follow her to the library, and may have been watching her in the days or weeks preceding the crime. I just have a hard time believing this was random. This is one of those cases that when you first read about it, your first thought is one of disbelief that it hasn't been solved, especially right after it happened, given the location. But the more you dig into it and the more you read, you can honestly see why police haven't been able to solve it. There is just NOTHING in the way of evidence, motive or witnesses.

You know, if it wasn't random, there would have had to have been some element of her being followed, either before she got to the library, or once she got inside. Because she had no particular reason to be in the library that day, so there's not really any way she could have been "Expected" to be there by her killer.

The more I talk to people, the more I think the police really screwed up in the early stages of the case by NOT releasing some of the information that they had to the public. It may have helped identify the individual before he had a chance to get a few months behind him. There are fingerprints -- this kills the Ted Bundy theory, since the prints have been run against the FBI files for years and no matches have ever come up. There are some other pieces of evidence which I can't really reveal here but which might have helped in identifying the killer.

Given the time and chance to quietly slip away, the killer was able to leave behind what may have been useful at the time, but what now is just an evidence jumble which has no meaning when put into context.

Derek

 

[Talisman]

Rhett, your theory about it being a female killer never came to my mind-only because of the two unidentified males seen leaving the stacks-just because the murderer had to use alot of force doesn't mean it couldn't have been a female. (Look at the Manson family's female members)

Jealousy is the old green eyed monster. Betsy looks absolutely beautiful in the photo I've seen. She was an outstanding student. Was about to marry the man she loved. From accounts in the articles that littlehorn provided, she was outgoing, caring, and wanted to try to change things for the better (Peace Corp etc.) Many things to be envious about. I dunno, Rhett, you at least gave me something to think about.

littlehorn, in post #50, you were saying that maybe Betsy came upon 'something illicit' in the stacks. That is what I was referring to about it being a part of the library that had little use. The 'drug deal' was just an example. It could have been almost anything.

As far as the 'once' thrill killer theory...just because he wasn't caught for Betsy's murder doesn't mean he never killed before or again. Look at all the unsolved murders still today. It also doesn't mean he wouldn't pick a place such as a library to kill somebody. Thinking like a sane person doesn't work in all murder cases. Some perps sneak into homes and kill or kidnap their victims while other family members are there (not every instance is it nighttime). That is one of the ways they get part of their 'thrill'

Just like the rest of you, I'm banging my head against the table, too. Everything I think of just leads me back to " Geez! It couldn't have happened that way...or because of that..but maybe...?"

I just hope somebody comes up with the right question or answer to help solve this.

 

[MaryLiz]

Rhett, your theory about it being a female killer never came to my mind-only because of the two unidentified males seen leaving the stacks-just because the murderer had to use alot of force doesn't mean it couldn't have been a female. (Look at the Manson family's female members)

Jealousy is the old green eyed monster. Betsy looks absolutely beautiful in the photo I've seen. She was an outstanding student. Was about to marry the man she loved. From accounts in the articles that littlehorn provided, she was outgoing, caring, and wanted to try to change things for the better (Peace Corp etc.) Many things to be envious about. I dunno, Rhett, you at least gave me something to think about.

littlehorn, in post #50, you were saying that maybe Betsy came upon 'something illicit' in the stacks. That is what I was referring to about it being a part of the library that had little use. The 'drug deal' was just an example. It could have been almost anything.

As far as the 'once' thrill killer theory...just because he wasn't caught for Betsy's murder doesn't mean he never killed before or again. Look at all the unsolved murders still today. It also doesn't mean he wouldn't pick a place such as a library to kill somebody. Thinking like a sane person doesn't work in all murder cases. Some perps sneak into homes and kill or kidnap their victims while other family members are there (not every instance is it nighttime). That is one of the ways they get part of their 'thrill'

Just like the rest of you, I'm banging my head against the table, too. Everything I think of just leads me back to " Geez! It couldn't have happened that way...or because of that..but maybe...?"

I just hope somebody comes up with the right question or answer to help solve this.

You know, I thought of that. It is hard to imagine someone killing "just once for the thrill of it." If the person who created the shrine in '94 and left the message in '99 was the person who killed Betsy, it could very well be someone like Zodiac or Dennis Rader (BTK). They loved taunting police and the media by sending letters and items from crime scenes. And littlehorn left a link in one of his postings on 2 other unsolved PA murders, one from the 70s and one from the 90s, which I included below. The killer of the Lindy Biechler in 1975 sent a taunting letter afterwards, and possibly vandalized Lindy's tombstone. So it definitely could be someone who has killed again and just hasn't gotten caught.

http://www.lindyandchristy.com/

 

[Talisman]

MaryBeth,

Those cases are also very heartbreaking. Can you imagine losing your daughter/sister to a violent murder only then to be taunted about her death later. What the ba$tard (killer or not) did to Lindy's gravesite was horrible!! Even if it wasn't the killer they should be locked up somewhere-only a very disturbed person would do something like that.

Thank you for reminding me to look at those links.

 

[Talisman]

You know how you can read something over and over again, but still miss something? littlehorn, kline, and I were questioning whether the clippings left at the 'shrine' in 1994 were originals from the 1969 papers....they were..according to Sacha Skucek. The 2nd paragraph in 'The Last Reason' actually states "Twenty-five year old newspaper clippings lay scattered..."

That isn't the only place that is stated. It is also in the Betsy Aardsma Timeline. "Supervisor Tom Whalen finds a burning candle on the floor of the Aardma murder scene. Spread around are original newspaper clippings." What made this even more chilling (to me) was that, according to the timeline, Whalen found this shrine between 4pm-5pm. This person had it timed down almost to the exact moment that Betsy took her last breath. (Thank you so much, littlehorn, for links to all of that information.)

:doh: Not sure how I missed that before. The first night I found this thread and the links I just read and read. Must have been too much for my noggin to absorb.

If it wasn't the killer that left the original clippings at the scene on the 25 year anniversary, then who? If it weren't for that menacing message "I'm back", I could almost believe it was an old friend that saved the clippings.

After re-reading those articles I'm convinced it was the killer that left the shrine and message in 1994. The one in 1999, I'm not so sure about. It wasn't even left in the same aisle that Betsy was murdered in. But who knows?

 

[littlehorn]

littlehorn, in post #50, you were saying that maybe Betsy came upon 'something illicit' in the stacks. That is what I was referring to about it being a part of the library that had little use. The 'drug deal' was just an example. It could have been almost anything.

As far as the 'once' thrill killer theory...just because he wasn't caught for Betsy's murder doesn't mean he never killed before or again. Look at all the unsolved murders still today. It also doesn't mean he wouldn't pick a place such as a library to kill somebody. Thinking like a sane person doesn't work in all murder cases. Some perps sneak into homes and kill or kidnap their victims while other family members are there (not every instance is it nighttime). That is one of the ways they get part of their 'thrill'

I wonder if the motive wasn't thrill at all, but projected rage. I read an article by Howard Wireback from an old magazine, called "Murder in the Stacks." They spoke to a PSU psych professor who suggested that perhaps Betsy was not the target per se, but came onto the killer's radar at a point in his life where he felt that she represented the type of woman he could never have, and at this time, in the library, he saw her and had motive (rage) opportunity and an outlet for his rage.

That's something I knew from Psych class, but didn't really put together. It does seem to fit without any modification or stretch of the imagination. Some of the items found at the scene might indicate a heightened awareness of the killer based on stimulation.

Derek

 

[littlehorn]

You know, I thought of that. It is hard to imagine someone killing "just once for the thrill of it." If the person who created the shrine in '94 and left the message in '99 was the person who killed Betsy, it could very well be someone like Zodiac or Dennis Rader (BTK). They loved taunting police and the media by sending letters and items from crime scenes. And littlehorn left a link in one of his postings on 2 other unsolved PA murders, one from the 70s and one from the 90s, which I included below. The killer of the Lindy Biechler in 1975 sent a taunting letter afterwards, and possibly vandalized Lindy's tombstone. So it definitely could be someone who has killed again and just hasn't gotten caught.

http://www.lindyandchristy.com/

I think you're right about that. The '99 shrine as Talisman mentioned wasn't even in the correct aisle. The really interesting part about '94 is that the articles WERE original, and everything was in the CORRECT AISLE -- EVEN THOUGH THE AISLES HAVE BEEN CHANGED since 1969!! So someone would have had to have: been there and remembered, or been working from a 30-year-old map of the scene. This strongly indicates involvement of the killer -- along with the "I'm Back" message at the end of the shrine.

Derek