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

[carbuff]

-- Jane was a "brilliant" student, teaching assistant, incredibly smart, made an important find in Iran -- yet I percieve CC Lambert-Karlovsky to be minimising her. And in the documents regarding the Iran dig, Jane is hardly mentioned at all (for her drawings) let alone credited with an important find. But others who made important finds are lauded. I must dig up this info again.. it struck me at the time as odd, even for the 60's -- I thought hip University people wouldn't be stuck in the 'women don't matter academically' thing.

(snipped for space)

Harvard likes to present itself as hip and liberal, but it's not. If my neighbor's daughter is to be believed, something similar happened just a couple of years ago, though not in archaeology. The lab assistants who were left out of the final report are considering a lawsuit.

 

[Donamena]

Wouldn't have happened then. You'd have no academic career. If your found fieldwork in Samoa was different than Margaret Mead's you wouldn't have a career. If you found something in the 'wrong' level in a dig, they'd ask you to pretend it wasn't there. No lawsuits then. Hush

 

[carbuff]

Exactly. You just sucked it up.

Which, by the way, is why I left academics (not archaeology) for a career in computers.

 

[Ausgirl]

Any reason to think Humphreys ever returned to Toronto?

He's a hard person to track.

No reason, other than that he seemed to have close ties with his family, having spent the holidays immediately prior to Jane's murder back in Toronto.

If he was disillusioned with his progress at Harvard (I can't imagine why else he'd stick around for five years and then suddenly quit) my thought is that he may have headed home. But who knows, maybe he got a better offer overseas somewhere?

 

[Ausgirl]

Just affirming some facts, from this report:

http://newspaperarchive.com/us/vermont/bennington/bennington-banner/1969/01-09/page-5

-- The Peruvian was probably in Peru -- according to some Harvard students he'd sent them a letter from Peru around the time of the murder.

-- Dt. Sgt. John Galligan of the Cambridge police released a statement regarding a "reddish brown liquid" that was "daubed" on Jane's skin. The liquid was analysed by both Harvard and police scientists and was found to be "iodine oxide" -- ((and I am thinking, topical disinfectant as there's not too many common applications of iodine oxide except for that)).

To me, that sort of negates that "iodine" was simply a reporting error, as the paper is quoting Galligan himself.

How this iodine liquid gets morphed into "ochre powder" I don't know.

Unless both were present.. or perhaps the comparison between ochre use in ancient burials and the "markings" left on Jane in the liquid was taken by the press to mean "ochre was used" in the murder and they just ran with that.

Perhaps this is part of the inaccuracies that were said to be the cause of the blackout.

 

[fred&edna]

Just affirming some facts, from this report:

http://newspaperarchive.com/us/vermont/bennington/bennington-banner/1969/01-09/page-5

-- The Peruvian was probably in Peru -- according to some Harvard students he'd sent them a letter from Peru around the time of the murder.

-- Dt. Sgt. John Galligan of the Cambridge police released a statement regarding a "reddish brown liquid" that was "daubed" on Jane's skin. The liquid was analysed by both Harvard and police scientists and was found to be "iodine oxide" -- ((and I am thinking, topical disinfectant as there's not too many common applications of iodine oxide except for that)).

To me, that sort of negates that "iodine" was simply a reporting error, as the paper is quoting Galligan himself.

How this iodine liquid gets morphed into "ochre powder" I don't know.

Unless both were present.. or perhaps the comparison between ochre use in ancient burials and the "markings" left on Jane in the liquid was taken by the press to mean "ochre was used" in the murder and they just ran with that.

Perhaps this is part of the inaccuracies that were said to be the cause of the blackout.

I was under the impression The Crimson was the only news report stating "iodine". So, I'm wrong again!

Also, earlier when I was talking about being wrong, I said I'm 2 for 2, and I even stated that incorrectly (lol!)

I'm just gonna' sit quiet for awhile and do some serious thinking before I post

 

[dotr]

If iodine was used, could it be an attempt at disinfecting an initial wound, either Jane's or the perp's?
Could it be to inflict more pain for the victim?
In those days iodine was the first call of treatment for little cuts, some have reported this treatment as being one vigorously employed by certain passive-aggressive sadistic types.
Did perp have that kind of hangup?
imo.

 

[carbuff]

Other things that were going on in Boston and around the country the day or two around when she was murdered:

Gov. Volpe had resigned (I think to join Nixon's cabinet) and the new government was being sworn in on Beacon Hill.

Major sit-in and conflict at Brandeis

Start of Sirhan Sirhan's trial for assassinating RFK, which was big big news in Boston

Public generally still reeling from previous year's chaos: MLKJr, RFK, the My Lai massacre, Russia invading Prague, the Pueblo capture, the street riots...

There was spreading conflict in the Middle East, with Israel having just raided the Beirut airport and anti-Israeli forces attacking an Israeli plane in Athens. Vietnam, ongoing.

And the Apollo astronauts had just returned from circling the moon at Christmas.

 

[carbuff]

Okay, here's an interesting tidbit. I found this article in the Boston Globe archives. I haven't looked at the full article yet because it's in the "paid" archive.

Headline: Similarities Seen In 2 Cambridge Murder Cases

Abstract: "Was a 51-year-old Cambridge widow murdered to mislead police investigating another brutal murder--that of 22-year-old Jane Britton, a Harvard graduate student?"

I believe that's this case, that has been mentioned upthread a couple of times:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1969/2/7/widow-killed-near-radcliffe-dorm-police/

 

[Kell1]

Just affirming some facts, from this report:

http://newspaperarchive.com/us/vermont/bennington/bennington-banner/1969/01-09/page-5

-- The Peruvian was probably in Peru -- according to some Harvard students he'd sent them a letter from Peru around the time of the murder.

-- Dt. Sgt. John Galligan of the Cambridge police released a statement regarding a "reddish brown liquid" that was "daubed" on Jane's skin. The liquid was analysed by both Harvard and police scientists and was found to be "iodine oxide" -- ((and I am thinking, topical disinfectant as there's not too many common applications of iodine oxide except for that)).

To me, that sort of negates that "iodine" was simply a reporting error, as the paper is quoting Galligan himself.

How this iodine liquid gets morphed into "ochre powder" I don't know.

Unless both were present.. or perhaps the comparison between ochre use in ancient burials and the "markings" left on Jane in the liquid was taken by the press to mean "ochre was used" in the murder and they just ran with that.

Perhaps this is part of the inaccuracies that were said to be the cause of the blackout.

SO its liquid now? ???

 

[Ausgirl]

SO its liquid now? ???

Well, I didn't magically make it so.

From what I can parse among the various reports (they are truly very confusing!!), and if I take direct quotes from LE as being reported accurately, this is what I *think* happened:

-- The killer splashed iodine solution around the crime scene, and left marks on Jane's face and possibly other portions of her skin which resembled some sort of pattern or mark that looked primitive.

-- The police analysed the liquid, found it to be iodine and took it to the anthropology dept to see what sense they could make of the marks.

-- Several anthropologists thought the marks resembled a deliberate pattern, and thought it might resemble marks left at primitive ochre burials.

-- This gets out to the press, who run with it and state it *was* ochre, and assume it was powder (because ochre usually begins that way).

-- Press blackout is called, citing "errors".. but there's also MANY good reasons Harvard had to push police for a blackout as well, none of them to do with the crime scene, and the police are pretty well known for doing as Harvard bids.

Just my take on it.

I think all we can know for certain is that at some point, a bottle of liquid iodine was opened, and transferred (for whatever reason) from the killer's hands to Jane's skin.

Unless he was wearing gloves, I think it's safe to assume he'd have had some hard-to-shift stains on those hands... Ever tried to get Betadyne off your skin?

F&E, don't worry -- there's so many little bits of info scattered all over, in this case. I've made some marvellous snafus myself, on research that --I-- dug up in the first place! Keep plugging away, if we can even make a tiny bit of sense out of it all then we're one up on *no* sense!!!!

 

[reedus23]

SO its liquid now? ???

There is just no way to go anywhere without some sort of official statements by LE.

 

[carbuff]

I don't think this particular article has been posted before. Toledo Blade article about some possibly similar murders in the midwest, and the "Boston Strangler" connection:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...CZPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qgEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6649,3636021

 

[DonMitchell]

I'm Don Mitchell, the person who found Jane's body.

I ran into this thread last night, using Google to see if there were any new reviews of my book. I'm glad to see that there's interest in the case.

I'm really busy right now, but here are some unadorned comments. I'm not going to be able to comment very much for a week or so, maybe a little longer.

-- Jim Humphries and I entered Jane's studio apartment together. I lifted the rug to see that she was dead. We left and I or my wife called the Cambridge police. I called Jane's father's office.

-- there was no "cairn" of any kind -- no stone structure. There were features that could be interpreted as "strata" or as a burial.

-- the apartment was left entirely unsecured after Jane's body was removed. This was astonishing to me.

-- the incompetence of the Cambridge PD was spectacular; the State detectives were much better, but did not appear for at least a day, maybe more. Much of what may seem now like coverup was simple incompetence.

-- the Cambridge cops asked me to make photographs of the fingerprint, and one of them accompanied me to my darkroom (in another part of Cambridge) to watch me develop and then print the film (I was pretty much the Anthropology Department's non-staff photographer). This was several days later; I'm sure he was trying to see what was in my darkroom. I have a clear memory that the fingerprint turned out to be Jane's.

-- the stone tool (an Acheulean hand ax) was in Jane's possession; never in mine. The police didn't discover it; my wife and I discovered it together, in the apartment, when we went in a few days later to feed her turtle. The ax had been washed. I said the cops were incompetent. I said the place was unsecured.

-- I noticed and tentatively IDd the red ochre (powder) that was on what was covering her and on the wall behind her. This was a couple of days later; we had unfettered access to the apartment. I did not and do not doubt that that's what it was, and that someone had thrown it. I called the Cambridge detectives to report that I'd found something interesting, and the red ochre and "ritual" report appeared on a TV station that night. The Cambridge PD's telephone system was a leaky one.

-- "iodine" was never involved in any way.

-- Harvard (both the department and the university) were certainly in CYA mode. I'm not prepared to say that they impeded the investigation, but they didn't help it in any way that I could see.

-- Harvard may not quite have thrown me and my wife under the bus but they didn't back us up. They knew the Cambridge police regarded us as suspects. The State investigators, I believe, did not. CCLK behaved like -- is there a curse filter on this site? -- an absolute prick. Steve Williams was busily trying to deflect any suspicion from anybody connected with the Museum. Perhaps not everyone knows that the Peabody Museum is an entity whose building housed the Anthropology department; there was overlap but they had different adminstrative structures. Williams was the head man of the Museum. I can't remember who the Chair of the Anthropology department was at that time.

-- Jim got a lawyer; we didn't -- we knew we'd done nothing wrong, so why get a lawyer? Of course this was stupid, but this was 1969 and we were supposed to believe that the justice system was fair -- fair for graduate students at an elite university, that is.

-- I remember almost nothing about the Indian guy. I didn't know him and he was never in our apartment. There was a great lot of nonsense about drugs and people running down the street and all the rest. Thieves did use the fire escapes; I lost a camera that way. This was Harvard Square (just off it) and there was always stuff going down.

-- There was nothing to the Jessie Gill business. She probably was an agent provocateur, as alleged years later. She was always egging people on to be more extreme; during the rent strike I was the designated Cambridge city records researcher (looking at rents). Jesse tried, more than once, to get me to lie about what I'd found. I wouldn't. Nobody took Jesse seriously.

-- I saw the autopsy photographs. Blunt trauma to the back of the skull. The blow with the hand ax could well have stunned her but did not kill her. As for whether the hand ax delivered the fatal blow, I can't say. I think the forensic people believed it to be a hammer or geologist's pick.

-- It was obvious to me, a non-professional who at least understood about looking around a death scene for clues, that she had been struck in the open part of her studio apartment and had fallen there and had been later taken to the bed. She had a wound that matched a bloodstain on the carpet and the profile of the hand ax. No one seems to have noticed this except me and my wife (who, by the way, has been an ex-wife for many years).

-- there was a good reason for my comments in the NYT article that one poster suggested were "insensitive." I vividly remember one of the detectives saying to me, "Don't bother telling us how wonderful she was. She wasn't murdered because she was wonderful. She was murdered because she made someone angry enough to kill her and we need to know every bad thing you know about her." I knew very few bad things about her, and none of them were particularly bad. Harvard wanted us to cooperate with the NYT reporter and so did the police. What I said was meant to be a strong hint that her background was being looked into. This was 1969. No internet. No social media. No 24 hour news cycle. You wanted to send a message out into the world, you did it with the newspapers.

-- I was in contact with one of the State detectives until the mid-late seventies; he was still interested, but so far as I know, there was nothing new ever found. He knew how to reach me, but never did after that.

-- Jane was a genuine star in the department. Harvard Anthropology didn't have a masters program at all, so if you were accepted, you were on for the PhD. Jane was no different there. The difference was that Harvard almost never took its undergraduate concentrators into the graduate program without making them go somewhere else for a year or two. Jane, a Radcliffe graduate, was one of the only people ever taken in directly.

Finally, this happened a long time ago. I think about Jane and that time regularly but I don't doubt that I've forgotten some things or remembered them wrongly. What this means in practice is that I might well say something today, but then change it a bit later on, as I remember more and more (or things become more clear).

As in all web interactions, you on this thread have no good way to verify my identity. You'll have to take me at my word, that I'm the Don Mitchell who you've been talking about.

 

[Ausgirl]

HOLY COW Don! I could not be happier to have you come and comment here. Thanks SO much for doing so. And gosh, for clearing up so many things we've been floundering to understand.

I was the poster who said your comments were 'insensitive'. Thank you for putting those comments in context. Please understand, I'm looking at this case through a very small and grimy window, with hardly any information to go on, so *all* things are magnified and potentially so are errors in interpretation of those 'inkblots' of information we do have access to. My apologies, sincerely.

There's a process here by which you can verify, through site admin, that you are indeed who you say you are.

Professional Posters & Verified Insiders - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Please consider sticking around a while, perhaps answering a few questions? It's quite okay if not, I would certainly understand!

I often wonder (and worry..) what people connected with cases think of us here.. our motives for dissecting these old, cold cases. I can only speak for myself, but I personally believe Jane as a human being deserves to not be forgotten and also left without justice all these years. Perhaps by keeping a discussion going (however limited in scope it is, by virtue of lack of information) we can keep her murder a current topic rather than a footnote of Harvard history.

** and I meant to add: And of course, it helps to no end if what we're discussing is actually accurate!!

Once more, endless thanks!

 

[Ausgirl]

F&E -- haha, seems you weren't off track at all! There was *no* blasted iodine!!!

(So how's that so-and-so reporter, misquoting the cops like that?!!!)

Thank goodness that's sorted. :thud:

 

[DonMitchell]

Oh, I'll stick around, Ausgirl. All I meant is that I probably won't respond to postings promptly (for all that I've responded to yours) for a while.

I've asked about the verification thing -- thanks for that.

 

[Ausgirl]

Cheers, Don. Sorry for blithering at you, it's just such a huge deal that you're here and happy to talk to us.

 

[Kell1]

Hi Don,

I have a few questions if you don't mind

-- Jim Humphries and I entered Jane's studio apartment together. I lifted the rug to see that she was dead. We left and I or my wife called the Cambridge police. I called Jane's father's office.

That was at Jim's request correct ?

Prior to entering the residence that he felt something was wrong, or that he felt something bad happened ??

You stated you "lifted the rug"?.. I take it she was wrapped in a rug ?

When you found her, how was she positioned? on her side, face up , face down?

-- there was no "cairn" of any kind -- no stone structure. There were features that could be interpreted as "strata" or as a burial.

Could you explain what you mean by a burial?

-- the apartment was left entirely unsecured after Jane's body was removed. This was astonishing to me.

So the scene was never secure? which means tainted evidence, and possibly why the blackout was ordered .

-- the stone tool (an Acheulean hand ax) was in Jane's possession; never in mine. The police didn't discover it; my wife and I discovered it together, in the apartment, when we went in a few days later to feed her turtle. The ax had been washed. I said the cops were incompetent. I said the place was unsecured.

Do you recall where in her Apartment it was found

You also stated it was "washed"? but you also stated it was a few days later, so what made it look as though it was washed off ?

-- I noticed and tentatively IDd the red ochre (powder) that was on what was covering her and on the wall behind her. This was a couple of days later; we had unfettered access to the apartment. I did not and do not doubt that that's what it was, and that someone had thrown it. I called the Cambridge detectives to report that I'd found something interesting, and the red ochre and "ritual" report appeared on a TV station that night. The Cambridge PD's telephone system was a leaky one.

-- "iodine" was never involved in any way.

First, thanks for clearing that up , can you tell us what the purpose of the red ochre powder was, I believe its a pigment correct? Was it something she had in her apt, or do they believe the killer brought it with him/her

-- Jim got a lawyer; we didn't -- we knew we'd done nothing wrong, so why get a lawyer? Of course this was stupid, but this was 1969 and we were supposed to believe that the justice system was fair -- fair for graduate students at an elite university, that is.

Did he ever state to you why he felt the need to get a lawyer? , as you mentioned, this was in the late 60's where the mentality was different.

What was his behavior like following the homicide?

-- I saw the autopsy photographs. Blunt trauma to the back of the skull. The blow with the hand ax could well have stunned her but did not kill her. As for whether the hand ax delivered the fatal blow, I can't say. I think the forensic people believed it to be a hammer or geologist's pick.

Were all her wounds to the back of her head, or were there others? if so where ?

-- It was obvious to me, a non-professional who at least understood about looking around a death scene for clues, that she had been struck in the open part of her studio apartment and had fallen there and had been later taken to the bed. She had a wound that matched a bloodstain on the carpet and the profile of the hand ax. No one seems to have noticed this except me and my wife (who, by the way, has been an ex-wife for many years).

Very sorry to hear, so your feeling having seen the crime scene 1st hand is that she was attacked, struck, then moved to the bedroom?

Is that correct?

 

[dotr]

Wondering if the "bundling' and possible moving of the victim to the bed was to stop blood from seeping through and possibly leak onto the tenant's ceiling below?
Maybe this might help to limit the " mess ' and cleanup of the apartment? Would red ochre powder help absorb/minimize blood leakage?
Was the landlord of the apartment well-liked?