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

[DonMitchell]

Hi Don,

I have a few questions if you don't mind

... these questions are from RichKelly. Evidently I don't know how to use the quote feature properly


That was at Jim's request correct ?

That's right. Unfortunately I can't remember whether he went in himself and then came back out and knocked, saying that something was wrong (having seen her or perhaps shaken her, thinking she was alseep), or whether he knocked at our door first. What's coming back to me now is that he did go in and then come back out and get us.

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

Certainly he felt that something was wrong because of her failure to appear for the comps. This was the first year of written comps (previously they were all oral) and all the students were nervous. I don't remember details, but most likely Jim would have gone to where the exam was being held, to see her and give her some support before the exam.

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

Yes. A "flocatti," if I'm spelling it right, a Greek goat hair rug. Not wrapped. Covered over.

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

Face down, head towards the corner of the room. I believe her legs were partly off the bed.


Could you explain what you mean by a burial?

The piled rug or rugs (not sure how many; she had 3 of them, one large, two small; they were never taken away by LE for any kind of examination; I had them in my possession until a year or so ago) were interpreted in that way. There was also an old grave marker/headstone that she had gotten somewhere (I don't know where) and it was placed near the bed. I can't say where it had been placed previously.


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

I am sure that it was unsecured the first day and night. There might have been a time when it was secured, but it didn't last long. For example, my wife and I went into the apartment, at Jane's mother's request, to get clothes for her to be buried in. And after that, it was not secured again. I can't remember whether the door was simply left unlocked, or whether it was locked but people with a need to enter had the key. The apartment was a favorite place for the Cambridge police to question us.


Do you recall where in her Apartment it was found

Yes, in the turtle's aquarium.

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 ?

You can imagine what an aquarium that hasn't been maintained looked like. Had the hand axe been unwashed I doubt either of us would have noticed it. But it stood out, because of its light color.

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

I don't know what the purpose was (in the killer's mind), but it's well-known that ochre had many uses in prehistoric (and modern) times. One such use typically involved the dead, and so a reasonable hypothesis was that the killer, in the grip of strong emotion, imitated a burial ritual. I continue to believe that's a reasonable hypothesis but obviously there's no way to test it. I don't know whether she had the ochre or not. The general feeling was that the killer either brought it or knew she had it. It's impossible to say. It may be different now, but in those days there was little concern about securing common archaeological objects and materials. Hand axes are extremely common artifacts, and a substance like red ochre wouldn't have been difficult to find around the museum. But I have to say that I don't remember knowing about the handaxe, now that I'm thinking about it. There would be no particular reason for her to have ever said anything about it. My wife and I were both in cultural anthropology and would have had only a passing interest in a hand ax.

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.

He was not an American citizen and therefore worried. I don't recall that he ever said anything specific about it.

What was his behavior like following the homicide?

I don't remember noticing anything unexpected, although we saw little of him. He was, in the main, a reserved guy. I do remember wondering what Jane saw in him, for that reason. Jane was lively. Jim, not so much.

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

Forehead, clearly (to me) from the hand ax. I don't believe there were any others.

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?

It was a small studio apartment, so there was no bedroom. The bed was, I suppose, no more than 6-8' from where I believe she was first struck.

I have always believed that it was someone she knew, and let into her apartment without question. Then there was an argument, and the killer grabbed the handaxe (or had brought it with him, which I think unlikely) and struck her in the forehead with it, knocking her down (thus producing a lunate bloodstain on the carpet) and probably rendering her unconscious. I believe that the person then panicked and saw no way to evade consequences of what he'd done, and so dragged her to the bed and killed her there, covered her up, perhaps moved the gravestone, threw the ochre around, and left.

I think you're an LE person, so you can understand that the State detectives didn't want to openly criticize the Cambridge detectives. But as time went on, the lead State guy (Lt. Joyce) implied that the Cambridge guys had botched the job, spoiled any evidence that there might have been, and so on. It seemed clear to us (and I'm sure to Joyce although he certainly never said so explicitly) that the Cambridge guys thought they had an easy one -- the neighbors or the boyfriend -- and dragged their feet about bringing the State guys in.

 

[DonMitchell]

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?

This is going to have to be my last answer for the day.

There wasn't much blood, and it was a sturdy apartment building. There's no possibility that blood would have gotten into another apartment.

When thinking about the ochre, just imagine that you have a handful of powder and that you toss it at a bed and a wall (it was mostly on the wall). That's the amount we're talking about here. Very small. It couldn't have had any effect on any blood.

The landlord was a management company, although the building was owned by Harvard. You were supposed to have some kind of Harvard connection to get an apartment there. The management company was typical -- they more or less maintained the building. The heat was OK, the cockroaches what you'd expect, maintenance in general was OK. Rents were low. Security was low -- external doors were not locked. If you got into one entrance, you had access to all of them, through the basement, although I can't say for sure whether this was true for the Mt Auburn St entrance. But for 2, 4, 6, and the one around the back it certainly was.

I'm having trouble remembering the exact trigger for the rent strike or rent protest. I clearly remember that it was part of the larger issue of how Harvard was buying up properties, raising the rents and driving out tenants, and then using the buildings for their own purposes. It might have been that the University Road protests were simply a part of that, rather than anything aimed at the building management.

 

[carbuff]

When we got here in 1980, there was still a fair amount of scandal going on with Harvard and all the property they own. They were like one of the biggest slumlords in the country.

Hi Don, glad to meet you. Off topic question: did you work at Montana State University in the mid-seventies? I took some archaeology and cultural anthropology classes back then, one of them taught by a guy named Mitchell who was doing work with the pre-Columbian native cultures in the northern Plains.

 

[dotr]

This is going to have to be my last answer for the day.

There wasn't much blood, and it was a sturdy apartment building. There's no possibility that blood would have gotten into another apartment.

When thinking about the ochre, just imagine that you have a handful of powder and that you toss it at a bed and a wall (it was mostly on the wall). That's the amount we're talking about here. Very small. It couldn't have had any effect on any blood.

The landlord was a management company, although the building was owned by Harvard. You were supposed to have some kind of Harvard connection to get an apartment there. The management company was typical -- they more or less maintained the building. The heat was OK, the cockroaches what you'd expect, maintenance in general was OK. Rents were low. Security was low -- external doors were not locked. If you got into one entrance, you had access to all of them, through the basement, although I can't say for sure whether this was true for the Mt Auburn St entrance. But for 2, 4, 6, and the one around the back it certainly was.

I'm having trouble remembering the exact trigger for the rent strike or rent protest. I clearly remember that it was part of the larger issue of how Harvard was buying up properties, raising the rents and driving out tenants, and then using the buildings for their own purposes. It might have been that the University Road protests were simply a part of that, rather than anything aimed at the building management.

Welcome to Ws. and thanks so much for taking the time to answer our questions!

 

[reedus23]

Don,

Welcome to WS and thank you so much for you input and sharing your recollections. It seems pretty clear, and is a true shame, that the initial investigators did a poor job of preserving the scene and evidence. Very unfortunate to say the least.

Whenever you get the chance, I had a couple of questions as well. You've given a great description of her studio apartment, but I was wondering if you could give us a better idea of the lay out of the building itself. One way up and down? In and out? Fire escapes in relation to Jane's apartment. Anything like that. Also, approximately how far was your apartment from Jane's in terms of feet? I am trying to get a good idea of, if she had yelled or screamed, could/would it have been heard by neighbors such as yourself. Along those lines, I take it that the reports that no screams/yelling were heard is accurate?

Also, I don't know how well you knew Jane, but I would appreciate any thoughts/observations on her relationship with Jim. The possibility of a relationship with a professor has been discussed. Did you know this to be true? Or was there talk of it before her death? If you were aware of Jane having a relationship with a professor, anything you can provide about that individual and/or their relationship would be much appreciated as well.

Regarding the, I think you called it an axe...I take it that being in the turtle's aquarium is not the normal place something like that would be kept. Is that accurate? Do you have any recollection of seeing the aquarium the night in question and seeing it then? It seems that should have stood out to law enforcement as extremely out of place.

Out of curiosity, did you take any or did you keep any photographs? For example, of her apartment? Of the blood stain? Of the red ochre? I'm obviously not talking about taken the night in question, but in the days that followed when it was obvious that the Cambridge PD weren't doing their jobs as maybe they should have. It also obviously wasn't your job to do so, but I thought I'd take a shot in the dark that maybe you did.

Thanks again for taking your time to answer some of our questions and giving us a better understanding of Jane and what might have happened that night.

 

[Kell1]

Hi Don,

I have a few questions if you don't mind

... these questions are from RichKelly. Evidently I don't know how to use the quote feature properly


That was at Jim's request correct ?

That's right. Unfortunately I can't remember whether he went in himself and then came back out and knocked, saying that something was wrong (having seen her or perhaps shaken her, thinking she was alseep), or whether he knocked at our door first. What's coming back to me now is that he did go in and then come back out and get us.

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

Certainly he felt that something was wrong because of her failure to appear for the comps. This was the first year of written comps (previously they were all oral) and all the students were nervous. I don't remember details, but most likely Jim would have gone to where the exam was being held, to see her and give her some support before the exam.

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

Yes. A "flocatti," if I'm spelling it right, a Greek goat hair rug. Not wrapped. Covered over.

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

Face down, head towards the corner of the room. I believe her legs were partly off the bed.


Could you explain what you mean by a burial?

The piled rug or rugs (not sure how many; she had 3 of them, one large, two small; they were never taken away by LE for any kind of examination; I had them in my possession until a year or so ago) were interpreted in that way. There was also an old grave marker/headstone that she had gotten somewhere (I don't know where) and it was placed near the bed. I can't say where it had been placed previously.


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

I am sure that it was unsecured the first day and night. There might have been a time when it was secured, but it didn't last long. For example, my wife and I went into the apartment, at Jane's mother's request, to get clothes for her to be buried in. And after that, it was not secured again. I can't remember whether the door was simply left unlocked, or whether it was locked but people with a need to enter had the key. The apartment was a favorite place for the Cambridge police to question us.


Do you recall where in her Apartment it was found

Yes, in the turtle's aquarium.

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 ?

You can imagine what an aquarium that hasn't been maintained looked like. Had the hand axe been unwashed I doubt either of us would have noticed it. But it stood out, because of its light color.

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

I don't know what the purpose was (in the killer's mind), but it's well-known that ochre had many uses in prehistoric (and modern) times. One such use typically involved the dead, and so a reasonable hypothesis was that the killer, in the grip of strong emotion, imitated a burial ritual. I continue to believe that's a reasonable hypothesis but obviously there's no way to test it. I don't know whether she had the ochre or not. The general feeling was that the killer either brought it or knew she had it. It's impossible to say. It may be different now, but in those days there was little concern about securing common archaeological objects and materials. Hand axes are extremely common artifacts, and a substance like red ochre wouldn't have been difficult to find around the museum. But I have to say that I don't remember knowing about the handaxe, now that I'm thinking about it. There would be no particular reason for her to have ever said anything about it. My wife and I were both in cultural anthropology and would have had only a passing interest in a hand ax.

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.

He was not an American citizen and therefore worried. I don't recall that he ever said anything specific about it.

What was his behavior like following the homicide?

I don't remember noticing anything unexpected, although we saw little of him. He was, in the main, a reserved guy. I do remember wondering what Jane saw in him, for that reason. Jane was lively. Jim, not so much.

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

Forehead, clearly (to me) from the hand ax. I don't believe there were any others.

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?

It was a small studio apartment, so there was no bedroom. The bed was, I suppose, no more than 6-8' from where I believe she was first struck.

I have always believed that it was someone she knew, and let into her apartment without question. Then there was an argument, and the killer grabbed the handaxe (or had brought it with him, which I think unlikely) and struck her in the forehead with it, knocking her down (thus producing a lunate bloodstain on the carpet) and probably rendering her unconscious. I believe that the person then panicked and saw no way to evade consequences of what he'd done, and so dragged her to the bed and killed her there, covered her up, perhaps moved the gravestone, threw the ochre around, and left.

I think you're an LE person, so you can understand that the State detectives didn't want to openly criticize the Cambridge detectives. But as time went on, the lead State guy (Lt. Joyce) implied that the Cambridge guys had botched the job, spoiled any evidence that there might have been, and so on. It seemed clear to us (and I'm sure to Joyce although he certainly never said so explicitly) that the Cambridge guys thought they had an easy one -- the neighbors or the boyfriend -- and dragged their feet about bringing the State guys in.

Don ,

Thank you very much for the insight, you've cleared up a lot of misinformation that's out there. I appreciate it

The covering of the victim, is sometimes what we call "undoing" its an emotional response, by the offender, to UNDO what they did , it serves a few purposes, but most often its 1 of 2 things.

1) reflects care toward the victim, (eventhough they just killed them) IE they are taking care of them. We see this often when parents murder their children. The body is often "taken care of" wrapped up in blankets, or clad in a jacket , buried with a favorite toy or stuffed animal etc..

2) Embarrassment that they hurt someone they knew, hence they can no longer look at what they had done , knowing full well the body will be discovered. Sometimes, they will also place the victim face down, so as to not be able to see their face. But this also happens sometimes, DURING the attack. Its a type of depersonization.

This is why they tell people to never turn their back to a gunman, because it makes it easier for them to shoot something faceless.

The fact that most if not all ,of the evidence, in this case, seems to originate, from her apt , and that there was post mortem movement of the body , and hiding of evidence, then we most likely are dealing with someone close to the victim (I'm sure I'm not opening any eyes with this ) - Whoever this was, was comfortable spending time at the residence.

There are aspects of undoing , cleansing and staging present at this scene.

AS I mentioned earlier one of the more common types of staging is the third party discovery. Where the offender, either has another person discover the body, or they accompany the third party to bolster their claim of the discovery.

Im not sure what part the pigment powder played in the homicide, or what the purpose is post mortem.

My feeling is that its simply an aspect of staging IE something to throw off or at least complicate investigation.

Like you said I feel this investigation was botched, HORRIBLY. I have seen very few homicides, (id have to say none actually) where the crime scene wasn't secured, and direct evidence not collected.

Therefore even if a suspect was brought forth, they could NOW claim the evidence was tainted (Ex. OJ Simpson case etc..) and would most likely walk.


So if you look at what we have

Boyfriend was the last one to see her alive, one who discovered her or suggested you accompany him to the scene. A crime scene that demonstrates, comfort at the scene, staging, undoing, cleansing of the weapon, hiding the weapon, within the residence..

I feel her boyfriend might have a LITTLE more to tell the detectives.

 

[carbuff]

How red was the red powder? Bright red, or just rusty brown? I'm wondering if it could have been a cosmetic, most likely blusher. This sort of thing: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cover-Girl-...6514468?pt=US_Makeup_Face&hash=item4ad6836224

 

[Ausgirl]

The picture of the crime scene is so much clearer in my mind now, thank you Don!

Bit of a shocker about the hand axe turning up in the turtle tank. You said it was never in your possession - was it not then a gift from you and your wife, as reported in the papers? So many reported 'facts' just simply are not facts at all, it's very frustrating.

Particularly the nature of the ochre (not iodine!! how'd they even come up with that? let alone misquote police.. I'm just boggled by it) being just a handful, thrown -- what about these famous "marks" reported to have painted on her face? Did you see anything like that?

Do you think (as Stephen Willliams would later come to say) that too much was made of the 'ritual' elements of the crime scene?

And what about this "end table" which was found later outside the apartment, which the papers say might have been an important piece of evidence? I am very curious as to why they thought that.

Lots of questions for you, when you return. I'm sure there'll be many more as well, as the various people who frequent this thread tune in and see you're here.

Of course, I would love to know who your own primary suspect/s might have been and why -- but then, it's not very prudent to name names and also this could be against the WS terms of service here, if the person was not investigated by police as suspect. I think it might be okay to say -why- you suspected someone without directly naming them, if you feel okay to do that.

Have your thoughts about the murder and who may have killed Jane changed at all, over the years?

 

[Ausgirl]

The covering of the victim, is sometimes what we call "undoing" its an emotional response, by the offender, to UNDO what they did , it serves a few purposes, but most often its 1 of 2 things.

1) reflects care toward the victim, (eventhough they just killed them) IE they are taking care of them. We see this often when parents murder their children. The body is often "taken care of" wrapped up in blankets, or clad in a jacket , buried with a favorite toy or stuffed animal etc..

2) Embarrassment that they hurt someone they knew, hence they can no longer look at what they had done , knowing full well the body will be discovered. Sometimes, they will also place the victim face down, so as to not be able to see their face. But this also happens sometimes, DURING the attack. Its a type of depersonization.

This is why they tell people to never turn their back to a gunman, because it makes it easier for them to shoot something faceless.

The fact that most if not all ,of the evidence, in this case, seems to originate, from her apt , and that there was post mortem movement of the body , and hiding of evidence, then we most likely are dealing with someone close to the victim (I'm sure I'm not opening any eyes with this ) - Whoever this was, was comfortable spending time at the residence.

There are aspects of undoing , cleansing and staging present at this scene.

AS I mentioned earlier one of the more common types of staging is the third party discovery. Where the offender, either has another person discover the body, or they accompany the third party to bolster their claim of the discovery.

Rich, this is why I love it when you chime in on a thread. Your knowledge is so valuable in cases like this. Thanks once more.

 

[Ausgirl]

Rich's post prompts a few more thoughts/questions --but first, Don, your comments re Jane and James, and the differences between them struck a bit of a chord with me, very similar things were said about myself and the man I married years ago (who was once described as a 'sentient plank'). I identify with Jane in so many ways, this is just another. These insights are so wonderful to have.

Anyway, questions:

It's said Jim had just returned from a holiday in Canada with his parents, and that Jane seemed very happy to have him back; that there appeared to be no tension between them was the gist of that. Would you agree?

Was Jane seeing anyone else during the time Jim was away? Anyone visiting more often during that time, that you might have noticed?

 

[Kell1]

Rich, this is why I love it when you chime in on a thread. Your knowledge is so valuable in cases like this. Thanks once more.

No need to thank its what we do

 

[DonMitchell]

Don ,

Thank you very much for the insight, you've cleared up a lot of misinformation that's out there. I appreciate it

The covering of the victim, is sometimes what we call "undoing" its an emotional response, by the offender, to UNDO what they did , it serves a few purposes, but most often its 1 of 2 things.

1) reflects care toward the victim, (eventhough they just killed them) IE they are taking care of them. We see this often when parents murder their children. The body is often "taken care of" wrapped up in blankets, or clad in a jacket , buried with a favorite toy or stuffed animal etc..

2) Embarrassment that they hurt someone they knew, hence they can no longer look at what they had done , knowing full well the body will be discovered. Sometimes, they will also place the victim face down, so as to not be able to see their face. But this also happens sometimes, DURING the attack. Its a type of depersonization.

This is why they tell people to never turn their back to a gunman, because it makes it easier for them to shoot something faceless.

The fact that most if not all ,of the evidence, in this case, seems to originate, from her apt , and that there was post mortem movement of the body , and hiding of evidence, then we most likely are dealing with someone close to the victim (I'm sure I'm not opening any eyes with this ) - Whoever this was, was comfortable spending time at the residence.

There are aspects of undoing , cleansing and staging present at this scene.

AS I mentioned earlier one of the more common types of staging is the third party discovery. Where the offender, either has another person discover the body, or they accompany the third party to bolster their claim of the discovery.

Im not sure what part the pigment powder played in the homicide, or what the purpose is post mortem.

My feeling is that its simply an aspect of staging IE something to throw off or at least complicate investigation.

Like you said I feel this investigation was botched, HORRIBLY. I have seen very few homicides, (id have to say none actually) where the crime scene wasn't secured, and direct evidence not collected.

Therefore even if a suspect was brought forth, they could NOW claim the evidence was tainted (Ex. OJ Simpson case etc..) and would most likely walk.


So if you look at what we have

Boyfriend was the last one to see her alive, one who discovered her or suggested you accompany him to the scene. A crime scene that demonstrates, comfort at the scene, staging, undoing, cleansing of the weapon, hiding the weapon, within the residence..

I feel her boyfriend might have a LITTLE more to tell the detectives.

Those are interesting observations about the scene, and they're consistent with what I think.

However, the boyfriend wasn't the last to see her alive. My wife and I were. Jane had been out (can't remember why or with whom) and dropped in to have a drink. We chatted and then she went to her place.

Also -- might as well put it here -- I was thinking about the unlocked external doors that I mentioned, and I remember that although they could be locked, and were supposed to be kept locked, it was common for them to be unlocked.

 

[DonMitchell]

When we got here in 1980, there was still a fair amount of scandal going on with Harvard and all the property they own. They were like one of the biggest slumlords in the country.

Hi Don, glad to meet you. Off topic question: did you work at Montana State University in the mid-seventies? I took some archaeology and cultural anthropology classes back then, one of them taught by a guy named Mitchell who was doing work with the pre-Columbian native cultures in the northern Plains.

No, I spent my teaching career at a school called Buffalo State College. My name is a common one and I used to amuse my students by telling them that if they googled me they'd learn that I was an actor, a writer, played in the NFL, played in MLB, won a Macarthur genius grant . . . .

 

[Kell1]

Those are interesting observations about the scene, and they're consistent with what I think.

However, the boyfriend wasn't the last to see her alive. My wife and I were. Jane had been out (can't remember why or with whom) and dropped in to have a drink. We chatted and then she went to her place.

Also -- might as well put it here -- I was thinking about the unlocked external doors that I mentioned, and I remember that although they could be locked, and were supposed to be kept locked, it was common for them to be unlocked.

Understood, but that only makes him ONE of the last to see her alive, I take it you were questioned, as well, and cleared?

 

[DonMitchell]

Don,

Welcome to WS and thank you so much for you input and sharing your recollections. It seems pretty clear, and is a true shame, that the initial investigators did a poor job of preserving the scene and evidence. Very unfortunate to say the least.

Whenever you get the chance, I had a couple of questions as well. You've given a great description of her studio apartment, but I was wondering if you could give us a better idea of the lay out of the building itself. One way up and down? In and out? Fire escapes in relation to Jane's apartment. Anything like that. Also, approximately how far was your apartment from Jane's in terms of feet? I am trying to get a good idea of, if she had yelled or screamed, could/would it have been heard by neighbors such as yourself. Along those lines, I take it that the reports that no screams/yelling were heard is accurate?

Also, I don't know how well you knew Jane, but I would appreciate any thoughts/observations on her relationship with Jim. The possibility of a relationship with a professor has been discussed. Did you know this to be true? Or was there talk of it before her death? If you were aware of Jane having a relationship with a professor, anything you can provide about that individual and/or their relationship would be much appreciated as well.

Regarding the, I think you called it an axe...I take it that being in the turtle's aquarium is not the normal place something like that would be kept. Is that accurate? Do you have any recollection of seeing the aquarium the night in question and seeing it then? It seems that should have stood out to law enforcement as extremely out of place.

Out of curiosity, did you take any or did you keep any photographs? For example, of her apartment? Of the blood stain? Of the red ochre? I'm obviously not talking about taken the night in question, but in the days that followed when it was obvious that the Cambridge PD weren't doing their jobs as maybe they should have. It also obviously wasn't your job to do so, but I thought I'd take a shot in the dark that maybe you did.

Thanks again for taking your time to answer some of our questions and giving us a better understanding of Jane and what might have happened that night.

I'll see if I can make a sketch of the 4th floor, and post it as an attachment (later).

The part of Jane's apartment where the murder happened was probably 30' from our bedroom. There was another room (of ours) between the BR and her place. A yell or scream would maybe have been audible, but we were asleep. Normal conversation wouldn't have been. And yes, nobody in the building reported hearing anything.

I knew Jane quite well, but I don't recall ever having a conversation that was directly about her relationship with Jim. I think she was content. Her previous boyfriend, whose name I can't remember, was an intense guy (he was cleared because he wasn't in Cambridge at the time). The "relationship with a professor" issue is something I might take up later. It's tricky. If you're thinking something longish-term and secret, where "relationship" would be the right term -- no. If you're thinking of an event or encounter -- the line between young instructors and professors and the grad students was a blurry one. I'll talk about that another time.

All I can say about the hand axe and the aquarium is that I always assumed that she'd put the hand axe in there for the turtle to rest on. If you're asking whether I ever saw the hand axe in the aquarium, the answer is no. For all I know, it wasn't even in the aquarium. All I know is that it was there when my wife and I found it. I can't remember whether there were any other platforms in there or not. Certainly it was a small aquarium. It escaped our notice for a few days, because we had no reason to look into the aquarium until we went to feed the turtle. But it's inexcusable that the police didn't notice a completely clean stone in a rather dirty aquarium. I suppose they never even looked.

I've never understood why, having used the handaxe, the murderer didn't take it with him. Who would have known? I suppose that panic or being under some kind of influence (probably alcohol) could explain it.

You've used "night" in a couple of places. The murder happened in the night, but everything else was in daylight. It was mid-late morning when we found her, maybe even noonish. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, it must have been after noon because her father and mother were at lunch when they got the word that something was badly wrong (from his department, which is where I called) and rushed over.

I don't remember taking any photographs other than the ones the police asked me to take. The police kept the fingerprint negatives and also some Ektachrome slides that I took for them. I have all my negatives from that time but I don't think I'll go through them. I'm sure I'd remember if I made any pictures on my own. I should have, though.

 

[DonMitchell]

The picture of the crime scene is so much clearer in my mind now, thank you Don!

Bit of a shocker about the hand axe turning up in the turtle tank. You said it was never in your possession - was it not then a gift from you and your wife, as reported in the papers? So many reported 'facts' just simply are not facts at all, it's very frustrating.

Particularly the nature of the ochre (not iodine!! how'd they even come up with that? let alone misquote police.. I'm just boggled by it) being just a handful, thrown -- what about these famous "marks" reported to have painted on her face? Did you see anything like that?

Do you think (as Stephen Willliams would later come to say) that too much was made of the 'ritual' elements of the crime scene?

And what about this "end table" which was found later outside the apartment, which the papers say might have been an important piece of evidence? I am very curious as to why they thought that.

Lots of questions for you, when you return. I'm sure there'll be many more as well, as the various people who frequent this thread tune in and see you're here.

Of course, I would love to know who your own primary suspect/s might have been and why -- but then, it's not very prudent to name names and also this could be against the WS terms of service here, if the person was not investigated by police as suspect. I think it might be okay to say -why- you suspected someone without directly naming them, if you feel okay to do that.

Have your thoughts about the murder and who may have killed Jane changed at all, over the years?

The hand axe was not a gift from us. I have a vague memory of having given Jane some other kind of stone artifact, though I can't remember what it was. I had already been once to the Solomon Islands (Malaita, 1968) but it wasn't for archaeology and I don't think I brought back any stone tools. It's not impossible that I had something from Hawai'i and gave it to her, although I don't know why I would have. It wasn't her area.

As for "marks," I have to say I didn't see her face-on but I do think I saw her right cheek. I don't remember any marks. I don't know where that came from.

Steve Williams would have been trying to deflect everything he could from the Peabody. If there's no ritual, then there's no archaeological connection, and if there's no archaeological connection, then there's no museum connection . . . .

The end table? I didn't remember that until I read it on this thread. I'm sure it was a coincidence. Remember, the big search for the weapon was on, and it was assumed that it was a weapon capable of breaking a skull. I suppose a table leg could have done it but I'm pretty sure it was just people getting excited over nothing.

I said earlier that I don't think the hand axe caused her death. I'm talking here about a stone object with one blunt and one pointed end, no bigger than an adult male fist, not all that heavy. I think the police were correct in looking for something like a hammer.

I never saw the forensics report. I'll explain how it happened that I saw some of the photos. It was an attempt to break me. I was at somebody's office, which could even have been Lt Joyce's, answering questions, when somebody opened up a manila envelope and shoved 8x10 prints of Jane's flayed skull in my face and said something like "Look at these, look at these, did you do this?" It was shocking and disgusting and beyond saddening.

Lt Joyce was a good detective and I'm sure there was a time when he was considering me as a suspect. He had to have been. But over time it was clear to me that he no longer thought of either of us as the killer.

Yes, I have my own primary suspect and I'm not the only one who thinks he did it. But he's dead. There was third-hand information that he, while drunk, said "I killed someone." Third-hand, and the person who reportedly heard this said was killed in an accident -- struck by lightning -- not long after.

Lt Joyce was beginning to work down the chain before the guy was struck by lightning.

My thoughts haven't really changed although, looking over some of my correspondence with Lt. Joyce (from the seventies) I see that every time I heard something bad about one of the other grad students or anybody else connected with the department, I wrote to him about it.

Lt. Joyce has died, and unless there's material in his papers, we won't ever know what he really thought. I do know that he regarded my prime suspect as a person of interest. But he was unable to interview him at the time of the murder. Certainly Lt Joyce knew where the guy lived (a few years later, in another state) and I suppose it's possible that he went out there and interviewed him. Obviously Joyce would have been under no obligation to tell me about it, if he did.

All I know is that nothing happened to the guy, and then he died. I'd have to look it up, but I think he died in the 80s. And I remember thinking, "Now we'll never know." And I still think that.

 

[DonMitchell]

Understood, but that only makes him ONE of the last to see her alive, I take it you were questioned, as well, and cleared?

"Questioned" doesn't begin to describe it. I don't have time to write more today, but tomorrow or the next day I'll say something about that (and already did, in a response to ausgirl).

 

[dotr]

There have been several murders at universities in Ontario, one in particular caught my eye because it involved a murdered archeologist, Dr. Edith Wightman, and the murder itself was described as bizarre.
Ultimately a transvestite chemist, Michael Alan Crowley was arrested, could there be any connection to this case, or the sort of person who might commit it?



http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...A0vAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U6UFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6266,1135396
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...WExAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VgYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6281,5715767

 

[Ausgirl]

Transvestite chemists, people struck by lightning. Suspected murder weapon found in a turtle tank. Collectively, you couldn't make this stuff up.

Don, I think every news report I read on the hand axe mentioned it was a gift to Jane from you and your then wife, another fine example of absolute untruth finding its way into case' facts' via the papers, a la "iodine". As it was a French axe, it stands to reason Jane might have brought it back from her field work in that country?

I also recall reports speculating that the weapon could have been a geologist's hammer or something like it, which actually makes sense.

This person you suspect - and I am being careful not to turn this into 20 questions - was there any other reason than the "I killed somebody" comment that led you (and others) to believe he could have killed Jane? Was there tension there, unrequited love, something like that?

It must have been ghastly to have those pictures shoved under your nose, on top of the stress of finding Jane's body. I found the body pf someone I knew well, once; it was a horrible experience I hope to never, ever have to endure again. I cannot imagine then having to deal with aggressive policemen and autopsy photographs.

An aside -- where's Robin and PP and MAcoldcase? Wish they were here! oke:

 

[DonMitchell]

Transvestite chemists, people struck by lightning. Suspected murder weapon found in a turtle tank. Collectively, you couldn't make this stuff up.

Don, I think every news report I read on the hand axe mentioned it was a gift to Jane from you and your then wife, another fine example of absolute untruth finding its way into case' facts' via the papers, a la "iodine". As it was a French axe, it stands to reason Jane might have brought it back from her field work in that country?

I also recall reports speculating that the weapon could have been a geologist's hammer or something like it, which actually makes sense.

This person you suspect - and I am being careful not to turn this into 20 questions - was there any other reason than the "I killed somebody" comment that led you (and others) to believe he could have killed Jane? Was there tension there, unrequited love, something like that?

Yeah. I remember that about the "gift," and remember thinking that it was wrong or misleading in some way, but I'm damned if I can remember what it was that we gave Jane that made its way into the papers. The only thing I'm absolutely certain about is that it wasn't the hand axe. Maybe it will come to me.

It's possible that she brought it back from France, but as I said in an earlier posting, graduate students pretty much had the run of the archaeological collections, and so if Jane had taken it into her head to bring a hand axe from Peabody to her apartment, it would have been easily-done. One wasn't supposed to do that. People did. I know for certain that she had a couple of other small artifacts from the Museum in her apartment -- nothing that could have been involved in the murder.

I think I said earlier that I don't think anybody thought that the hand axe killed her. Certainly before the hand axe was found, the thinking was that the murder weapon was something like a hammer, and that made sense to me, and still does. Nobody knew whether she had a geologist's hammer in her apartment (I think it unlikely) and nobody knew whether she had a plain old hammer of most any kind, either. It wouldn't have been unusual. People had hammers.

And as for my suspect, yes, there was other circumstantial evidence. The alleged drunken confession came at least 5 or 6 years later.

Two things I haven't mentioned:

1. On the morning of the day she was found, I was awake but not up and not dressed. Someone came up the stairs and knocked on Jane's door. I didn't hear the door open. I thought about putting some clothes on and going out to see who it was, but I didn't. Then the person left. Of all the things I didn't do, that's the thing I most wish I had done. I don't believe that anybody ever admitted to being that person, and I don't think that information (which I gave the police) was released. I believe (with zero evidence) that it was the killer, who woke up dazed and confused and hungover and got to wondering whether he'd done anything bad, and went to see. This is all speculation. But that's what I've thought, all these years.

2. On the night of the day her body was found, my wife and I were back in our apartment, trying to sleep. Late at night we thought we heard somebody in the hall. It sounded as though the person was trying to get into Jane's apartment. We were frightened and stayed inside. We might have called the police . . . I'm not sure. We thought, "he's come to get us." I don't think it was our imaginations, but it could have been.