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

[Donamena]

Ausgirl - I have never doubted that Jane was murdered by someone she knew.

Neither have I. I have never wavered, neither in the murder weapon nor the red ochre. No matter how often one can look...to me somethings just stood out. I'm sure my anthro professor, who's gone to his eternal reward, tho he was Buddhist, would have agreed with me. That's just how I was trained to look.

 

[Donamena]

I have also since heard from an independent source (an anthro/archaeology Harvard undergrad at the time) that one particular professor was widely suspected of being the killer by the anthro students.

Can a mod speak to this? Bessie, are you looking at this thread?

 

[Donamena]

What does ""bbm.wife" mean?

Arthur's wife was Andrea Bankoff. They are divorced. Arthur has probably retired from teaching at CUNY Brooklyn College. I haven't talked to either Arthur or Andrea since the early-mid nineties, although I ran into a letter from them this week. They were in Rome at the time of the murder.

Has no one from Cambridge LE approached you about the information you are readily supplying? Is it not still considered a black-out cold case, even after 45 years?

So there was/is a suspect, who can/cannot be named. So this murder can never be solved?
Except by independent rumor, from one person or another, privately? How very sad and very wrong for Ms Britton.

 

[DonMitchell]

Has no one from Cambridge LE approached you about the information you are readily supplying? Is it not still considered a black-out cold case, even after 45 years?

So there was/is a suspect, who can/cannot be named. So this murder can never be solved?
Except by independent rumor, from one person or another, privately? How very sad and very wrong for Ms Britton.

I haven't said anything here that either the Cambridge LE or Lt Joyce (State) didn't know. And that the Grand Jury didn't know, because I (and others) testified before it, and they returned no indictment.

All I can say is that I've never heard about a credible suspect other than the one I've been talking about, and he's my main suspect, and he's been dead for about 15 years.

And as I said in an earlier comment, the only person who allegedly heard this guy say something along the lines of "I killed someone" was himself killed by lightning before anybody in LE could talk to him. And I'll say again that I don't know whether Lt Joyce ever talked to the guy after the statement was allegedly made. He might have.

Lt Joyce certainly knew where to find the guy (who wasn't in Cambridge anymore at the time he wrote me the letter I referred to earlier) and so I think that if there's ever to be any new information, it can only come from Lt Joyce's papers. And Joyce's papers -- I suppose that they belong to the state of Massachusetts.

This is the third time since it all happened that I've talked to people interested in the case who weren't LE. The first two came to me. Each time I've kept hoping that something might emerge, because the other two times were when my suspect was still alive.

The first contact was from a person writing an anti-Harvard book. I know that she contacted Lt Joyce (he said so) and I know that her prime suspect was also mine. But she had no evidence. None of us did. She doesn't seem to have ever published that book, and a quick Google check of her name turned up nothing interesting.

The second time it was about a cigarette found in the apartment that wasn't the brand Jane smoked. A person called me to ask what I remembered about that, and it wasn't much. This was mid 1990s but no later than 1997. Her idea was that DNA technology had advanced so much that if there were such a butt, and if it had been saved, it might be possible to recover and link the DNA on the butt to somebody. That made good sense to me but I couldn't tell her anything about the butt except what she already knew -- that if anybody had it, it would either be the Cambridge police or the state police. I never heard anything more about it.

And then there are you good people here, but you seem to be coming up empty just as everyone else has.

So I don't think that any of us -- peripheral or involved -- are ever going to get any closure, unless somebody has known something important all these years and hasn't revealed it.

 

[DonMitchell]

Hello Don!

A few quick questions…To your knowledge, did any faculty member or professor ever visit Jane's or your apartment? Was this something that happened in your reference to "casual" relationships (not referring to anything sexual)?

Also - Did you know James H well? Did you see him/speak to him after Jane's death? What impressions did he leave you with?

Did you meet Peter Dane? Any impressions?

Thanks for being here! It's wonderful to get your first-hand feedback on what did/didn't happen!

ETA - Regarding the individual you don't want to name…Did they go on to work at other Universities? If so, do you know where they went?

I mentioned the faculty member who came over that time, the one she didn't want to see. It's likely that some of the younger faculty were at my apartment and could have been at Jane's if there was spillover from a party. The younger faculty were often at grad student parties -- not rare at all. Senior faculty -- I can't think of a time. And yes, my "casual" reference was to that sort of thing. I expect that there were trysts, assignations, sneaking around, all that stuff between at least some faculty and students. But I can't remember ever hearing about a thing like that except among the grad students. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some students and faculty were involved sexually, but I really don't think it was common.

I didn't know Jim H well at all. I found him pleasant, and restrained. I already said that they seemed an odd couple to me. I never thought of him as a suspect.

I don't think I ever met Peter Dane. If I've got the dates right, he would have been a senior when I was a 4th year grad student in a very different field. Our paths weren't likely to have crossed.

It's very tempting to look at the field season at Tepe Yahya in search of clashes or motives, but I'll say that my suspect wasn't part of that operation in any way. I do know that CCLK and more particularly his wife were scandalized by Jane's inventive, transgressive cursing involving, for example, Jesus and Mary. She had a mouth on her. Mostly a funny one but sometimes, yeah, over the top.

And yes, the person I mentioned did go on to at least two other institutions. I spent some time with Google looking for his CV and failed to find one. I believe he died in 1999 -- that's what I found on the web. I had thought it was several years earlier.

 

[carbuff]

Has no one from Cambridge LE approached you about the information you are readily supplying? Is it not still considered a black-out cold case, even after 45 years?

So there was/is a suspect, who can/cannot be named. So this murder can never be solved?
Except by independent rumor, from one person or another, privately? How very sad and very wrong for Ms Britton.

I've been told, by a coffee buddy who is a retired Boston-area police detective, that the case is still considered active. He says there's no expiration date on a murder charge, and they WILL get the person.

I don't think my friend has any personal knowledge of the case. He just repeats LE gossip, which may or may not be accurate. But his rumors, and the rumors of people I know who were in the area in 1969, all point to the same problem: it isn't lack of a suspect, it's that there are several suspects, none of whom can be completely eliminated. So if they bring the person to trial, the defense would be able to use a defense of, "But it could have been X or Y."

 

[dotr]

Has there ever been reason to consider a female, or more than one person, might have attacked Jane?
What was considered, or gossiped to be the motive in this crime, was it for sex, revenge, jealousy / competition, anger?
Could it be someone went off their meds, or went on them, or was undiagnosed and they snapped?

 

[carbuff]

Has there ever been reason to consider a female, or more than one person, might have attacked Jane?
What was considered, or gossiped to be the motive in this crime, was it for sex, revenge, jealousy / competition, anger?
Could it be someone went off their meds, or went on them, or was undiagnosed and they snapped?

After talking to my friend, I seriously wondered about a woman.

 

[DonMitchell]

After talking to my friend, I seriously wondered about a woman.

The Cambridge dicks, knowing that my wife was likely to faint at the sight of blood, took her into Jane's apartment, stood her next to the bloody bed, and started accusing her of having killed Jane because Jane and I were having an affair.

I'm pretty sure this was at the same time others had me in our apartment, accusing me of killing her so that my wife wouldn't find out about our affair.

We were both in another place (as the saying goes) when they finished with us. Jill said that in a few more minutes they would have had her saying anything they wanted her to. They had gotten me almost to the same place.

You say what they want to hear because you just can't stand it any more.

Ever since then, when I've been called for jury duty, I always ask if the case is going to revolve around a confession to LE, and if it does, I ask to talk to the judge and the attorneys and say a few words about what happened to me, and I'm always excused (although at least once, the defense was hopeful that I'd stay). Having seen how it can be done, I put no faith in confession. I would need to see other strong evidence.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I usually :lurk: here, but now I'm gonna mark my spot. ullhair:

 

[carbuff]

The Cambridge dicks, knowing that my wife was likely to faint at the sight of blood, took her into Jane's apartment, stood her next to the bloody bed, and started accusing her of having killed Jane because Jane and I were having an affair.

I'm pretty sure this was at the same time others had me in our apartment, accusing me of killing her so that my wife wouldn't find out about our affair.

We were both in another place (as the saying goes) when they finished with us. Jill said that in a few more minutes they would have had her saying anything they wanted her to. They had gotten me almost to the same place.

You say what they want to hear because you just can't stand it any more.

Ever since then, when I've been called for jury duty, I always ask if the case is going to revolve around a confession to LE, and if it does, I ask to talk to the judge and the attorneys and say a few words about what happened to me, and I'm always excused (although at least once, the defense was hopeful that I'd stay). Having seen how it can be done, I put no faith in confession. I would need to see other strong evidence.

I was speaking generically, not about you or your wife or any other individual that's been mentioned. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Yes, I distrust most confessions...for exactly that reason.

 

[dotr]

I was speaking generically, not about you or your wife or any other individual that's been mentioned. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Yes, I distrust most confessions...for exactly that reason.

Ditto, also speaking generically about females and duo culprits, plenty others at the university, or perhaps with some association with it.

 

[DonMitchell]

I was speaking generically, not about you or your wife or any other individual that's been mentioned. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Yes, I distrust most confessions...for exactly that reason.

I understood that. But there's no doubt that both of us were under suspicion.

 

[Pink Panther]

Don - That sounds like a really horrific experience…Especially while coping with someone so close to you guys having been brutally murdered. So, that was Cambridge police and not LE? Did LE take a different approach?

Did Cambridge do the same thing to James H?…With anyone else?

Also - A question about your suspect…Was he ever involved/implicated/near in anything else that was remotely similar to Jane's murder or does he seem to have lived a "normal" decent life afterwards?

And another one…

Did you ever get the opportunity to speak with Jane's parents afterwards? Did they have any ideas as to what might have happened?

 

[Ausgirl]

Don, I have to on one hand understand why the investigators did what they did (if not *how* they did it..).. but on the other, I am so sorry you and Jill had to go through something so horrific, on top of all the other things you must have been feeling at the time. I'm 'hearing' some of that distress in your words, even after all this time.

Have you ever speculated on your suspect's motive? If so, would you talk to us about that? He must have targetted Jane for a reason..?

If he was a lust killer there'd likely be other assaults at least, possibly other deaths. Women around him would have stories...

If it was a one-off crime that was aimed at Jane alone and never anyone else, he had to have a powerful motive regarding Jane in particular on the night he killed her. Maybe not an obvious one. But he would have had one. Perhaps a motive that had been festering for a time, if he indeed snuck up the fire escape rather than just barging up to her door...

He must have attacked Jane quickly and she could not have seen it coming. No screams were heard, and you and your wife were so close, right next door, and I dare say those apts were far from sound proof. Plus, Jane (from all I have seen of her) was a fit, strong-minded, fiesty young woman. I cannot see her at all meekly standing by if somebody gave her any chance to fight.

I seriously doubt the situation began calmly and then escalated. Somebody would have heard it.

This was, for all I can see, a rapid and silent attack. Possibly, with a weapon brought to the scene. That suggests to me: premeditation. He set out from his home that night to kill Jane and nobody else.

So he must have had a strong and very personal motive, if he was someone she knew. And because it does not look at all to me like a simple, drunk and blundery crime of passion-in-the-moment, he perhaps had a 'dark side' to him that had manifested elsewhere in some way or other.

He might be the type of guy who never did take refusals or opposition well, on any level. Prone to bouts of rage, or dead-eye creepy and then he'd get even - and boast about it.

I just cannot see an average joe (who might be a nice guy, otherwise, except this once he lost control etc) sneaking up on a girl in her home and caving her head in with a blunt object, and not making a sound, nor leaving a blazing trail of evidence.

 

[reedus23]

Don, I have to on one hand understand why the investigators did what they did (if not *how* they did it..).. but on the other, I am so sorry you and Jill had to go through something so horrific, on top of all the other things you must have been feeling at the time. I'm 'hearing' some of that distress in your words, even after all this time.

Have you ever speculated on your suspect's motive? If so, would you talk to us about that? He must have targetted Jane for a reason..?

If he was a lust killer there'd likely be other assaults at least, possibly other deaths. Women around him would have stories...

If it was a one-off crime that was aimed at Jane alone and never anyone else, he had to have a powerful motive regarding Jane in particular on the night he killed her. Maybe not an obvious one. But he would have had one. Perhaps a motive that had been festering for a time, if he indeed snuck up the fire escape rather than just barging up to her door...

He must have attacked Jane quickly and she could not have seen it coming. No screams were heard, and you and your wife were so close, right next door, and I dare say those apts were far from sound proof. Plus, Jane (from all I have seen of her) was a fit, strong-minded, fiesty young woman. I cannot see her at all meekly standing by if somebody gave her any chance to fight.

I seriously doubt the situation began calmly and then escalated. Somebody would have heard it.

This was, for all I can see, a rapid and silent attack. Possibly, with a weapon brought to the scene. That suggests to me: premeditation. He set out from his home that night to kill Jane and nobody else.

So he must have had a strong and very personal motive, if he was someone she knew. And because it does not look at all to me like a simple, drunk and blundery crime of passion-in-the-moment, he perhaps had a 'dark side' to him that had manifested elsewhere in some way or other.

He might be the type of guy who never did take refusals or opposition well, on any level. Prone to bouts of rage, or dead-eye creepy and then he'd get even - and boast about it.

I just cannot see an average joe (who might be a nice guy, otherwise, except this once he lost control etc) sneaking up on a girl in her home and caving her head in with a blunt object, and not making a sound, nor leaving a blazing trail of evidence.

Good points and questions. I'm also interested in learning what it was that led you to believe this particular person may be responsible. I understand a reluctance to say a name if they hadn't been identified by anyone else as a person of interest, but I am curious what leads you to your belief. Unless I'm confusing myself, I take it that part of it is an admission he made you or to someone else? And this is evidence that they're responsible, contrary to earlier statements that there is no evidence that he/she did it. Maybe there is no corroborating evidence.

If you don't feel comfortable giving us the name of your prime candidate, maybe you feel more comfortable giving us the prime candidate for the lady who wrote the book? :dunno:

 

[Pink Panther]

reedus23 - Don has told us that "the lady" didn't end up publishing the book.

 

[Donamena]

I usually :lurk: here, but now I'm gonna mark my spot. ullhair:

Yay and welcome & where's the julep?

Now that you're here I will go back to lurking.. I have reached a mental dead end.

 

[DonMitchell]

Good points and questions. I'm also interested in learning what it was that led you to believe this particular person may be responsible. I understand a reluctance to say a name if they hadn't been identified by anyone else as a person of interest, but I am curious what leads you to your belief. Unless I'm confusing myself, I take it that part of it is an admission he made you or to someone else? And this is evidence that they're responsible, contrary to earlier statements that there is no evidence that he/she did it. Maybe there is no corroborating evidence.

If you don't feel comfortable giving us the name of your prime candidate, maybe you feel more comfortable giving us the prime candidate for the lady who wrote the book? :dunno:

Yes, I think that you've confused yourself. At the time of the murder, some of us thought he was an excellent suspect for reasons I'd rather not talk about. There never was any direct evidence known to me. It was completely circumstantial.

I've already said that I don't know who among the detectives did or didn't talk to him. I only know for sure that he left Cambridge within a short time of the murder and so I doubt that he was questioned in the same time frame that the rest of us were. I simply do not know whether Lt. Joyce talked to him after he returned from his field trip.

Sometime in the late seventies, that is, 8-10 years after the murder, he allegedly said something about it. For me, that was confirming evidence except, of course, it was really not evidence. It was at best 4th hand and went nowhere, as I've said in earlier posts. It only confirmed my suspicion.

Here are the links. Suspect speaks-->guy A hears and reports to guy B-->guy B reports to my friend-->my friend reports to me. Remember, guy A died in an accident before Lt. Joyce could talk to him.

I've already said that Lt. Joyce was primed to have a talk with this guy (and I don't know whether he had already talked to him) but I don't know whether he did. I do know that by the time Lt. Joyce wrote to me, the person who allegedly heard the suspect say "I killed someone" was dead. That doesn't mean that Lt. Joyce might not have known just how to use that information. Maybe he did. Don't know, can't know.

The most important information anybody could get would come from whatever Lt. Joyce wrote down about what he did and what he thought. I don't see how that information can be gotten. He's also dead.

I don't see how what I did and thought and know can take anybody any farther in this case. As I've said earlier, there's nothing I know that Lt. Joyce didn't know, and I haven't learned anything new since my last exchange of letters with him.

 

[Pink Panther]

Maybe Harvard should somehow include Jane's case in one of their programs.

http://education-portal.com/articles/Doctorate_in_Criminology_Degree_Program_Overview.html

Science, forensic studies, and investigative techniques have come a long way since Jane was murdered…

http://m.lawofficer.com/article/investigation/investigations-forensics-cold

Maybe they could be a part of solving one of their own unsolved cases?