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

[carbuff]

RMG would be the person several of the locals suspect.

 

[Ausgirl]

Scrutin-eyes. welcome to WS! And thanks so much for that information, very interesting!

Don, I can't recall if we've discussed this before (I'm on my first coffee..) but would this have been Jane and James' first night out since meeting up again after the holidays? I often think of that date, them being seen out together and happy to be together again, as perhaps a catalyst for somebody's rage.

In any case, I think Jane and her apt were being watched. The attack must have come pretty soon after Jane parted company with everyone that night and went to bed. It just doesn't make much sense to me that this timing was at all random.

With so many people living in those apts, and after all these years, it is probably impossible for anyone to recall if they'd seen a particular person hanging about in the few days before Jane died. But I'm betting he was watching, that night.

 

[December]

I was aware of all this, but wasn't sure whether it was OK to reveal anything about it. I didn't know RMG and I'll say that RMG isn't my prime suspect, but that means nothing.

I can say that when I learned about RMG (in 1979) I forwarded that information to Lt. Joyce. I told him that the people who told me about RMG did not know whether he was in Cambridge at the time of the murder, or whether he knew or kept company at all with Jane. What Lt. Joyce did or didn't do with that information is, as usual, unavailable.

There was an article in Smithsonian Magazine, sometime later in the 1970s. It seems as though the Smithsonian Magazine's archives are not online, but I'm sure some libraries must have a collection.

Lt. Joyce was very thorough, didn't you say? I would think he would've looked into it... this guy was already even in trouble. Maybe he has a good alibi?

 

[Scrutin-eyes]

Thanks all for the welcome! Mad Mike, as he was known to his students when he taught as an adjunct at Stony Brook, often flew off the handle, verbally attacking colleagues who disagreed with his interpretations, causing at least one to contact me worrying about safety. While I am only speculating here, the violence of the attack on JB (a single blow?), the symbolism of the artifact used to kill her, the post murder ritual suggesting to me regret at losing his temper (trying to make things right), all point to a jilted suitor that may have gotten into an argument over the archaeological interpretation of something. Does anyone remember him being there? He was certainly enrolled and if physically there he must have been interviewed by the police, right? Coupled with the fact that he was the last person to see Ann Abraham alive should be more than enough to suggest him as a person of interest, not to mention his other legal troubles with the state of New York and the Seneca Nation, his macabre handling of human remains while teaching as an adjunct at Canisius College, and more suggestive behavior. I've read over the many posts here, but want to ask again...was there any physical evidence collected from JB's murder like DNA or finger prints?

 

[Donamena]

Thanks all for the welcome! Mad Mike, as he was known to his students when he taught as an adjunct at Stony Brook, often flew off the handle, verbally attacking colleagues who disagreed with his interpretations, causing at least one to contact me worrying about safety. While I am only speculating here, the violence of the attack on JB (a single blow?), the symbolism of the artifact used to kill her, the post murder ritual suggesting to me regret at losing his temper (trying to make things right), all point to a jilted suitor that may have gotten into an argument over the archaeological interpretation of something. Does anyone remember him being there? He was certainly enrolled and if physically there he must have been interviewed by the police, right? Coupled with the fact that he was the last person to see Ann Abraham alive should be more than enough to suggest him as a person of interest, not to mention his other legal troubles with the state of New York and the Seneca Nation, his macabre handling of human remains while teaching as an adjunct at Canisius College, and more suggestive behavior. I've read over the many posts here, but want to ask again...was there any physical evidence collected from JB's murder like DNA or finger prints?

I believe, as I think bibliotaph posted the autopsy, that there was more than one blow. As you no doubt know, scrutin, Périgorian hand-axes, like all Paleolithic ones, were used to kill & render game. They're sharp. As for physical evidence, no one has been able to get any info from Cambrdige LE.

The one contact I made with a source said the Cambridge LE 'botched' the case. I would imagine that meant neither DNA nor fingerprints. I don't know the state of forensics then, so I've no clue. As Woodland, a poster on the Christine Jessup case quoted, 'the evidence is in the the crime box.' Where that box is now is anyone's guess, & no one's commenting from LE.

It's clear to me that the combination of the Périgordian hand-axe & the red ochre point to the Paleolithic assemblage. All of the grad students should have been familiar with that period, regardless of what field they were in. It would've been basic in under-grad, I should think. It was for me. Perhaps Harvard was different & Don may be able to shed light on that.

I also considered either a theft-of-antiquities angle or a problem in research, i.e., finding something at the wrong level in the dig, something that didn't 'belong' there, or a methodology issue 'borrowed' from another student's research. I also find the idea that a grad student was allowed to take an artifact home with them to be shocking, although I believe Don did mention that it was sometimes allowed? The Peabody? Damn, my Podunk university would have expelled me for lifting one tiny pump-up wine bottle from an historical dig.

As a hypothetical posit, there are some families &/or people who consider the 'slop jar' of reality something not to be considered or attended to. There are some places & people for whom a tiny hint of scandal would have been a horror. Stiff upper lip, de eso no se habla, etc. it happened, let it go.

So glad you're here, scrutin, a breath of fresh air. Perhaps you & bibliotaph can dig deeper. Forward! It shouldn't languish. I was eight days from being a mom then, having just finished my anthro 4-field exams then. I felt so drawn to this case, & to such a talent, gone. Everything she could have done, added to her field, added to her life, gone. What an egregious horror. It seems as if most of the pieces of this puzzle are there. Caché in plain sight, in that box.

 

[carbuff]

DNA wasn't around at that time, so it's not "botched."

 

[Scrutin-eyes]

Donamena thanks for sharing that! It must have been jarring to say the least…especially with motherhood looming for you! I think you are absolutely right about the generalized paleo knowledge most students, grad and undergrad alike, should have known, especially at a school like Harvard. I think that whole killer-is-knowledgeable angle is overplayed. If anything the post-murder “ritual” of the killer shows only a base understanding, a mimicry. I don’t know anyone that would argue that RMG was/is a brilliant scholar, though he has made gobs of money selling artifacts. It’s good to know he didn’t learn this at Harvard, but he sure took it up a notch in NY, selling them and body parts from the trunk of his car just outside the Iroquois village stage at the state fair, and doling out special artifacts to his most talented excavators during the course of his field school while teaching as an adjunct at Canisius college. Most students are not permitted to take possession of the artifacts, as Donamena rightly points out, but as the director of the dig he thought he had the power to bequeath such items, subsequently leading to his banishment from NY state archaeological sites.

 

[Scrutin-eyes]

To sum this up as I see it: we have two young female archaeologists dead, and RMG seems to have been at Harvard at the time and definitely was the last to see Ann Abraham alive in Labrador. He has been and still is a loose canon, he has published articles and expressed a fascination with funerary rituals, he has been sued by Indians, along with the state of New York, for selling and otherwise violating (skull cap ashtray) their artifacts and body parts, and other archaeologists have expressed a concern for their safety around him. Someone in law enforcement needs to get off their and explore the links between Jane Britton’s death and the disappearance of Ann Abraham! So…does anyone know where the “evidence box” is for this cold case? I am here on this site to add to my file any more relevant information I can before I take this to the next level and start making some noise. I hope to prompt a reexamination of both cases. No, DNA analysis was not around back then as carbuff notes, but that does not mean there was no DNA collected. If anyone can answer these specific questions, please contact me here or in private if you prefer. Thanks to all!
1. Was RMG physically there? Can someone confirm this?
2. Did he have any contact, with Jane Britton? Any disagreements?
3. Same with Ann Abraham. Why were they paired together on the hike? Did they have a relationship or disagreements?
Someone out there knows the answers to these questions, so please, please for you computer savvy types (not me!), send some feelers out there in cyber world, some inquiries. I get the feeling someone is biting their tongue, afraid to come forward.

 

[Donamena]

DNA wasn't around at that time, so it's not "botched."

English is not my native language. Regarding my post, & simply for the interest of clarity, I asked two friends to look over my post for any ambiguity, errors in syntax, weak grasp of colloquialisms, lack of verb/noun agreement, & adjective miscue. One is a professor of honors English.

As many of you know, I nearly got banned for going agains TOS to contact a *** source close to the case***. I will quote verbatim from the email I received: 'No, you're wrong, it wasn't Boston or Harvard, it was the Cambridge police who botched the case." This brief, terse email in no way discussed DNA.

Nor was the statement 'botched' mine.

 

[Suthrnqt]

DNA wasn't around at that time, so it's not "botched."

Well, I think this case was "botched" but it has nothing to do with the lack of DNA collection. I feel the blame falls squarely in the laps of the Cambridge LE.

 

[carbuff]

Several people have said the investigation was botched by one agency or another. I didn't mean to single you out, Donamena. I'm sorry if you thought I was.

I just get tired of the way we on Websleuths tend to assume there was some obvious answer that would have been found if "somebody" in LE hadn't screwed up. That certainly happens and without inside information I remain neutral on whether it happened in this case.

The rumor out in the sticks has always been that higher-ups squashed the investigation to protect Harvard and its reputation, and possibly the people involved. That's sickening and despicable, but it's not the fault of the cops who investigated.

 

[Donamena]

Several people have said the investigation was botched by one agency or another. I didn't mean to single you out, Donamena. I'm sorry if you thought I was.

I just get tired of the way we on Websleuths tend to assume there was some obvious answer that would have been found if "somebody" in LE hadn't screwed up. That certainly happens and without inside information I remain neutral on whether it happened in this case.

The rumor out in the sticks has always been that higher-ups squashed the investigation to protect Harvard and its reputation, and possibly the people involved. That's sickening and despicable, but it's not the fault of the cops who investigated.

Thanks, I always get skittish if I think my English is incorrect. I felt from the beginning that it had to be someone in a high position of power to prevent any further investigation. My ***close source*** had an attitude that completely concurs with what you & many here on this thread believe or perceive to be the case. What I mean to say, & please help me if I don't express myself correctly, is that both ***source*** & deceased family members Have/had no desire to pursue the murder. Quashing an investigation comes from someone or thing with power.

When I grew in the Tremé projects, I knew that anything getting suppressed was done so by people with power putting pressure upon those who didn't. That's my reverse snobbery showing itself.

I wish there was a way to re-open the case to look at the evidence box with modern analysis. As Woodland wrote to me, the key is there, it just needs a fresh look. Who even knows if it still exists? My sentiments are with the initial investigators: you can't do a thorough job if your hands are tied. You can't get it done if the people with position & power view the rest of blue-collar society as something belonging in a slop jar.

 

[carbuff]

In this case it's not even blue-collar society being looked down on. It's everybody who isn't Harvard. My neighbor who worked in one of the cafeterias considered herself part of the Harvard family and would fiercely defend them, even though they exploited her and the other workers terribly. She thought they knew best and said we just didn't understand.

I'm a little surprised that given her father's prominent position, Harvard itself didn't want to make a push to solve the murder.

 

[DonMitchell]

The rumor out in the sticks has always been that higher-ups squashed the investigation to protect Harvard and its reputation, and possibly the people involved. That's sickening and despicable, but it's not the fault of the cops who investigated.

Here's my opinion (based on what was strongly hinted-at by the State guys, and my own understanding of Harvard's role (and my suspicions)).

First, I have no doubt that the Cambridge police failed to investigate properly. Any new readers should go back and read my postings about how my wife and I found what we believed to be the weapon used in the initial attack (but not for the fatal blows). That someone with the title "Detective" should have missed that is inexcusable. I've also talked about how the apartment was never properly secured as a crime scene. As the State guys only too well understood, if there was any physical evidence, it was never found or didn't survive the Cambridge "investigation."

Second, let's remember that the administrative units within Harvard University had and have considerable autonomy. I don't think that the units at Harvard that were most directly involved -- the Peabody Museum and the Anthropology Department -- "blocked" or "squashed" the investigation, but I absolutely believe that they did not cooperate in good faith. I believe they could have done other than what they did do. I'm talking about deflection, cooperating to a minimum standard, and so on. I don't believe that anybody in either unit had knowledge of who the killer was, or might have been, but even so this was all very unwelcome publicity and the possibility that one of their own could have been involved set in motion, I believe, any number of actions that kept investigators as far from the Museum and Department as possible.

One way for them to do this was to effectively leave Humphries, my wife, and me adrift in a sea of rumor, accusations, unwelcome media attention and all the rest. (Only one professor, the bluest of the blue-blooded Boston Brahmins, came forward to offer us help.)

Finally, let's not forget that at that time there was considerable town-gown hostility and let's not forget that all this was happening against a background of Vietnam protests and Cambridge police involvement in putting down the protests. It's certainly true that the university wielded considerable political and economic clout. But it's not true that there was a great sense of cooperation and shared goals. I can imagine Harvard's president issuing feelers to see if the investigation couldn't be toned down a bit and not be so Harvard-centered, but nothing I know about those days suggests to me that anybody at Harvard could have squashed the investigation. I certainly believe they wished they could, though.

It's also certainly true that a Cambridge detective who unmasked a Harvard-connected perp and took him down would have been very, very pleased to have delivered the university a blow, and a blow it would have been.

 

[Pink Panther]

Hi folks,
New to the site and I think I have some information relative to this case, info completely ignored by the Cambridge Police Dept. In 1976 Richard M. Gramly, an archaeologist/geologist/Indian grave looter that graduated from Harvard and was enrolled in their anthropology department when Jane Britton was murdered, was involved in another cold case, that of Anne Abraham. I've attached a link for your convenience: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bfwtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cYgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1101,2689266&hl=en

Ann Abraham, was an attractive young aspiring archaeologist that was paired with Gramly on a Smithsonian funded expedition to Labrador. Her body was never found. It was surmised she became the victim of a polar bear, though in the intensive search for her, the helicopter pilots reported seeing no such predators. Gramly is an expert of ancient Persian lithics, and of course an ancient stone axe was used to murder Bitton, at least according to the reports. Gramly has had a checkered life, having been forbidden by the state to conduct archaeological investigations in New York as he violated provisions of NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act). It is reported that he had skull cap ashtrays and body part adornments throughout his office, and I have included a link for this as well: http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/landmark-settlement-protects-native-burial-site
His name once again surfaced recently in the news involving an FBI investigation of another Indian grave looter/body part collector: http://www.vocativ.com/culture/art-culture/indianas-real-indiana-jones/
Question, has anyone made this link and/or explored this? There are whispered rumors in the archaeological community that Gramly was interested in both deceased young women. Please let me know what you think, as these two women and their families deserve justice, and this guy fits the m.o.

Wow Scrutin-eyes…So happy to have you here. I've been following this case for a while and someone else who has (I will not name them unless they wish to name themselves) had the same suspicion as you right down to the woman who disappeared in Labrador…So - this is most definitely something worth looking into! I'm so happy you came in to share this information with us in such a clear and forthright manner!

moo

 

[carbuff]

Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but people who were living here at the time are convinced that's what happened. Of course that doesn't make them right, but on the other hand, Massachusetts has a long history of good-old-boy corruption and there are plenty of cases where people were saying in private what the news outlets were afraid to say in print or on camera.

 

[Pink Panther]

I was aware of all this, but wasn't sure whether it was OK to reveal anything about it. I didn't know RMG and I'll say that RMG isn't my prime suspect, but that means nothing.

I can say that when I learned about RMG (in 1979) I forwarded that information to Lt. Joyce. I told him that the people who told me about RMG did not know whether he was in Cambridge at the time of the murder, or whether he knew or kept company at all with Jane. What Lt. Joyce did or didn't do with that information is, as usual, unavailable.

There was an article in Smithsonian Magazine, sometime later in the 1970s. It seems as though the Smithsonian Magazine's archives are not online, but I'm sure some libraries must have a collection.

Don,

It sounds like you shared a lot of information with Lt. Joyce. Unfortunately, he's not with us anymore and there doesn't seem to be any way to find out if he shared his information/files with people subsequently assigned to Jane's case. Have you ever tried to share your suspicions with those that are now responsible for her case or have you perhaps, refrained from doing so, given the lack of response/interest in her case?

 

[Pink Panther]

Is there a reason that Anne Abraham's family never publicly tried to locate her? There is very little to be found on a search for her...

http://www.officialcoldcaseinvestigations.com/showthread.php?5060-Annie-Abraham-Was-She-Ever-Located

 

[Pink Panther]

I was aware of all this, but wasn't sure whether it was OK to reveal anything about it. I didn't know RMG and I'll say that RMG isn't my prime suspect, but that means nothing.

I can say that when I learned about RMG (in 1979) I forwarded that information to Lt. Joyce. I told him that the people who told me about RMG did not know whether he was in Cambridge at the time of the murder, or whether he knew or kept company at all with Jane. What Lt. Joyce did or didn't do with that information is, as usual, unavailable.

There was an article in Smithsonian Magazine, sometime later in the 1970s. It seems as though the Smithsonian Magazine's archives are not online, but I'm sure some libraries must have a collection.

If your were aware of all this…Can you shed some light? Did you know this person? Did Jane? Was he there at Harvard in the time period that Jane was killed? Did he take part in any of the excavations that she had participated in? Anything at all that you can share?

 

[dotr]

Has this case ever been presented to the Vidocq Society?

http://www.vidocq.org/