What do you think?
Rate this book
The Boston Strangler
A reprint of a hardcover edition.
The most bizarre series of murders since Jack the Ripper triggered the greatest man-hunt in the annals of modern crime for Albert deSalvo, brutal sexual psychopath, who murdered thirteen women and held a city in the icy grip of terror for eighteen months.
The most bizarre series of murders since Jack the Ripper triggered the greatest man-hunt in the annals of modern crime for Albert deSalvo, brutal sexual psychopath, who murdered thirteen women and held a city in the icy grip of terror for eighteen months.
408 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
About the author
Gerold Frank
39 books5 followersGerold Frank was an American author and ghostwriter. He wrote several celebrity memoirs and was considered a pioneer of the "as told to" form of (auto)biography. His two best-known books,[citation needed] however, are The Boston Strangler (1966), which was adapted as the 1968 movie starring Tony Curtis and Henry Fonda, and An American Death (1972), about the assassination of Martin Luther King.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews
July 15, 2016
From 1962-1964, thirteen women were sexually assaulted and murdered, strangled to death by an unknown assailant. This book chronicles the resulting manhunt.
I'm mentioned several times that I'm not really into true crime. I prefer my murders to be fictitious. After enjoying the shit out of True Crime Addict: How I Lost Myself in the Mysterious Disappearance of Maura Murray, I decided to give true crime another chance.
Well, I still prefer my crimes to be the made up ones but this was a pretty engaging read. The writing was breezy and it did a good job of presenting each suspect as a believable candidate for being the Boston Strangler. One by one they were introduced and dismissed.
I found it interesting that psychics were consulted and police thought the strangler had to be more than one man. The descriptions of the murders wore on me. I can read about fictitious murders all day long but I feel a little squeamish when they're real. Maybe I'm too sensitive for true crime. It also made me a little paranoid. If I didn't have a dog, I probably would have made sure the back door was locked a couple times.
Since I spoiled the ending for myself by looking up the case on Wikipedia before opening the book, I eventually got kind of bored with it and started skimming but that was no fault of the book or the writing.
While it didn't make me a true crime convert, I did enjoy The Boston Strangler. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
I'm mentioned several times that I'm not really into true crime. I prefer my murders to be fictitious. After enjoying the shit out of True Crime Addict: How I Lost Myself in the Mysterious Disappearance of Maura Murray, I decided to give true crime another chance.
Well, I still prefer my crimes to be the made up ones but this was a pretty engaging read. The writing was breezy and it did a good job of presenting each suspect as a believable candidate for being the Boston Strangler. One by one they were introduced and dismissed.
I found it interesting that psychics were consulted and police thought the strangler had to be more than one man. The descriptions of the murders wore on me. I can read about fictitious murders all day long but I feel a little squeamish when they're real. Maybe I'm too sensitive for true crime. It also made me a little paranoid. If I didn't have a dog, I probably would have made sure the back door was locked a couple times.
Since I spoiled the ending for myself by looking up the case on Wikipedia before opening the book, I eventually got kind of bored with it and started skimming but that was no fault of the book or the writing.
While it didn't make me a true crime convert, I did enjoy The Boston Strangler. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
February 19, 2024
01/2021
From 1966
I heard/read/saw (?), and was interested, that it is actually unclear whether the man charged with being the Boston Strangler (Albert DeSalvo) actually did all the murders. After reading this book it still seems unclear. As the writer says here, enough details of the crimes were known that any rapist would just strangle his victim and tie a bow around her neck (this is an edited version of things). This book is a detailed examination of the early 1960s killings. Along the way investigators encounter many weirdos and deviants and psychics and letter writers. What a study of human nature.
From 1966
I heard/read/saw (?), and was interested, that it is actually unclear whether the man charged with being the Boston Strangler (Albert DeSalvo) actually did all the murders. After reading this book it still seems unclear. As the writer says here, enough details of the crimes were known that any rapist would just strangle his victim and tie a bow around her neck (this is an edited version of things). This book is a detailed examination of the early 1960s killings. Along the way investigators encounter many weirdos and deviants and psychics and letter writers. What a study of human nature.
April 5, 2010
I am fortunate to be the youngest of five. I had two older brothers who were both avid readers and collected many books. One of them had purchased the paperback edition of this book in the late 1960s. One day in the summer of 1975 (I was twelve) I found it while rummaging through boxes of books in our basement. The cover illustration was an extreme close up of a menacing pair of eyes. The cover read "Look into this man's eyes. Would you trust him? Two thousand women did..." I remember thinking at the time that there couldn't have been two thousand victims in the Boston Stranger case. Still, the cover of that musty paperback remained in my memory for 35 years.
In my opinion, one quality of a good book is that it will recommend other books to the reader. Recently I read "A Death in Belmont". It noted Gerold Frank's The Boston Strangler as an authoritative book on the subject. I was curious if this was the same book I had found in the cellar that day. I searched on ebay and found that old book with the menacing eyes on the cover. It was the same book. Fortunately, I obtained the 1967 hardcover through the inter-library loan system of my local public library. It too was musty.
A long time ago I watched Tony Curtis in the movie "The Boston Strangler" on tv. I don't know if the film was adapted from the book. However, his affected Boston accent was very amusing. For example, the scene in which he tells the police he had gone into "Joddan Mahsh to buy a rulah." (Translation: He went into Jordan Marsh to buy a ruler.) I didn't know Jordan Marsh sold rulers.
Enough reminiscing. On to the review. Gerold Frank was a newspaper reporter. Journalists write the most interesting books. Naturally--that's what they do! An amazing thing about waiting 35 years to read a book is that what was current events when it was written is history now. Since then Albert DeSalvo has been murdered and other convincing theories that he was not the killer and/or was not the only killer have emerged. This book thoroughly provides all of the information that was available in 1967. It is a fast moving story of the victims, their murders, the suspects, and the investigations. Frank vividly describes the suspects. Each was psychotic and could easily have been the one. However. like a musty old puzzle one might find in a cellar, each was missing that crucial piece. Equally fascinating is Frank's account of the detectives' personal obsessions with catching the killer(s) and their utter exasperation with each failed suspect.
One of the best pahts (parts) of the book recounts how politics both propelled and stymied the investigation. Frank takes the reader back to the days when there were noble Republicans in Massachusetts such as Attorney General Ed Brooke, and how they clashed with the Kennedy dynasty. A dull paht is the section describing the use of truth serums on suspects.
As all good authors should, Gerold Frank recommends another book to the reader. In a footnote he references Thomas Gaddis' "Birdman of Alcatraz". I hope I can find that one in my local library. If I do, I'm sure it will be musty.
In my opinion, one quality of a good book is that it will recommend other books to the reader. Recently I read "A Death in Belmont". It noted Gerold Frank's The Boston Strangler as an authoritative book on the subject. I was curious if this was the same book I had found in the cellar that day. I searched on ebay and found that old book with the menacing eyes on the cover. It was the same book. Fortunately, I obtained the 1967 hardcover through the inter-library loan system of my local public library. It too was musty.
A long time ago I watched Tony Curtis in the movie "The Boston Strangler" on tv. I don't know if the film was adapted from the book. However, his affected Boston accent was very amusing. For example, the scene in which he tells the police he had gone into "Joddan Mahsh to buy a rulah." (Translation: He went into Jordan Marsh to buy a ruler.) I didn't know Jordan Marsh sold rulers.
Enough reminiscing. On to the review. Gerold Frank was a newspaper reporter. Journalists write the most interesting books. Naturally--that's what they do! An amazing thing about waiting 35 years to read a book is that what was current events when it was written is history now. Since then Albert DeSalvo has been murdered and other convincing theories that he was not the killer and/or was not the only killer have emerged. This book thoroughly provides all of the information that was available in 1967. It is a fast moving story of the victims, their murders, the suspects, and the investigations. Frank vividly describes the suspects. Each was psychotic and could easily have been the one. However. like a musty old puzzle one might find in a cellar, each was missing that crucial piece. Equally fascinating is Frank's account of the detectives' personal obsessions with catching the killer(s) and their utter exasperation with each failed suspect.
One of the best pahts (parts) of the book recounts how politics both propelled and stymied the investigation. Frank takes the reader back to the days when there were noble Republicans in Massachusetts such as Attorney General Ed Brooke, and how they clashed with the Kennedy dynasty. A dull paht is the section describing the use of truth serums on suspects.
As all good authors should, Gerold Frank recommends another book to the reader. In a footnote he references Thomas Gaddis' "Birdman of Alcatraz". I hope I can find that one in my local library. If I do, I'm sure it will be musty.
July 12, 2016
Between 1962 and 1964, 13 women were sexually assaulted, bound and then strangled often with their own panty hose. Boston was almost frozen in fear. Women were afraid to open their doors to anyone. In one case, a woman opened her door without thinking and saw a strange man on her doorstep. She promptly had a heart attack and died. The man was selling encyclopedias.
There were no clues, no evidence, for the most part, there were no signs of forced entry. The women showed no signs of struggle. Nothing was taken from their homes, although they were ransacked.
This is the story of the Boston Strangler, a monster compared to Jack the Ripper. The author takes the reader through the entire investigation from start to finish. Not only does one get to know all the law enforcement officers from different departments, the suspects are introduced one by one until they are no longer suspect.
This is a terrific novel of police procedures. The number of people who are looked at and questioned, the investigation looking into commonalities among all the victims.
I remember when these killings were taking place. I did not live anywhere near Boston, but back then, the thought of a serial killer was absolutely horrifying. The one thing I did take away from this book was the knowledge that they even used psychics. They were desperate to stop this killer at any cost.
The book is very well written. The author certainly did his homework in research and it enhances the book greatly.
Many thanks to the author / Open road Integrated Media / Netgalley who provided a digital copy in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
There were no clues, no evidence, for the most part, there were no signs of forced entry. The women showed no signs of struggle. Nothing was taken from their homes, although they were ransacked.
This is the story of the Boston Strangler, a monster compared to Jack the Ripper. The author takes the reader through the entire investigation from start to finish. Not only does one get to know all the law enforcement officers from different departments, the suspects are introduced one by one until they are no longer suspect.
This is a terrific novel of police procedures. The number of people who are looked at and questioned, the investigation looking into commonalities among all the victims.
I remember when these killings were taking place. I did not live anywhere near Boston, but back then, the thought of a serial killer was absolutely horrifying. The one thing I did take away from this book was the knowledge that they even used psychics. They were desperate to stop this killer at any cost.
The book is very well written. The author certainly did his homework in research and it enhances the book greatly.
Many thanks to the author / Open road Integrated Media / Netgalley who provided a digital copy in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
December 10, 2015
The first four women killed had been elderly, frugal, tidy, and quiet. They lived their lives under the radar, did their work, paid their taxes. They were all found similarly strangled, with a special knot connecting each murder. There was no sign of forced entry, which meant every victim had willingly let their murderer into their little apartments. By the time the police began to realize a serial killer was responsible, the pattern changed and a series of young women were killed, in the same manner.
From 1962-1964, the city of Boston was terrorized by a silent killer who was able to commit murder with no trace. The last victims met with increasingly violent ends, with multiple stabbings accompanying the initial strangulations. Who was this monster?
He turned out to be Albert DeSalvo, a handyman who had already been arrested previously for breaking and entering and for being both the "Green Man" and the "Measuring Man". In these cases, he had used a ruse to tell women they were going to be models and needed to be "measured". The ease with which he was able to talk his way into the lives of total strangers made him feel emboldened to do more.
When the cops finally snagged him, DeSalvo's excuse for the murders was that he was over-sexed and his wife wasn't giving him enough. He then described each murder, in detail, down to where certain items were in each victim's apartment. The Boston Strangler was never convicted for the murders, but he ended up in the mental ward anyway. After he escaped from the nut house, he was re-captured and transferred to a maximum security prison. In 1973, he was found stabbed to death in that facility.
True crime books are always hard for me to read, because quite honestly, they give me the jitters. However, this book was engrossing. The first third introduces the reader to each victim and how the people of Boston started to change their lifestyles to escape the hidden killer. Yet, women continued to open their doors to the Strangler. The next third describes the hunt for suspects, and each of those suspects (as nutty as DeSalvo) are convincingly portrayed as the probable killer. The last third is focused on DeSalvo, how he was caught, his confessions, and his reasoning.
There is no sensationalism in this book. It is a straightforward narrative that kept me glued to the pages and when I didn't want to be glued to the pages. Let's just say I didn't sleep very well as I was reading this. It was the randomness of the horror that made it difficult to find DeSalvo. For he never planned any of the murders. He simply drove to a location and when he "felt it", he would find an apartment building and knock on doors until someone let him inside. It was that easy.
Incredulously, DeSalvo was considered innocent by many. It wasn't until 2013 that the police were able to verify with certainty that Albert DeSalvo was indeed the Boston Strangler, using DNA analysis.
Terrifying story told with a workmanlike style. In the back of my mind, I could only think of the New England gothic hauntings, going back to the Salem witches. Wooh.
Book Season = Summer (Boston heat = open windows)
From 1962-1964, the city of Boston was terrorized by a silent killer who was able to commit murder with no trace. The last victims met with increasingly violent ends, with multiple stabbings accompanying the initial strangulations. Who was this monster?
He turned out to be Albert DeSalvo, a handyman who had already been arrested previously for breaking and entering and for being both the "Green Man" and the "Measuring Man". In these cases, he had used a ruse to tell women they were going to be models and needed to be "measured". The ease with which he was able to talk his way into the lives of total strangers made him feel emboldened to do more.
When the cops finally snagged him, DeSalvo's excuse for the murders was that he was over-sexed and his wife wasn't giving him enough. He then described each murder, in detail, down to where certain items were in each victim's apartment. The Boston Strangler was never convicted for the murders, but he ended up in the mental ward anyway. After he escaped from the nut house, he was re-captured and transferred to a maximum security prison. In 1973, he was found stabbed to death in that facility.
True crime books are always hard for me to read, because quite honestly, they give me the jitters. However, this book was engrossing. The first third introduces the reader to each victim and how the people of Boston started to change their lifestyles to escape the hidden killer. Yet, women continued to open their doors to the Strangler. The next third describes the hunt for suspects, and each of those suspects (as nutty as DeSalvo) are convincingly portrayed as the probable killer. The last third is focused on DeSalvo, how he was caught, his confessions, and his reasoning.
There is no sensationalism in this book. It is a straightforward narrative that kept me glued to the pages and when I didn't want to be glued to the pages. Let's just say I didn't sleep very well as I was reading this. It was the randomness of the horror that made it difficult to find DeSalvo. For he never planned any of the murders. He simply drove to a location and when he "felt it", he would find an apartment building and knock on doors until someone let him inside. It was that easy.
Incredulously, DeSalvo was considered innocent by many. It wasn't until 2013 that the police were able to verify with certainty that Albert DeSalvo was indeed the Boston Strangler, using DNA analysis.
Terrifying story told with a workmanlike style. In the back of my mind, I could only think of the New England gothic hauntings, going back to the Salem witches. Wooh.
Book Season = Summer (Boston heat = open windows)
March 5, 2017
The last sentence of this book is a lie:
Even when he wrote it in 1966, Frank must have known it was a lie. There were too many loose ends, too many contradictions. It wasn't until 2013 that forensic evidence was able to conclusively prove Albert DeSalvo killed any of the thirteen women whose murders he confessed to. Fifty years, and the "story of the Boston Stranglings" arguably still isn't over.
The essential problem with Albert DeSalvo and what I'm going to call the Single Strangler Theory is that the 13 murders are all over the map. Young women, old women, one African-American woman. One woman brutally stabbed. One woman beaten to death. The victimology doesn't match, the M.O. doesn't match. It actually makes more sense, logically, to say that there were several people (some of them must have been men, because of seminal fluid left at the crime scenes, but not all of them), all imitating the signature of the first killer. Except then you have to explain away DeSalvo's knowledge of details only the killer could know for all thirteen murders.
Frank doesn't help. He reports everything, but he doesn't provide any kind of critical rubric. He obviously believes that DeSalvo was the Single Strangler, hence that last lying sentence, but he doesn't ever come out and provide a theory or an explanation--which also means that it's impossible to tell where his reporting may or may not be biased by his own beliefs.
And it's a pity, because there is a Single Strangler Theory that you can use to make at least some sense of Albert DeSalvo, and it's right there in the data Frank dumps on the reader. DeSalvo as a criminal was all over the map. He was grotesquely oversexed to the point of satyriasis. (He blamed his wife (while passive-aggressively insisting he didn't blame her) for withholding sex, which (obviously!) caused him to go out and strangle old ladies.). But his rap sheet, leaving the murders aside entirely, included child molestation, breaking and entering, petty theft, scams (he was known as the Measuring Man because he'd use a line about a modeling career to get Boston and Cambridge-area coeds to let him "take measurements"), rape. He didn't have an M.O. And not unlike Gary Ridgway, who killed white women, black women, and Native American women indiscriminately because his only criterion was that the woman would get in the car with him, DeSalvo murdered completely at random. His only criterion was that the woman was home alone, and she let him in.
DeSalvo doesn't fit the FBI's profile of a serial killer. You can't go down the line of boxes and tick them off. He was an utterly disorganized killer, who eluded capture for two years because (1) pure dumb luck and (2) he was known to the police as a chronic offender, but not the kind of cruel, violent person they thought they were looking for. So, no, his crimes don't make sense in the way that other serial killers' do, where you can see a pattern, a tiny psychodrama the killer acts out every time. But their very lack of sense makes sense in the context of DeSalvo's life and verified criminal career. And I think it's important to be open to the possibility that the FBI's profile might not fit all serial killers. (In kind of the same way that Aristotle's theory of tragedy really only fits Oedipus Rex.) Yes, psychopaths share certain traits, and yes, many serial killers are psychopaths. But then look at Gary Ridgway and the way that two psychopathic serial killers, both of whom, by their nature, had to assume that all serial killers were like them, were completely wrong about him.
This is a pretty good book, if you allow for the fact that it was written in 1966 and is very much a child of its times: the casual misogyny that makes it perfectly okay to refer to two professional journalists in their their thirties as "the girls"; the equally casual, stunningly bigoted homophobia that assumes all "sexual deviates" (gays, lesbians, sadists, masochists, pedophiles, etc.) are equally capable of all sex-related crimes. Frank is a good writer; his prose is engaging and clear. But that blatant lie right at the end makes me unwilling to trust him to be telling the truth--even though I think Albert DeSalvo really might be the Boston Strangler.
But no matter what direction is taken by the law and those who act in its behalf--determined to protect the rights of society, yet equally determined to protect the rights of the individual--the story of the Boston Stranglings has ended.
Even when he wrote it in 1966, Frank must have known it was a lie. There were too many loose ends, too many contradictions. It wasn't until 2013 that forensic evidence was able to conclusively prove Albert DeSalvo killed any of the thirteen women whose murders he confessed to. Fifty years, and the "story of the Boston Stranglings" arguably still isn't over.
The essential problem with Albert DeSalvo and what I'm going to call the Single Strangler Theory is that the 13 murders are all over the map. Young women, old women, one African-American woman. One woman brutally stabbed. One woman beaten to death. The victimology doesn't match, the M.O. doesn't match. It actually makes more sense, logically, to say that there were several people (some of them must have been men, because of seminal fluid left at the crime scenes, but not all of them), all imitating the signature of the first killer. Except then you have to explain away DeSalvo's knowledge of details only the killer could know for all thirteen murders.
Frank doesn't help. He reports everything, but he doesn't provide any kind of critical rubric. He obviously believes that DeSalvo was the Single Strangler, hence that last lying sentence, but he doesn't ever come out and provide a theory or an explanation--which also means that it's impossible to tell where his reporting may or may not be biased by his own beliefs.
And it's a pity, because there is a Single Strangler Theory that you can use to make at least some sense of Albert DeSalvo, and it's right there in the data Frank dumps on the reader. DeSalvo as a criminal was all over the map. He was grotesquely oversexed to the point of satyriasis. (He blamed his wife (while passive-aggressively insisting he didn't blame her) for withholding sex, which (obviously!) caused him to go out and strangle old ladies.). But his rap sheet, leaving the murders aside entirely, included child molestation, breaking and entering, petty theft, scams (he was known as the Measuring Man because he'd use a line about a modeling career to get Boston and Cambridge-area coeds to let him "take measurements"), rape. He didn't have an M.O. And not unlike Gary Ridgway, who killed white women, black women, and Native American women indiscriminately because his only criterion was that the woman would get in the car with him, DeSalvo murdered completely at random. His only criterion was that the woman was home alone, and she let him in.
DeSalvo doesn't fit the FBI's profile of a serial killer. You can't go down the line of boxes and tick them off. He was an utterly disorganized killer, who eluded capture for two years because (1) pure dumb luck and (2) he was known to the police as a chronic offender, but not the kind of cruel, violent person they thought they were looking for. So, no, his crimes don't make sense in the way that other serial killers' do, where you can see a pattern, a tiny psychodrama the killer acts out every time. But their very lack of sense makes sense in the context of DeSalvo's life and verified criminal career. And I think it's important to be open to the possibility that the FBI's profile might not fit all serial killers. (In kind of the same way that Aristotle's theory of tragedy really only fits Oedipus Rex.) Yes, psychopaths share certain traits, and yes, many serial killers are psychopaths. But then look at Gary Ridgway and the way that two psychopathic serial killers, both of whom, by their nature, had to assume that all serial killers were like them, were completely wrong about him.
This is a pretty good book, if you allow for the fact that it was written in 1966 and is very much a child of its times: the casual misogyny that makes it perfectly okay to refer to two professional journalists in their their thirties as "the girls"; the equally casual, stunningly bigoted homophobia that assumes all "sexual deviates" (gays, lesbians, sadists, masochists, pedophiles, etc.) are equally capable of all sex-related crimes. Frank is a good writer; his prose is engaging and clear. But that blatant lie right at the end makes me unwilling to trust him to be telling the truth--even though I think Albert DeSalvo really might be the Boston Strangler.
Read
July 27, 2022No rating! DNF at 50%!
May 25, 2018
Gerold Franks novel "The Boston Strangler" is engrossing, compulsive, and superb. Great reporting! The terror began in 1962 with the murder of Ann Seesler. It will take four years for the authorities to unravel and capture the man behind the murders which had the signature marks of stranglings and sexual assaults. It was like looking for a needle in a haystack. Boston, the city where the crimes were taking place, became like a city created by a mad playwright for the theater of the absurd. Newspapers were full of stories about the 'mad strangler', 'phantom strangler' and 'sunset killer'. His serach would bring together medical examiners, psychiatrists, those possessed with extrasensory perceptions, psychometrists, even wives, and neighbors accusing each other. Eventually, the Attorney General's office of the Commonwealth of Massachussets would take over the investigations.
Many sex crimes are progressive. Al DeSalvo's crimes were no exception. He started out as the 'measurement man' and metamorphosed to become a rapist and a murderer. He raped close to two thousand women and killed thirteen more during his two year reign of terror as the 'Boston Strangler'. He would shock the whole country, neighbors, friends, and families. He did not fit the profile and his team including the great F. Lee Bailey would find themselves working overtime trying to prove that he was the damned Boston Strangler. They would learn of his remarkability, strength, energy, endurance, a man who was completely lovable. Was he really the murderer? They would wonder! Astonishingly, he was. A great documentary for those interested in criminology, sociology, and psychology.
Many sex crimes are progressive. Al DeSalvo's crimes were no exception. He started out as the 'measurement man' and metamorphosed to become a rapist and a murderer. He raped close to two thousand women and killed thirteen more during his two year reign of terror as the 'Boston Strangler'. He would shock the whole country, neighbors, friends, and families. He did not fit the profile and his team including the great F. Lee Bailey would find themselves working overtime trying to prove that he was the damned Boston Strangler. They would learn of his remarkability, strength, energy, endurance, a man who was completely lovable. Was he really the murderer? They would wonder! Astonishingly, he was. A great documentary for those interested in criminology, sociology, and psychology.
August 3, 2016
I am having a very hard time rating this book. I would have given it three and a half stars, it's better than ok, but not as good as four star book. First off, I knew nothing about the Boston Strangler. The story is fascinating and the author's writing style is very engaging. However, the book was written in 1966, but the story of the Boston Strangler doesn't end there. To find out where he ended up I had to Google him. It also FEELS like it was written in the 60's, where it was a shock to have a "Negro" Attorney General, homosexuality is considered a sexual deviancy, abortion was listed as a crime, sodium pentothal (truth serum) was used, and criminal profiling was the most accurate way to catch a criminal. So, the book felt like a bit of a time warp for me. Anything else I say would be about the case, and not the book itself.
I do enjoy true crime books, so if that is what you are into, I suggest finding a more updated book on The Strangler, the case itself and all the methods they used to try to catch him, are fascinating! This book may be a good companion to another book, or for people who are already familiar with the case and want to get really in depth.
I do enjoy true crime books, so if that is what you are into, I suggest finding a more updated book on The Strangler, the case itself and all the methods they used to try to catch him, are fascinating! This book may be a good companion to another book, or for people who are already familiar with the case and want to get really in depth.
November 3, 2016
An absolutely fascinating read from an exceptional writer. Although written in the 1960's, the story of the hunt for this serial killer is as fresh as if it was written yesterday.
Truman Capote successfully experimented with presenting a true crime tale in a narrative format with IN COLD BLOOD. Gerold Frank has a different approach. Instead of writing this primarily as a police procedural or from the point of view of the murderer, he broadens his scope to include the community response and the many collateral events that were associated with the crime. It is a riveting journey.
From the perspective of 2016, it is difficult to imagine a world without easily accessed computers, mobile phones, and sophisticated CSI techniques. It was enough of a free love generation for sex acts to be seen as more casual among the younger generation, while being a homosexual was enough to raise suspicion of guilt. (To be sure, though, there were some Rough Boys out there.) It was also a time when we had a President assassinated ... while yet another strangulation occurred on the same day.
Most of all is the lingering doubt. Evidence was very scarce and there wasn't enough of it to take a suspect to trial. Police couldn't establish a pattern of victim selection. And the capture was achieved from a confession, not from forensic science and investigation skills. In fact, to this day, there are those who doubt that there was only one Boston Strangler, or that the correct perpetrator was captured.
Frank's research builds a strong case that the events were brought to a successful conclusion. He does it through interviews, investigation notes, transcripts and common sense. All the while, he weaves a sense of the terror that gripped "the Athens of the U.S." as suspect after suspect was investigated. The coincidental events and the participation of two psychic investigators make the story even more intriguing.
The murders were gruesome. However, for the squeamish Reader, be assured that many of the graphic details are either only suggested or delivered with as little description as is necessary.
This book took me back to the 1960's with a rich dive into the culture, attitudes, and reactions of the people who lived under the Strangler's shadow. It is an excellent book, and I highly recommend it.
Truman Capote successfully experimented with presenting a true crime tale in a narrative format with IN COLD BLOOD. Gerold Frank has a different approach. Instead of writing this primarily as a police procedural or from the point of view of the murderer, he broadens his scope to include the community response and the many collateral events that were associated with the crime. It is a riveting journey.
From the perspective of 2016, it is difficult to imagine a world without easily accessed computers, mobile phones, and sophisticated CSI techniques. It was enough of a free love generation for sex acts to be seen as more casual among the younger generation, while being a homosexual was enough to raise suspicion of guilt. (To be sure, though, there were some Rough Boys out there.) It was also a time when we had a President assassinated ... while yet another strangulation occurred on the same day.
Most of all is the lingering doubt. Evidence was very scarce and there wasn't enough of it to take a suspect to trial. Police couldn't establish a pattern of victim selection. And the capture was achieved from a confession, not from forensic science and investigation skills. In fact, to this day, there are those who doubt that there was only one Boston Strangler, or that the correct perpetrator was captured.
Frank's research builds a strong case that the events were brought to a successful conclusion. He does it through interviews, investigation notes, transcripts and common sense. All the while, he weaves a sense of the terror that gripped "the Athens of the U.S." as suspect after suspect was investigated. The coincidental events and the participation of two psychic investigators make the story even more intriguing.
The murders were gruesome. However, for the squeamish Reader, be assured that many of the graphic details are either only suggested or delivered with as little description as is necessary.
This book took me back to the 1960's with a rich dive into the culture, attitudes, and reactions of the people who lived under the Strangler's shadow. It is an excellent book, and I highly recommend it.
December 7, 2011
This is masterful writing, taut and shocking, from the start to the very finish.
This book takes a complete 360 degree perspective to the Boston Strangler phenomenon (unlike any serial killer book you would have ever read, or any serial killer movie you would have seen, and yes, I include David Fincher's Zodiac). Right from the victims, to the investigators, to the newspapers, to reporters, to people on the road. It is a fascinating read on just how fear (or fascination!) spread through the zeitgeist before the internet.
I cannot recommend this book enough. This is a difficult to find book. I was lucky to have picked up a second hand copy in a book store, without knowing anything about it beforehand. I started reading it, and was completely entranced.
The one thing that I still feel completely bowled over is the lucid way Gerold Frank has explained the simple phenomenon of the success of the Boston Strangler. Everyone around the city knows that a deranged serial killer is loose in the city. (And I truly mean, everyone). They have all read about the victims, the lewd sexual nature of the crime, of the shock at the type of women that have been chosen - decent, frumpish, matronly- the palpable fear is in the air. They ALL know that he attacks women alone in their house. They know his modus operandi, they all have read the theories of what he is dressed in usually, they ALL HAVE READ THE WARNINGS ON NOT OPENING UP THE DOOR TO STRANGERS.
Women still opened up their doors to the Boston Strangler.
Not one, not two, but according to testimonies, more than two thousand women did.
It is not a genre read as much as it is a telling view of society. I was shocked not as much about the Boston Strangler, as about how easy all of this was for him.
Very highly recommended read.
This book takes a complete 360 degree perspective to the Boston Strangler phenomenon (unlike any serial killer book you would have ever read, or any serial killer movie you would have seen, and yes, I include David Fincher's Zodiac). Right from the victims, to the investigators, to the newspapers, to reporters, to people on the road. It is a fascinating read on just how fear (or fascination!) spread through the zeitgeist before the internet.
I cannot recommend this book enough. This is a difficult to find book. I was lucky to have picked up a second hand copy in a book store, without knowing anything about it beforehand. I started reading it, and was completely entranced.
The one thing that I still feel completely bowled over is the lucid way Gerold Frank has explained the simple phenomenon of the success of the Boston Strangler. Everyone around the city knows that a deranged serial killer is loose in the city. (And I truly mean, everyone). They have all read about the victims, the lewd sexual nature of the crime, of the shock at the type of women that have been chosen - decent, frumpish, matronly- the palpable fear is in the air. They ALL know that he attacks women alone in their house. They know his modus operandi, they all have read the theories of what he is dressed in usually, they ALL HAVE READ THE WARNINGS ON NOT OPENING UP THE DOOR TO STRANGERS.
Women still opened up their doors to the Boston Strangler.
Not one, not two, but according to testimonies, more than two thousand women did.
It is not a genre read as much as it is a telling view of society. I was shocked not as much about the Boston Strangler, as about how easy all of this was for him.
Very highly recommended read.
February 4, 2017
The point that is exhaustively made by the author is how difficult it was to catch this guy. I don't think it was necessarily to spend over 100 pages walking the reader through every single false lead that the police chased. Certain aspects were interesting but you are forced through long pointless walks to get there. The bits about the psychics were interesting though if only for the fact that their readings were tracked down as leads by police at the time.
September 28, 2011
This was the first true crime book that I ever read and the one that started my fascination with the genre.
February 20, 2017
This book was utterly fascinating and yet totally creeped me out. I liked that this book was written in 1966 not long after Desalvo was arrested. However, in the years since there has been doubt that Desalvo really was the Boston Strangler since he was never convicted -thus the crimes were never solved. In 1973 DeSalvo was killed in prison and in 2013 DeSalvo's body was exhumed for the second time in an attempt to match DNA. Crazy stuff!
November 17, 2019
A fascinating true crime story as well as a fascinating window into the mindset of America in the 1960s.
May 30, 2023
This book would have been 200 pages shorter if the author didn't spend so much time on every single suspect, and don't get me started on the psychics!
July 31, 2016
Book Review originally published here: http://www.iheartreading.net/reviews/...
I first heard about The Boston Strangler – the man, not the book – through a true crime TV show, the name of which I can’t recall. However, even back then, I was wary of Albert DeSalvo being the murderer. DeSalvo wasn’t a good guy by any means, but capable of such murders? And why? Anyone who investigates the strangler case knows that it’s a weird one: eleven (or thirteen) murders by strangling, using nylon stockings tied around the victims’ neck.
The first victims were middle-aged to elderly women. The second group of victims were young girls, twenty-somethings. Killers don’t just change their target victims overnight.
Gerold Frank’s book is an in-depth investigation of the murders. He starts by describing the victims, what happened to them, possible suspects, and the first half of the book reads very well. The cases are gruesome, so the book isn’t for the squeamish or faint of heart, but it provides an interesting insight into the profile of a man capable of such killings. Psychiatrists, profilers, people used to working on serial killings, all come up with a profile that doesn’t even closely resemble the man eventually charged with these murders.
Then for the latter half, the book focuses on Albert DeSalvo, his confessions, the trial that confined him to stay in Bilgewater Hospital for the rest of his life.
The book has a phenomenal wealth of information, now just from the victims, the alleged killer, the police forces, but also from psychis who were brought in to work on the case, regular people in Boston describing the fear that gripped the city, and more. The writing flows well, at least for the first part. I found that the second part dragged on much longer, and became slighty repetitive.
Either way, if you want to get a more in-depth knowledge of the killings that haunted Boston from 1962-1964, I wholeheartedly recommend this book.
I first heard about The Boston Strangler – the man, not the book – through a true crime TV show, the name of which I can’t recall. However, even back then, I was wary of Albert DeSalvo being the murderer. DeSalvo wasn’t a good guy by any means, but capable of such murders? And why? Anyone who investigates the strangler case knows that it’s a weird one: eleven (or thirteen) murders by strangling, using nylon stockings tied around the victims’ neck.
The first victims were middle-aged to elderly women. The second group of victims were young girls, twenty-somethings. Killers don’t just change their target victims overnight.
Gerold Frank’s book is an in-depth investigation of the murders. He starts by describing the victims, what happened to them, possible suspects, and the first half of the book reads very well. The cases are gruesome, so the book isn’t for the squeamish or faint of heart, but it provides an interesting insight into the profile of a man capable of such killings. Psychiatrists, profilers, people used to working on serial killings, all come up with a profile that doesn’t even closely resemble the man eventually charged with these murders.
Then for the latter half, the book focuses on Albert DeSalvo, his confessions, the trial that confined him to stay in Bilgewater Hospital for the rest of his life.
The book has a phenomenal wealth of information, now just from the victims, the alleged killer, the police forces, but also from psychis who were brought in to work on the case, regular people in Boston describing the fear that gripped the city, and more. The writing flows well, at least for the first part. I found that the second part dragged on much longer, and became slighty repetitive.
Either way, if you want to get a more in-depth knowledge of the killings that haunted Boston from 1962-1964, I wholeheartedly recommend this book.
June 30, 2017
I received this book from the publisher and Net Galley for review. It is an older book on the subject of the "Boston Strangler", and was written prior to the actual trial and conviction of Albert DeSalvo. The first portion of the book was dedicated to the actual murders, that occurred in the early 1960s, and the victims. Of import was the psycho-analysis of a very trusting female population, who, despite the knowledge of a killer on the loose in the city, opened up their homes to a strange man. The next part of the book hammered in on the investigation, the investigators themselves and a number of men who were singled out as the possible murderer. The author honed in on a 'psychic', Peter Hurkos, who was, at one point, used to try to identify the Boston Strangler...and failed. The part of the book that discussed the subjects who were put under the influence of the so-called 'truth serum' drug, Sodium Pentothal, I found interesting.
The last portion of the book was about the man who claimed to be the Boston Strangler, Albert DeSalvo. The author details his confession of each murder, discusses DeSalvo's troubled childhood, with a very abusive father, his history as a U.S. soldier stationed in Germany where he met his wife, his relationship with his wife and his 2 children, and his past criminal history.
Good read for anyone interested in the True Crime genre.
The last portion of the book was about the man who claimed to be the Boston Strangler, Albert DeSalvo. The author details his confession of each murder, discusses DeSalvo's troubled childhood, with a very abusive father, his history as a U.S. soldier stationed in Germany where he met his wife, his relationship with his wife and his 2 children, and his past criminal history.
Good read for anyone interested in the True Crime genre.
November 10, 2016
I. Give. Up.
The author just vomited all the information on Strangler case on the page. Every false lead gets discussed in-depth, including the biographies of everyone involved. Nobody needs to know that much. In a non-fiction book I expect some...well editing. The author choosing what information is relevant and how much space should be dedicated to it. Now you can obviously always argue about how much authors can make their point by emphasizing/leaving out certain pieces of information but I think we can at least agree on the fact that a true crime book doesn't really need to give extensive detail on every single person who was a suspect and later turned out to be innocent and even less the life-stories of the bloody psychics who claimed they could give information on the murders.
Now you might argue that the actual investigation was long and tedious and the book wanted to convey some of that...but if that was really the aim...it succeded too well.
The author just vomited all the information on Strangler case on the page. Every false lead gets discussed in-depth, including the biographies of everyone involved. Nobody needs to know that much. In a non-fiction book I expect some...well editing. The author choosing what information is relevant and how much space should be dedicated to it. Now you can obviously always argue about how much authors can make their point by emphasizing/leaving out certain pieces of information but I think we can at least agree on the fact that a true crime book doesn't really need to give extensive detail on every single person who was a suspect and later turned out to be innocent and even less the life-stories of the bloody psychics who claimed they could give information on the murders.
Now you might argue that the actual investigation was long and tedious and the book wanted to convey some of that...but if that was really the aim...it succeded too well.
August 9, 2019
Found this original copy at a library book sale. The story here ends in 1966, so alone it was not a complete account. This is one of those crimes that I assumed I already knew more about than I actually did. It is very detailed, too much so at some points, I didn't really need to go off on a tangent with the author following the wrong suspect. And a lot of it is very disturbing, oh, Big Surprise, Susan, what did you expect? But if you really want to be an expert on this subject, its a good place to start.
April 6, 2009
The Boston Strangler was such a prominent case at the time it was happening and the world heard about it.
This novel written by Gerold Frank about horrible crimes committed by one man is told without gore and shock, but rather aims at giving only the truth about human nature. How sad that some of us humans can commit such heinous crimes.
This novel written by Gerold Frank about horrible crimes committed by one man is told without gore and shock, but rather aims at giving only the truth about human nature. How sad that some of us humans can commit such heinous crimes.
November 14, 2017
Gripping but about 100 pages too long; the pages and pages of interviews with DeSalvo were terribly dull, retreading old ground unnecessarily. Additionally, amused by the concept of the Boston police believing in a genuine "homosexual hierarchy" in their city. The 1960s must have been bizarre.
December 7, 2019
Kind a slog to get through. I love well-written true crime, but this isn’t it. There’s a pearl-clutching quality to the author’s style that is grating, and the preoccupation with “homosexual deviants” has aged very poorly, to put it mildly. I was compelled to finish it purely as a matter of pride.
February 15, 2020
DNF at about the halfway point because there's only so much credibility that can be attributed to psychics and 'truth' drugs. There's also way too much padding in this book, there's really no way to chase down every false lead.
August 20, 2016
I enjoyed this book greatly and it stands up well to re-reading. Imagine my surprise when I learned that most people who ought to know consider it to be fiction.
Want to read
April 27, 2019Synopsis: Albert deSalvo murdered thirteen women and held Boston in an icy grip of terror for eighteen months between 1962 and 1964.
January 13, 2019
Didn't finish. It was very boring and dry.
Read
September 11, 2019DNF
April 29, 2023
Beginning in the summer of 1962 and continuing until the winter of 1964 the women of Boston lived in fear of a serial killer who raped and murdered 13, usually using as weapons only his bare hands or articles of clothing from the victims. The sensational crime spree paralyzed the city with fear and led to a massive police investigation that was eventually taken over by the Attorney General of Massachusetts. The author of this book, Gerold Frank, seems to have had an extraordinary degree of access to the detectives investigating these crimes, and this book, in addition to describing the crimes, their discovery, the crime scenes, the victims, and the evidence left behind, also goes into great detail in its account of the numerous different paths taken by the investigation of the authorities.
Many of these paths were complete dead ends, and the book goes on at length as the detectives run down one bad idea after another. There is one character, Paul Gordon, who claims to have information of value to the detectives that he has acquired through ESP. He seems to know a lot about the crimes, things only the criminal or someone who could get into the criminal’s mind, could possibly know, and the detectives spend much time speaking with him, hoping for a break in the case.
Another chapter is about Peter Hurkos, a Dutch mystic, who is brought in to help because he is said to be a psychometrist who can divine facts about the owner of an object from touching that object. He’s given tours of the crime scenes in hopes that he can provide the police with help. He can’t.
If you read between the lines you can see that the police and detectives - the Attorney General's office - were clearly overwhelmed. The various local police agencies weren’t communicating effectively with each other and the Attorney General had put an eminent domain lawyer in charge of the investigation, so the hoped for infusion of state-level control was actually not any kind of real progress at all. The authorities were so desperate for any leads that they turned to all sorts of crackpot and novel ideas. One method of investigation mentioned was computers (this was the early 1960s), and while nothing seems to have come of it, it is an interesting detail that would have made for a much more interesting digression than some of the other ones pursued by the author.
Another investigative path pursued was criminal psychological profiling. Psychiatrists were enlisted to come up with a profile but the profile they did come up with - of a violent homosexual with problems with his mother - ended up being completely wrong once the actual Strangler was apprehended and confessed. He was a heterosexual man married to a woman who was abused as a child by his father. He was so unlike the profile that the authorities developed during their investigation that he wasn’t believed and was questioned and doubted even when he had all the information that only the killer could have and disclosed it in countless interviews.
These interviews are some of the most fascinating material in the book and it's a credit to the author that he is able to report on them. The way the case ended up was rather roundabout and somewhat confusing after Albert DeSalvo, a Boston-area labourer, was arrested and held in a sexual assault case, confessed to the murders to his cellmate who then got F. Lee Bailey, the lawyer who would one day become famous representing O.J. Simpson, involved and he somehow arranged for a complete and detailed confession. But this does give the book a satisfying conclusion as the mystery behind the crimes that the book opens with is cleared up when the crimes are described again, only this time from the point of view of the perpetrator. The Boston Strangler then comes full circle and the crimes, apparently, and basically in spite of, and not because of, the efforts of the police, are finally solved.
Many of these paths were complete dead ends, and the book goes on at length as the detectives run down one bad idea after another. There is one character, Paul Gordon, who claims to have information of value to the detectives that he has acquired through ESP. He seems to know a lot about the crimes, things only the criminal or someone who could get into the criminal’s mind, could possibly know, and the detectives spend much time speaking with him, hoping for a break in the case.
Another chapter is about Peter Hurkos, a Dutch mystic, who is brought in to help because he is said to be a psychometrist who can divine facts about the owner of an object from touching that object. He’s given tours of the crime scenes in hopes that he can provide the police with help. He can’t.
If you read between the lines you can see that the police and detectives - the Attorney General's office - were clearly overwhelmed. The various local police agencies weren’t communicating effectively with each other and the Attorney General had put an eminent domain lawyer in charge of the investigation, so the hoped for infusion of state-level control was actually not any kind of real progress at all. The authorities were so desperate for any leads that they turned to all sorts of crackpot and novel ideas. One method of investigation mentioned was computers (this was the early 1960s), and while nothing seems to have come of it, it is an interesting detail that would have made for a much more interesting digression than some of the other ones pursued by the author.
Another investigative path pursued was criminal psychological profiling. Psychiatrists were enlisted to come up with a profile but the profile they did come up with - of a violent homosexual with problems with his mother - ended up being completely wrong once the actual Strangler was apprehended and confessed. He was a heterosexual man married to a woman who was abused as a child by his father. He was so unlike the profile that the authorities developed during their investigation that he wasn’t believed and was questioned and doubted even when he had all the information that only the killer could have and disclosed it in countless interviews.
These interviews are some of the most fascinating material in the book and it's a credit to the author that he is able to report on them. The way the case ended up was rather roundabout and somewhat confusing after Albert DeSalvo, a Boston-area labourer, was arrested and held in a sexual assault case, confessed to the murders to his cellmate who then got F. Lee Bailey, the lawyer who would one day become famous representing O.J. Simpson, involved and he somehow arranged for a complete and detailed confession. But this does give the book a satisfying conclusion as the mystery behind the crimes that the book opens with is cleared up when the crimes are described again, only this time from the point of view of the perpetrator. The Boston Strangler then comes full circle and the crimes, apparently, and basically in spite of, and not because of, the efforts of the police, are finally solved.
July 2, 2023
This book was published in 1966 and there have been all manner of books and articles published since then arguing that the guy who confessed didn't actually do all the killings -- or any of the killings -- however I suspect the book is right. The primary argument against the guy the book tags as the Boston Strangler is that he "doesn't fit the profile," and that someone coached him on the details that only the Strangler would know about the various crime scenes.
I have three problems with that. First, criminal profiling is not an exact science; profilers often include details that don't turn out to be true of the culprit, or miss details that would have helped find the criminal sooner, and sometimes they miss the mark entirely. Second, the "he was coached" idea requires, first, a murderer who remembers an extraordinary number of details to each crime scene (because the guy being interviewed answered all manner of questions put to him about crime scene details), and, second, that the guy who was coached had an equally precise memory of what he was told, which seems unlikely to me (few people can remember so many, many random facts so well). And, third, the way the guy the book blames remembers things and talks about them really make it sound like he was dissociating.
Dissociative disorders range from people who have periods when they feel like they're watching a movie starring themselves, to what used to be called Multiple Personality Disorder, where one "personality" takes over so completely the other personalities may not know what's happening, and with multiple stages in between. Even with people whose various personalities can be extremely differentiated, with completely different sexual identities and temperaments, those personalities can have varied levels of awareness, where some of them know nothing of the others and others of them have friends and one of them knows everybody and always has some awareness of what's going on. In this case the guy who confessed to being the Strangler seemed to dissociate into a couple of related "fugue states," some of them more angry than others, which explains some of the variation in what he did, but he remained aware the whole time, while not identifying with everything that was done.
Instead of being amazed by how vividly he visualized things, the critics point out he would get the times wrong and often claimed more sexual activity than the scene implied. But that poor sense of time is typical of the dissociative personality, while everyone recognized that he was lying when he claimed some of his victims enjoyed their rapes so I see no reason to see other sexual prowess claims as anything but similar exaggerations. In light of his repeated sexual assaults and rapes -- activities that were well established and no one disputes -- frankly I'm amazed he remembered any of the murders with any clarity, because you would think over time the multiple rapes and murders would start to blur in his mind.
But the most telling argument against the skeptics is that many of the skeptics argued he wasn't a murderer, however DNA tests done in 2013 put him at the scene when the Strangler killed his last victim. Along with the other evidence, it seems clear he was the murderer in that case. If the profilers are wrong that he is not a murderer, why should I think they're right when it comes to their claims that he didn't do all these murders?
That said, it's clear there were some copycats -- OTOH, he doesn't claim any of those, while he did add some murders (if you count the heart attack victim) the cops had not tied in to the Boston Strangler.
I have three problems with that. First, criminal profiling is not an exact science; profilers often include details that don't turn out to be true of the culprit, or miss details that would have helped find the criminal sooner, and sometimes they miss the mark entirely. Second, the "he was coached" idea requires, first, a murderer who remembers an extraordinary number of details to each crime scene (because the guy being interviewed answered all manner of questions put to him about crime scene details), and, second, that the guy who was coached had an equally precise memory of what he was told, which seems unlikely to me (few people can remember so many, many random facts so well). And, third, the way the guy the book blames remembers things and talks about them really make it sound like he was dissociating.
Dissociative disorders range from people who have periods when they feel like they're watching a movie starring themselves, to what used to be called Multiple Personality Disorder, where one "personality" takes over so completely the other personalities may not know what's happening, and with multiple stages in between. Even with people whose various personalities can be extremely differentiated, with completely different sexual identities and temperaments, those personalities can have varied levels of awareness, where some of them know nothing of the others and others of them have friends and one of them knows everybody and always has some awareness of what's going on. In this case the guy who confessed to being the Strangler seemed to dissociate into a couple of related "fugue states," some of them more angry than others, which explains some of the variation in what he did, but he remained aware the whole time, while not identifying with everything that was done.
Instead of being amazed by how vividly he visualized things, the critics point out he would get the times wrong and often claimed more sexual activity than the scene implied. But that poor sense of time is typical of the dissociative personality, while everyone recognized that he was lying when he claimed some of his victims enjoyed their rapes so I see no reason to see other sexual prowess claims as anything but similar exaggerations. In light of his repeated sexual assaults and rapes -- activities that were well established and no one disputes -- frankly I'm amazed he remembered any of the murders with any clarity, because you would think over time the multiple rapes and murders would start to blur in his mind.
But the most telling argument against the skeptics is that many of the skeptics argued he wasn't a murderer, however DNA tests done in 2013 put him at the scene when the Strangler killed his last victim. Along with the other evidence, it seems clear he was the murderer in that case. If the profilers are wrong that he is not a murderer, why should I think they're right when it comes to their claims that he didn't do all these murders?
That said, it's clear there were some copycats -- OTOH, he doesn't claim any of those, while he did add some murders (if you count the heart attack victim) the cops had not tied in to the Boston Strangler.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews