The Last Victim–Jason Moss

Standard

This book made me a little queasy.

John Wayne Gacy always does, but this was especially awful.

In this book, the author, Jason Moss, as a freshman in college, decides to do his independent project on serial killers, and so he starts writing letters to serial killers. He designs each one to appeal to each killer specifically and got some good responses.

He started with Gacy, but he also wrote to Manson, Ramirez (the night stalker) and Dahmer.

In the end, Gacy was taking up so much time he had to let the other ones languish for a bit. Gacy was sending him letters every day. He was calling him frequently. He was sending him money and presents.

Finally, Gacy invites Moss to come spend three days visiting him. You would think a serial killer on death row would have a very secure visiting situation but apparently not so much at that location and time. Gacy would bribe the guards for privacy. Moss was alone in the cell with Gacy, Gacy was touching him, exposing himself, threatening to rape and murder him, the entire gamut of awful things.

Moss made it two days out of the three.

He had nightmares for a long time afterwards, even (especially) after Gacy was executed.

In the book he talks extensively about wanting to work for the FBI, maybe as a profiler, and that this is part of his attempt to show them he’s good. Naturally, I wondered if he did make it to the FBI, so I googled him.

He did not. He became a defense attorney. And he killed himself at the age of 31. I can’t help but wonder how much Gacy factored into that. He set himself up like a victim to lure Gacy, but did he actually become the last victim of Gacy’s murderous insanity? I don’t know, but it’s distressing and disturbing regardless.

I don’t really want to recommend this book. It’s interesting but so sad. So creepy. If that’s your thing, maybe this is a good choice. Otherwise maybe not. I’m not squeamish–I read true crime, I listen to true crime podcasts, I watch true crime documentaries, I can even look at the crime scene photos without too much of an issue (mostly) but this, despite not being that graphic, was just so disturbing to me.

 

Helter Skelter–Vincent Bugliosi

Standard

This book is a true crime classic, written by the prosecutor in the Manson trial.

You probably know the broad strokes of the Manson crimes, because they are so famous and so much a part of our shared past.

But if you don’t, this is the basic story. In the 1960s, Charles Manson gathered around himself a bunch of young people, mostly young women, and created a cult where he convinced them he was God.

He did this by keeping them pretty heavily drugged, mostly on LSD, and breaking down their moral boundaries by insisting that nothing was wrong and pushing them to do things that violated their initial taboos. It was basically a continuous drug-fueled orgy over there.

Eventually they take up residence at a ranch that was used for Western movies filming back in the day, and they would scavenge for food in town and rob people.

They also did a thing he called “creepy crawling” where they would break into homes at night and move around, stealing things or moving things around, to prove they could do it without waking up the people in the house.

He had this theory that there was going to be a race war in the near future and that African-Americans would win but then ultimately be unable to rule, so they would come looking for him. He and his followers would be living in an underground world, the entrance to which was hidden somewhere in the desert around the ranch.

Eventually he decides that the race war is taking too long to start, so he decided to kick-start it by killing some rich people, which would somehow be attributed to the Black Panthers? I still don’t really see how he was going to shift blame that way.

Regardless, he sent a bunch of people out to Roman Polanski’s house, and they killed everyone in the house. That was Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate, who was 8.5 months pregnant, plus three of her friends, and a guy that was there to see the caretaker that lived in the guest house.

The next night they broke into a home in a different neighborhood and killed the couple they found in there.

Eventually they caught some of the people that committed the crime, but the real trick was bringing it home to Manson. He had, as far as anyone could tell, not explicitly told them to kill those people. He was never in the house.

They were convicted, Manson and the three girls who were on trial for the murders with him, and they were sentenced to death. But then California abolished the death penalty so they had their sentences commuted.

This is an excellent book about the Manson crimes. If you want more information than the book can provide, I highly recommend the “You Must Remember This” podcast. One of their seasons was Manson’s Hollywood, which explained Manson’s connections with Hollywood people prior to the murders and really gave a lot more context for the crimes and Manson’s state of mind.

 

Who Killed These Girls–Beverly Lowry

Standard

Things I learned this week about the criminal justice system that I find very disturbing:

  1. If you are being questioned by the police and someone hires you a lawyer, the police do not need to let you know that, or that the lawyer is there, or that you can talk to them. Only if you ask to contact a lawyer can you get access to one.
  2. Actual innocence is not a constitutional basis for overturning a conviction.
  3. Until this week, it was legal for police in Michigan to have sex with sex workers they were busting. I have no idea if it’s still legal in other places.

None of that seems right.

The first thing on that list I learned from this book and it is very messed up. This book is about the most famous unsolved murder in the history of Austin, Texas. In 1991 two high school girls were closing up a frozen yogurt shop. One of the girls had her little sister there with her, and her sister’s friend was also there, on a sleepover. The little ones were 13 and 14 and the older girls were 17.

They were found in the early hours of the morning, when the fire department came to put out the fire in the yogurt shop.

As it turns out, the girls had been raped, murdered and then the yogurt shop was set on fire to hide the evidence.

Years passed. Detectives worked on the case to the point of burnout. New police chiefs came and went. No arrests.

Finally, 8 years later, they get a report of a boy who had been talked to at the time of the murders. He’d been seen at the mall with a .22, the same kind of gun used in the murders. They had tested the gun at the time and it was not a match but they decided to talk to him again. They spoke to him, and to the other three guys who were with him that night.

The guy with the gun and one of the other boys refused to talk at all. The other two talked to the cops for hours, one without being informed of the lawyer his dad had hired. At some point one of the policemen held a gun to the back of one of their heads to “jog his memory.”

The two guys who talked eventually confessed. Their confessions contradicted each other and the evidence, but regardless, the cases are set for trial.

At trial, they did this weird thing. I’ve seen this before in true crime books, and it ALWAYS seems weird. They do this to allow confessions to be admissible even if they implicate co-defendants or co-conspirators. What they do is, they redact the confessions to only include references to the defendant himself. The problem with this is that it creates a very different impression of the confession from the original.

In this case, one of the confessions was 8 pages long and consisted of a lot of statements like, “And then he threatened me if I didn’t, so I shot the girl.” But the redacted version just read, “I shot the girl.” That’s just an example, but it’s like that. The redacted version was less than a page. They did this at both trials.

During the appeals process the Supreme Court decided that these redacted confessions are not legal, and the convictions were overturned.

ALSO during the appeals process, better DNA testing became available and they tested the DNA found in the girls. Two male DNA donors, neither of which matches anyone associated with the case. Completely unknown profiles.

Amazingly, this does not phase the prosecutors at all. They say, well, they must have had two other accomplices. Despite the fact that this is in direct contradiction with the confessions they have, which is the only basis for their arrest and trial. There is no physical evidence connecting them to the crime.

They’ve decided not to pursue another trial, but they also have not exonerated those boys.

And to this day, 25 years later, no one knows who killed the girls in the yogurt shop that night.

It’s so sad.

We Have Your Daughter–Paula Woodward

Standard

More true crime! I’m on a true crime kick. (True crime spree? Maybe.)

This is a book about the Jonbenet Ramsay case and let me tell you, I have FEELINGS about this case and about this book.

If (like my husband) you’ve been living under a rock and don’t know this case, here’s the brief summary:

Jonbenet was a 6 year old girl, the daughter of some super rich people in Boulder, Colorado.

She was (famously) a participant in child pageants.

The morning after Christmas she was missing from her bed and there was a 3 page ransom note in the kitchen.

The police come and don’t know what they’re doing because there aren’t murders in Boulder. Result: they don’t check the entire house. They let people in and out, contaminating the crime scene.

Finally, at 1pm the only cop left in the house (what? WHY??) sends her dad and his friend to go check the house, and the dad finds the body of Jonbenet in a small room in the basement.

No one was ever arrested for the crime.

Ok, that’s the summary.

Here’s my problem. Despite the overwhelming belief at the time by the police and the public that the parents were involved in some way, I don’t think that’s actually true.

And it kind of annoys me, to be honest.

This book is very pro-Ramsay and supportive of the parents, and even with that bias, it reads really clearly that despite what the author wants me to think, these are TERRIBLE human beings. They are awful. Here’s my justification for this:

  1. the girls name. This was dad’s second marriage and he named his first son after himself, but despite this, he made up a name for the girl which combined his first and middle names and her middle name is the mom’s first name. This is so much ME ME ME that it makes me crazy. How many kids named after yourself do you need? Why is it so important that this kid be a walking advertisement for you?
  2. the pageant stuff. The mom was a former Miss West Virginia so it’s not really a surprise that she put the girl in them but there is no question that those glitzy pageants sexualize little girls. I mean, you can argue that point with me if you want but you would be wrong and I’m pretty sure that the research backs me up.
  3. carelessness. The basement window the intruder used to get in was broken. And had been since June. Let’s just sit there for a minute and ponder the fact that a family that owns their own airplane can’t get it together to repair a window for SIX MONTHS.
  4. carelessness, 2: they gave out a bunch of keys to the house to people, friends, contractors, whatever, and didn’t keep track of them or get them back.
  5. carelessness, 3: they never set their security alarm.
  6. carelessness, 4: the week before the murder they’d opened their home to the public for some Christmas tour thing. If you’re going to do this, wouldn’t you then be extra vigilant about security after that? For robbery if nothing else. If I was rich and random people walked through my house for weeks, I would be setting the alarm and checking the windows and everything else.
  7. Dad–ok, this may be my personal bias, but I find it really icky when a man ditches his first wife (that he met in college) and marries a former pageant girl. Especially a rich man. You get rich, so you trade up your wife for someone younger and prettier? And after Jonbenet’s mom died of cancer, he remarried a third time, someone ALSO younger and very pretty. I do not like him. I think he’s gross. I think he’s an entitled rich asshole who keeps looking for trophies. The plane, the wife, the pretty daughter in pageants. It’s all the same thing and it is so gross to me. Even reading about him makes me want to take a hot shower and wash the ick off.

Ok.

But here’s the thing. There was some DNA on Jonbenet. In three places. There was very little, but it was enough to be tested and to go into the FBI’s database, and that DNA is not anyone in the family. It’s completely different, and it does not match any of the almost 200 people they’ve tested.

Also, I think the dad is super gross and if you told me he was abusive I’d be willing to listen to you, but I don’t think that’s how it would go if he decided to kill his daughter. She was molested with a paintbrush, strangled and then allowed to regain consciousness before being strangled again and her head was bashed in. That’s not the kind of thing most parents would do, but more importantly to me, I don’t think that’s how he would kill her even if he was the killer. She’s a trophy for him, and you don’t do that to trophies, you’d want to keep her pretty, right? Maybe I’m wrong, I’m not a killer.

Anyway. Maybe one day they’ll get a hit on the DNA and we will know what happened, but otherwise it probably won’t be solved. Which is a tragedy. Poor little Jonbenet. She deserved better than what happened to her.