Lavinia Thompson's Blog: Seeking reviewers! , page 6

Strange Obsessions Pt 2: The Zodiac Killer

Rock and roll, peace symbols, flower children, hippies and lots of drugs. Many remember 1969 as the summer of love, with fondness and nostalgia. Decades before the internet and cell phones and before serial killers were really even a solidified concept in society’s eyes. Young people hitch hiked freely without the fear and stigma attached to it. But for people in Northern California, it was a dark time.

San Francisco Bay fell prey to a serial killer who to this day remains unknown. He was the demonic shadow behind phone calls and letters and taunts. A figure in black haunting lover’s lanes in the dead of night. Between 1968 and 1969, he murdered five people. Up until 1974, he taunted police and media through letters and phone calls, and then mysteriously vanished, never to be heard from again. The case remains open and, like Jack the Ripper, is still the topic of conversation among true crime lovers everywhere who hope maybe the case might one day be solved.

The Zodiac Killer

On December 20, 1968, David Faraday, 17, and his 16-year-old girlfriend, Betty Lou Jensen, were shot to death near their car on Lake Herman Road, a remote area outside of Vallejo, California. No clear motive was ever determined. I mean, they were teenagers out on a date – which means this was either a double murder of opportunity, or the killer knew where they were going to be and when. Teenagers make for vulnerable victims, less likely to fight back or resist. Which could mean the killer was likely insecure, not confident enough to face these kids. But as we will see, this changed rather quickly. He was just getting started.

Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

He waited six months before striking again in a similar location outside Vallejo. Like David and Betty Lou, 22-year-old Darlene Ferrin and 19-year-old Mike Mageau, her boyfriend, were shot while sitting in a car. A man approached them with a flashlight, shot multiple times into the car, and left. Ferrin died, while Mageau was seriously injured, yet survived. This would have required the killer to approach them and have a face-to-face interaction with them, a sign that his confidence may have risen since his first murder, since he seemingly got away with it. It would have boosted his ego.

And when a killer’s ego gets continual boosts, they become bolder. More brazen.

A man called the Vallejo Police Department within an hour of the murders, citing the crime scene location. He even claimed responsibility for it and the December shooting! Mageau gave a description of the man, resulting in a police sketch that was released. Fingerprints were found at the scene. The cipher the Zodiac sent was decoded. Tips and leads were taken in. Still, the killer remained elusive, vague and unknown. Let’s remember, this was still a time before DNA. Police didn’t have the tools they do now to apprehend these killers. No social media to spread a sketch or any leads around quickly.

After a shorter cooling off period, the Zodiac struck again on September 27, 1969. Cecelia Shephard and Bryan Hartnell were together at Lake Berryessa in Napa County when they were approached by a man in black, tied up and stabbed. The killer scrawled a message on their car for the police to find. Again, he called the police to claim responsibility. Shephard died of her wounds in hospital, and Hartnell survived.

On October 11, 1969, 29-year-old taxi driver Paul Stine was shot in San Francisco. A letter from the Zodiac later took responsibility for this crime.

Other murders have since been tentatively attributed to the Zodiac Killer. In 1963, Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards were shot near Santa Barbara, California. The October 30, 1966 stabbing death of Cheri Jo Bates, a college student, is also thought to be one of his murders. He sabotaged her car outside of the library, then approached her to offer help, whisking her away to her fate. The letter sent after her death was similar to the others sent by the Zodiac. It arrived at the Riverside Press-Enterprise on April 30, 1967.

The letters themselves are fascinating. They contained cipher puzzles and taunts. One from the San Francisco Chronicle was solved in 1969 by a school teacher and his wife. In December 2020, news got out that someone else had solved another one! Fifty-one years after arriving at the newspaper, a code-breaking team from the US, Belgium and Australia have cracked it. This was such an exciting breakthrough – proof that things can be solved in time. The 340 cipher read:

“I hope you are having lots of fun in trying to catch me. ... I am not afraid of the gas chamber because it will send me to paradice (sic) all the sooner because I now have enough slaves to work for me.”

IFLS.com reported on June 24, 2021 that an amateur codebreaker had cracked the final two Zodiac messages. Important to note though: the 340 cracked code was confirmed by the FBI. This most recent one has yet to be confirmed.

Image by Pit Karges from Pixabay

Why this case?

I have a thing for old cold cases. This case carries the same air of drama and intrigue as Jack the Ripper continues to. It likely always will, though there is admittedly more evidence to work with in the Zodiac case. Jack was elusive, like smoke. There then gone. But there are plausible suspects in the Zodiac case. San Francisco Chronicle comic artist Robert Graysmith wrote two books on his obsession with the Zodiac Killer and his own unravelling of the case, in which he revealed Arthur Leigh Allen to be the most likely suspect (and I personally agree). There was a saga in 2002 over DNA that didn’t match Allen, yet that was unreliable to begin with. The DNA sample was on the outside of the envelope in question, which means it could have belonged to anyone who handled the envelope. And Allen allegedly had people lick and seal his envelopes for him. This detail only came out in 2018.

Gary Stewart wrote a book called “The Most Dangerous Animal” in which he claims his father was the Zodiac Killer. Eric Van Best Jr certainly resembled the sketch, yet I didn’t feel the evidence against him to be as compelling as the mounted evidence against Allen. The book was intriguing, but didn’t convince me.

The Zodiac’s behaviour is perplexing, as well. The mixture of stabbing and shooting is usual. Typically, serial killers stick to one tried and true method. Even in his later murders, he continued to alternate between the two. He targeted primarily couples, but also killed people who were alone. Opportunistic or planned? Was he simply delusional and chose whatever fit said delusion at the given time? Choosing couples in remote areas, and people alone in urban areas, is a bizarre MO. Did he know the couples would be there? Did he follow them? Did he choose the lone people at random as he passed them by? The victimology is scattered. The MOs are sporadic. However, the signature remains: his letters. The need for communication with police and media, the need for validation, the need to take credit. He was someone who never got validation or credit, or so he believed. He felt overlooked at work and likely lived alone. He had the time to spend on creating those complex ciphers. This wasn’t someone with a ton of responsibility outside of his working hours. He had time to hunt, kill and taunt. This man existed on the fringe of society, functioning as much as necessary, then carrying out these horrific murders. Like many serial killers, there is probably a history of trauma. The problem is, is that this vague profile could fit many. It still leaves us with a list of suspects that is difficult to narrow down beyond circumstantial evidence and opinions.

There is much to unpack with this case, so I will leave a list of reading material below. This post barely touches the vast iceberg that is the infamous Zodiac Killer case. I highly recommend Robert Graysmith’s books, as he goes into great details about the case. Gary Stewart’s book is intriguing for another perspective. Tom Voigt has a website dedicated to the Zodiac Killer case and solving it. It is a central site for everything you need to know about the Zodiac.

As always, thanks for joining me! Next time, we’ll dive into a case that introduced me to the demented world of narcissists and the way they can manipulate people to do anything. The Cinnamon Brown case. Also, one of my favourite books by Ann Rule. But, more on that next time.

Sources and recommended reading

“Zodiac” and “Zodiac Unmasked” by Robert Graysmith

“The Most Dangerous Animal” by Gary Stewart

Overview: https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/zodiac-killer

Tom Voigt’s website: https://www.zodiackiller.com/VPDER.html

Zodiac letters: https://www.zodiackiller.com/Letters.html

Cipher decoded, 2020: https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/zodiac-killers-infamous-340-cipher-decoded-and-his-message-finally-revealed/

IFLS article, 2021: https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/zodiac-killers-final-two-messages-may-have-been-decoded-and-his-identity-finally-revealed-once-and-for-all/

Book Review: "The Five" by Hallie Rubenhold

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (5/5 stars)

If you’re seeking yet another book about who someone believes they know Jack the Ripper’s true identity – this isn’t it.

British historian Hallie Rubenhold took a deep dive into the lives of the five canonical victims of the infamous serial killer. In her detailed and diligent research, Rubenhold comes to a discovery long overlooked, a riveting realization that changes the entirety of the case: out of all five victims, only one was a prostitute. Only Mary Jane Kelly had “prostitute” listed on the occupation of her death certificate. This small detail is only the beginning. The author has uncovered many details, anecdotes and witness accounts that indicate these four women were not sex workers.

This is a book in which we see the victims humanized; acknowledged with the compassion and humanity and honour they deserved. It is a harrowing and detailed glimpse into life as a vagrant in Victorian London, set to a realistic backdrop against the time in which these murders occurred. Rubenhold follows their journeys from birth up until the fateful nights they met their horrific deaths. These women never stood a chance against a Victorian society so oppressive against women who dared to step out of line even once. If a woman didn’t marry and have children back then, she was treated as though she was worthless. We must remember that women were deemed as secondary. A woman had no way of supporting herself to the point she could house and feed herself or any kids she had. Birth control was only accessible to the wealthy. Men could be promiscuous and the world would look away. But if a woman dared to have sex with more than one man, she was shamed, ridiculed and tossed aside. And prostitute or not, no woman deserves that.

Rubenhold’s approach is refreshing. She honours these women and gives us all a riveting reminder that they were human too. Jack the Ripper was a real person who murdered these women, and it isn’t all some tacky urban legend, as many people tend to treat it today. In Rubenhold’s words: “Over the centuries, the villain has metamorphosed into the protagonist”. People dissect the killer without delving into the victimology. We’ve taken what we’ve been told for years about these women at face value. What these women did have in common was homelessness and addiction. And in a time when there were no rehabs, no recovery centers, no real way of getting help or support, and in a time where such women were automatically assumed to be prostitutes no matter the truth, their deaths turned them into something they were not, blurring the truth of their lives. These were women of misfortune. Women of addiction who saw no way out of their addictions. Their families and friends watched as their need for alcohol led them to the streets, and eventually, into the attention of a bloodthirsty killer.

As someone who has read many books about Jack the Ripper, I have yet to encounter a book like this which opens up the lives of the victims and really focuses on them instead of the killer. He has been profiled time and again, even by the FBI, and yet through all of that no one has put the victims into such a revealing light until now.

Book Review: "Highway of Tears" by Jessica McDiarmid

I finished this book in a puddle of feelings and tears. I knew even before taking it off the store shelf it would be packed with sorrow, anger and devastation, and I was not disappointed. Jessica McDiarmid approaches the sensitive and tragic topic with a journalistic and respective balance to both sides of the story.

Highway 16, also known as the “Highway of Tears” is a stretch of highway through British Columbia, Canada, where hundreds, maybe thousands, of women have gone missing over the years. All but one were Indigenous. McDiarmid takes us through the heart-wrenching searches for loved ones, the stories of the women and girls behind the mystery, and busting the myth that they were sex workers, runaways, or addicts – it simply isn’t true. The author also takes on the systematic racism both in the RCMP and Canadian culture in general which led to many of these cases being ignored or not thoroughly investigated.

I grew up not far from where all of the disappearances and murders happened. I recognized one of the last names as someone who used to be our neighbour. This hit really close to home. Just to drive a point home about how much radio silence there was regarding these cases, I never really heard much about them. Not until I was an adult and it was hitting the news because of the symposium and then the national inquiry. And yet it’s true – when a white person or child goes missing, there is an abundance of press coverage and efforts to locate them. Think Caley Anthony or Lacey Peterson, or the example the author used, Melanie Carpenter.

In 2021, we’re still inundated with examples of systematic racism. Most recently, there have been over 1000 bodies found on former residential school sites, the last of which only closed in 1996. This book tells things from the viewpoint of the Indigenous people living this reality. From the social systems, or lack thereof, that keep them in poverty, to criminal investigations that fail them time after time because the girls or women who vanish are “runaways” or something. We aren’t merely inundated with examples – we are overwhelmed with a truth the Indigenous people have long known and tried to speak up about, only to meet a brick wall of ignorance from those who should care.

A quick Google search informs me that the Canadian federal government and Rogers are supposedly installing twelve new cell towers along Highway 16, something that has been a recommendation since the symposium. This was reported by CBC in April. (Link at bottom of post). It’s an improvement which is long overdue, with many, many steps still necessary for reconciliation and justice.

In many of these missing persons cases, justice might be impossible. It’s been many years since some of these women and girls simply vanished, some whose bodies were never found. Much like the residential schools, they were children, sisters, mothers and aunts who never came home. They are still remembered, loved and mourned. Many of the living family members and friends are getting older and some are already deceased. These stories will fade in time if no one else speaks up for them. Thankfully, Jessica McDiarmid has written a riveting and truthful account of this mystery, helping to keep the stories alive. We owe these women and girls that, and much more.

The CBC story can be found here.

Strange Obsessions Part 1

A cobblestone alley filled with shadows, dim lanterns, and silence. Whitechapel, London, England, 1888. A night looked different back then. No bass thumping inside club walls. No cell phones. No vehicles. Summer hung over the city, waiting to fade into autumn. Somewhere in that transition of seasons, something else brewed and lurked, before he finally struck, driving a knife not only through five helpless women, but through the heart of London with a savagery that would never be forgotten.

I saw a post recently in a Facebook group asking people what true crime cases we obsess over. In a series of posts, I’m going to take you through the top five cases I can’t ever get enough of learning about, starting with a case that has drawn many into the rabbit hole of true crime, such as myself:

Jack the Ripper

Image by Obsidain Photography from Pixabay

With so many wacky and wild theories out there, I can't even start to lay everything out in this post, or even a series. But the ominous silhouette of a top hat and cape with a bloody knife we've come to associate with this killer has become a staple in pop culture and true crime circles alike. This post will merely scrape an iceberg on this case. It can go in various directions and take many turns. I'm going to stick with the facts and the five best known victims (though there are others believed to be attributable to Jack).

A killer, who remains unidentified, terrorized the Whitechapel district in London, England between August and November 1888. He killed five women in a morbid and gruesome manner that haunts the world to this day, and has rarely been replicated since.

On Friday, August 31, 1888, at 3:40 a.m., carman Charles Cross was on his way to work when he found Mary Ann Nichols. He flagged down another man, also on his way to work. They assessed her body, then found a policeman to tend to the scene. Another policeman walking his beat at the time also came across the body. Her throat had been slashed and the wound still bled. Her torso had also been violently cut into. The coroner said the killer was likely left-handed and all injuries were inflicted with the same blade, all of which could have been done in five minutes or less.

On September 8, 1888, Annie Chapman became the second victim. At 3:30 a.m., Mr. Thompson left his residence to go to work. At 5:45, one of the men sharing the home, John Davis, left the same building and through the backyard to go to work. Outside, he found Annie’s body. At 6:10, a nearby inspector attended the scene. In “Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopedia” by John J. Eddleston, Inspector Joseph Chandler is quoted in his description of her body. In short, her small intestine and “flap of the abdomen” were left lying above her right shoulder, still attached to the intestines remaining inside her body. Two flaps of skin from the lower abdomen lay on her left shoulder. Her throat was deeply cut, left to right, in the same jagged manner as Nichols. Her time of death was estimated to be at 4:30 a.m.

In a climactic fashion, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were both found on September 30. Stride was found in a stable yard just after 1 a.m. Her throat had also been cut but had stopped bleeding by then, once again slashed left to right. This was the only injury she sustained. Her time of death was between 12:46 and 12:56. In Jack the Ripper’s stunning “double event”, Eddowes’s body was discovered at 1:30 a.m. Shortly after this was the discovery of the infamous writing on the wall, not far from the body:

“The Jewes are

The men that

Will not

Be blamed

For nothing.”

As with the others, Eddowes’s throat was cut. Her intestines were pulled out and thrown over her right shoulder. About two feet of it was detached and placed between the body and left arm. From “her breast bone to her pubes” (coroner’s report), she was cut open. An incision was made into her liver. One kidney was removed and taken, never to be found. The coroner’s report goes into great detail describing the horrific mutilations made to Eddowes. It can be found in “Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopedia”. (I recommend this book for any beginner Ripperologists as it is based on facts, not theories. Start with understanding facts, then it’s easier to sift through the haphazard theories. I still refer to it often).

And finally, Mary Jane Kelly. On November 9, her body was found where she was residing at the time at 10:45 a.m. Her throat was cut, listed as her cause of death, but it didn’t end there. Her time of death was estimated to be between 4:45 and 5:45 a.m. Parts of the body were skinned, a few organs removed and set around the body. Blood soaked the bed and two square feet on the floor. Incisions covered her face. Her breasts were also removed. The list went on. There are no words for how gruesome these scenes were, and for how the killer was clearly escalating.

After Kelly, the murders mysteriously stopped. Some murders that came after these ones are believed to have been the work of Jack the Ripper, but of course, it cannot be confirmed. The killer would leave behind an intriguing legacy that would be alive and well over a century later. A psychopath who slipped away like a ghost through the Whitechapel alleys. Nameless. Faceless. He’d be followed through the years by many names, ideas and theories, but none will ever know his truth.

Why this case?

I can’t pinpoint one thing that draws me to the Jack the Ripper case. On one hand, it’s terribly cliché of me. On the other, it’s a rabbit hole of theories and wonder. It’s human nature to be drawn to the unsolved. The unknown. Look at the obsessions over aliens, ghosts, or other bizarre phenomena. We’re all drawn to things that remain unanswered.

In some ways, Jack the Ripper is a typical serial killer: a man killing women he deemed to be unworthy of living. The women were believed to be sex workers. However, in 2019, British historian Hallie Rubenhold released a book, titled "The Five", in which she claims history has the narrative of the five women all wrong - and it's entirely possible, given attitudes surrounding homeless people, addicts and sex workers. They tend to be lumped into the same category looked down upon by those from a place of privilege. Rubenhold attempts to humanize the victims in a case that has admittedly dehumanized them and made Jack the Ripper into some glorified creature, as though he was from a horror flick. But we always need to remember this was very real. These women existed and they mattered, no matter what their walk of life was. Jack the Ripper was a dangerous psychopath. Who knows how much damage he moved on to cause after Whitechapel.

He even sent taunting notes to police before vanishing. He was probably white, in his thirties or forties, and something sent him over a homicidal edge. I agree with those who believe there were victims before Mary Ann Nichols, and indeed some unsolved murders seem to line up. I used to think maybe Mary Ann Kelly’s ex-lover might have been behind it all, since she left him. Maybe he was trying to scare her into returning to him. But then there was a mystery man Kelly was seen with prior to her death. Who was he? If these women weren't sex workers, they were at least homeless and sleeping in the streets, and Rubenhold believes this is why they were targeted, given she found little evidence they were actually sex workers. Due to the nature of their lives, these women came into contact with so many men they didn’t know. They’re high-risk victims at the bottom of the societal totem pole. Even today, some people have a superiority complex over homeless people in general. One can refer to the Green River Killer case (coming up in a later post!), Robert Pickton, or the Highway of Tears here in Canada (Note: not all of those women were sex workers, either. Others were addicts, some were neither, and all but one was Indigenous. It’s a racial discrimination vs one against sex workers and sadly, many of these women have never been found nor their murders solved.)

I think what holds my fascination is that the case happened at a time with none of the technology we have now. No DNA, no computers, no social media to spread the word, no cell phones, nothing. It was true old school police work. I bet with the technology we have today, the case would have been solved. The scenes were messy, the killer would have been caught on camera somewhere, there likely would have been DNA left at or near the scene. Testing anything now is almost useless, since any DNA that might remain could be from anyone. The evidence has been handled by so many over the years, not to mention the number of people the victims came into contact with. The best DNA to test would have come straight from the scene.

Photo by Lavinia Thompson

In July 1988, FBI profiler John Douglas wrote out a profile for Jack the Ripper, and it’s actually pretty cool to read through. (I’ll add a link at the end of this post.) Douglas points out that prostitutes were readily accessible at the time and they likely approached the unknown subject (unsub). (Keep in mind, this was done long before Rubenhold's book). He also says the removal of organs indicates some anatomical knowledge on the unsub’s part. All the women were killed in early morning hours on weekends. Only Kelly was murdered indoors. Knowing he was safe from being seen, unlike at the other locations, he got to live out his fantasy in full and spend plenty of time with the body.

The “double event” is theorized to have happened because he was interrupted upon killing Strides and didn’t get to complete his inner fantasy. Eddowes was murdered because his compulsion wasn’t yet fulfilled. Strides' murder was over too quickly. He liked to spend time with the bodies afterward, exploring them with his knife. A bizarre and grotesque fascination with essentially dissecting these women. The change in MO with Kelly’s case likely came about because he was nearly caught during Strides’ murder.

Something important to also point out is that this was a lust murderer. Douglas mentions that it is because of this that the unsub must be a male, as women simply don’t kill in this fashion. Indeed, there are no records from Douglas or the FBI of a female lust murderer. Not only that, women don’t typically make such a mess of crime scenes. Female serial killers don’t typically contact or taunt the police. That still leaves a large demographic, though the FBI profile definitely narrows down the endless list of suspects. I think it is a vitally important tool to keep in mind when researching this case.

I don’t claim to have any idea who Jack the Ripper was. There remain so many theories and suspects, it’s impossible to know – and barring some miraculous technology, we never will. I think that’s why the case draws so many people to it: the notion that anyone can become an amateur sleuth and come to their own conclusion. But maybe Rubenhold's book can make Ripperologists look away from the notion the victims were all sex workers. Given that's been the assumption for over 100 years, it's possible then that prostitutes were not the victimology and the women were simply victims of opportunity. That opens up new avenues of investigation.

Next week, we’ll look at the next case I have always been obsessed with: the Zodiac Killer! (yes, I love unsolved cases.) As always, thanks for joining me. I’ll leave below a reading list of books I have found to be informative on Jack the Ripper, and the link to John Douglas’s profile.

“Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopedia” by John J. Eddleston

“Jack the Ripper: The Suspects” by the Whitechapel Society

“The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper” by Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Barund

"The Five" by Hallie Rubenhold

The Guardian discussed Rubenhold's book after its release.

Link to the FBI profile by John Douglas

Jack-the-Ripper.org - a site dedicated to the case, complete with photos.

Book Review: "The Great Diamond Heist" by Gordon Bowers

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (5/5 stars)

An intriguing and detailed glimpse at one of the most audacious crimes in Great Britain, and the world. This book takes the reader through the infamous Hatton Garden heist in April 2015, yet another grand diamond heist that captured the world's imagination. When all was said and done, it was a group of elderly men who were arrested and convicted of the daring burglary. The author did an immense amount of research and spoke directly to some witnesses involved, including a bartender at the pub where the men met. I appreciate that depth of research! Comparing this one with prolific heists of the past, we see how far technology has come in apprehending criminals. As the book quotes, the men were "analogue criminals" in a digital world. Whether you read this for entertainment or writing research (as I did), be prepared for an adventure.

The scandal could ruin everything...

I've had my ear to the ground on some new releases coming up from fellow authors and this one sounds intriguing. Aviva Gat's newest book, launching May 25, is called "The Longer the Fall" and promises a story about scandal and desperation.

The scandal could ruin everything.

Meet Madeline Thomas. A caring mother. A loving wife. An ambitious politician. A total fraud?

The clock is ticking on her reelection campaign. A win would help her pursue her agenda to fix race relations in America. When she receives a letter containing compromising photos, she wonders: which of her enemies is trying to take her down?

A scandal will surely ruin her career, and her marriage, whether or not the allegations are true. She’ll do whatever it takes to stop the scandal from breaking, even if it means she’ll have to pick up the pieces later.

While juggling her children, her marriage, and her ambitions, Madeline discovers that no one is who they seem to be.

How far will Madeline go to win?

"The Longer the Fall" will be available May 25 on Amazon!

Angel of Death: Reta Mays

"You're the monster no one sees coming."

Haunting words from Judge Thomas Kleeh this past week. On May 11, 46-year-old Reta Mays was sentenced to seven consecutive life terms plus 240 months for the deaths of seven men. All were veterans and patients at a Veteran Affairs hospital in West Virginia, which is under intense investigation after discovering that a serial killer worked among their staff. Between June 2015 and her termination from her job in July 2018, Mays decided to play God with the lives of innocent men who had served their country. On July 14, 2020, she finally confessed to injecting eight men with insulin, killing seven.

As a nightshift nursing assistant, Mays' job was to measure patients' vital signs, test blood glucose levels and observe patients one on one as needed. She was not qualified to give out medications or insulin. But, since the security of medication proved to be loose, Mays helped herself to insulin to inject into men who didn't even have diabetes. This causes blood sugar levels to plummet and induces hypoglycemia. It's a dangerous condition that can result in seizures, concentration problems, unconsciousness, and death. Giving insulin to someone who doesn't have diabetes can be fatal.

Mays stuck around after giving the injections to watch revival efforts by doctors, observing the reactions of family. This pattern makes her a specific type of killer.

Reta Mays (West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility/AP)

An "Angel of Death" refers to a nurse who kills patients in a hospital or caregiving setting. Nurses are meant to be caring, nurturing figures. Especially right now, during the pandemic, they are present at the worst times of someone's life. Heroic figures. Overworked in places where they too could easily get sick. But some become our worst nightmares. Investigators cross referenced her work schedule with patient deaths, and exhumed the bodies of those they suspected she killed. They linked her to seven, but believe she could be responsible for as many as 20 murders.

Judge Kleeh's words ring true for female serial killers as a whole. No one sees them come. No one sees them go. Often, they are in plain sight.

Psychology

According to forensic psychologist Katherine Ramsland, Ph. D., killer nurses, or angels of death, are ones who "exploit an atmosphere of trust". In a Psychology Today article, she quotes a 2006 study from the Journal of Forensic Sciences that says nurses, male or female, comprise about 86 per cent of all health care serial killers. Power, control and attention are more important to these killers than helping people.

Indeed, Reta Mays confessed to her murders and reportedly said that in the chaos of her personal life, killing gave her a sense of control. In 2012, her husband, Gordon Mays, pled guilty to accessing child porn and then in 2019, was sentenced to a year in prison for failing to update the sex offender registry as required. Staying with him likely came with much judgment and disapproval. Records indicate he was found guilty of accessing 43 images and videos of child porn in October of 2010. However, she was killing before his second prison sentence.

(Image by Tumisu from Pixabay , altered)

In 2013, she was caught up in a lawsuit with other correctional officers at the prison where she worked. The inmate claimed that Mays held him down, kicked him, swore and insulted him while the other officers assaulted him. Despite her reputation in the National Guard, this incident hints at a potential history of violence.

Something else we know about serial killers in general is that they are two-faced. They lead double lives. Tina Hickman thought Mays, her neighbour was friendly and struggled to believe this was all possible, according to the Washington Post. In an especially cruel twist, one of Mays' victims was Hickman's grandfather, Archie Edgell. Mays actually tried to kill him twice. In March 2018, she gave him a first injection which he survived. In her second attempt the following night, he died. The autopsy revealed four injection sites.

In a feeble defense, her attorney, Jay McCamic, claimed her PTSD and various mental problems meant that “any ability in her to maintain clear thinking collapsed.”

“Unfortunately, the ‘why’ can’t be answered here. Reta Mays doesn’t know why.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jarod Douglas viewed it differently.

“Apparently the defendant found some excitement or self-worth in causing these emergencies. These actions gave the defendant a sense of control,” he told the courtroom.

Let me start by saying that not all people with mental illness or trauma go on to kill others. I personally suffer from Complex PTSD, severe chronic depression and high-functioning anxiety, and despite my fascination with serial killers to top it all, I have never become one. That defense gets old quickly.

There was nothing spontaneous or passionate about these murders. Mays had time to think about what she was doing. She could have decided against it while walking to get the insulin. Or in the seconds prior to injecting the helpless victims who relied on her for care. She went to work for her night shifts knowing what she was going to do. Somewhere in the trial, it was mentioned that Mays watched "Nurses Who Kill" and performed Google searches on female serial killers. It's not really possible for her to have simply "snapped" yet maintain the clarity to remain inconspicuous about the murders. She knew what she was doing. This was calculated, premeditated and cold. A veteran killing fellow veterans. The urge to kill was within her, the idea circulating in her mind, before she ever gave that first injection.

Image by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay

This is indicative of a psychopath. The simplest answer to her psychology and motive is that she killed simply because she wanted to. She craved the power and sense of control, even enjoyed the act of murder. Female serial killers kill to kill. Rare it is to find a ritual, a fantasy pertaining to the victims, or anything that would otherwise drag out the murder. Women make swift work of victims, be it for material gain or for a sense of control.

Before I delve deeper into discussing psychopaths, another disclaimer: not everyone who is diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder (APD) becomes a killer. A personality disorder is not always a pre-requisite for becoming a criminal. Just as I don't appreciate having mental illness used as a defense for killers, there are those with personality disorders who can lead and manage normal lives. This isn't making a generalization or an assumption about everyone diagnosed with such.

That being said, I'll keep this in the context of Reta Mays. There is an extensive list of traits used to diagnose one with APD. A person needs to exhibit three or more before being diagnosed. Studies show that psychopaths have areas of the brain that are underdeveloped; areas which regulate emotion and impulse control. They are born this way, unlike a sociopath, which is believed to root from environmental circumstances. (This can also occur with psychopaths but environment is more of a contributing factor instead of the primary).

Reta Mays displays several traits that make her a psychopath:

Disregard for right and wrong. Using intimidation and dishonesty to violate the rights of others. Lack of empathy and remorse. Impulsive. Failure to consider negative consequences. Seen as charming and trustworthy, can hold a steady job, have a family and appear to function normally and productively. Carefully plans criminal behaviour in a way that minimizes the risk to herself. No real emotional attachments. She uses people and relationships to manipulate, control and gain something.

This explains a few things. Her relationship with Tina Hickman gave her power. Tina viewed her as friendly. Reta probably felt a sense of contempt and superiority over this. She had her secrets and she had control of the whole situation. This is the type of thing a psychopath might feel smug over. Female killers don't tend to feel the need to brag about their crimes. They enjoy simmering in the quiet satisfaction from their activity. Hickman would be a constant reminder of the murder of Archie Edgell, a way of reliving it. Hanging back in the hospital room while doctors attempted to revive victims would serve the same purpose. Watching the result of her actions while listening to the family.

Reta Mays wore two masks.

One, of a caring, devoted nurse, described by those who knew her as a go-getter, a woman who was friendly, devoted to her job and church. Involved and helpful, her co-workers would say. Her other side was quietly, hauntingly sinister. A woman who looked down on her fellow veterans with scathing superiority for reasons hard to pinpoint. No one knows for how long her inner psychopath brewed before she focused on these innocent elderly men as her target. Maybe they were simply convenient.

In the same Psychology Today article from Katherine Ramsland, she explains some behaviours that killer nurses might show.

"Yet we have learned that healthcare serial killers tend to show the same types of behaviors, even when different motives inspire them," Ramsland writes.

These behaviours include:

Drifting from one hospital to another. (which we know Mays didn't do, but likely would have had she not been caught when she was.) A history of mental illness such as depression, or a pattern of odd behaviour like aggression towards patients they find irritating. Seen in or around rooms where the pattern of deaths occur. (Mays was on shift for each of the murders and one witness said she made a remark about things always happening when she was working.) Difficult personal relationships. Secretive. Preference for night shifts. Faking credentials or work history.

Killer nurses tend to commit their crimes alone. They move with the stealth of many female serial killers, but in the disguise of one who is supposed to be filled with empathy and compassion. The nurse by your hospital bed isn't supposed to kill you. But Reta Mays did just that. No amount of psychological dissection can give back what she took from those families. The cruel malice with which she coldly murdered veterans. Fellow men who also served their country, living out their senior years as otherwise healthy men who thought their stay in the VA hospital would be temporary - not where they were about to die at the hands of a nurse.

Image by whitfieldink from Pixabay

Sources:

Psychology Today - When Nurses Kill, by Katherine Ramsland

Timeline of Reta Mays' crimes

The Washington Post article

Details of her sentencing

Differences Between a Psychopath and a Sociopath - Psych Central

Gordon Mays, failure to update sex offender registry

Court records from his original child porn case - trigger warning for sexual abuse of a minor

The Degrees of Monstrosity 3: Arsenic

In the era where we find Mary Ann Cotton, arsenic was everywhere. One could find it in rat poison, candles, face powders, candies, clothing, lace, cards, food, wallpaper and much more. Arsenic was cheap and accessible. It seems inevitable that it would become favoured as poison for murder.

Image by VictorianLady from Pixabay

"Scheele's green" (the shade similar to the image on the left) was an arsenic-based pigment used commonly in Victorian wallpaper. Carl Wilhelm Scheele, a Swedish chemist, invented the green pigment in 1775. After his success, arsenic was used in other colours, like canary yellow. Arsenic was considered safe in small doses. The problem was, being used in small doses in so many every day objects caused prolonged exposure to larger amounts.

Ink from the wallpaper often flaked off, dusting over other objects and the home's habitants, who could inhale it from the air or absorb it into their skin. Moisture, abrasion or heat also released the toxic vapours. Deaths of children or entire families were widely reported. A book from 1874, "Shadows From the Walls of Death" by Dr. Robert C. Kedzie, holds real wallpaper specimens from the Victorian era. However, a digital edition can be found online. (I'll add a link at the end of this post - really cool to look at!)

Arsenic-filled wallpaper became a focal point in Mary Ann Cotton's trial in 1872/73. Her defense claimed that the victims she was charged with murdering (Joseph Nattrass, Charles Edward Cotton and one of Charles's siblings), could have easily inhaled arsenic flakes from the home's green wallpaper.

The hole in this defense is that Mary Ann didn't get sick, and doesn't account for the other deaths which happened when she was present.

In his book, Dr. Kedzie explained a situation where a Dr. I.H.B. shared a home with his two sons. His bedroom had been papered with gray and green floral wallpaper. The boys' bedroom neighboured his. The doctor suffered "pain in the bones, symptoms of chronic rheumatism, and constant cough." The boys suffered similar symptoms. According to Dr. Kedzie, the wallpaper "was found to contain 5.47 grains of arsenic to each square foot, or six ounces of arsenic in the walls of a single room." Estimates claim about an ounce of arsenic was shed from the wallpaper, which was missing half the colouring by the time it was removed. The doctor and his sons recovered after the removal.

Image by VictorianLady from Pixabay

In simple math, six ounces works out to approximately 170 grams. It takes only a fraction of a gram to kill a human adult with arsenic. For perspective, it works out to less than an eighth of a teaspoon.

Arsenic lacks colour, odour and flavour. It was often found undissolved in victims' stomachs. Arsenic actually delays decomposition. This was discovered when Dr. Klank poisoned dogs and left their bodies in various places to see what would happen. Some were left in his cellar, others outside exposed to air, and some some buried. Three years later, the bodies remained dry and undecayed, the stench of decomp replaced with a garlicky smell that became associated with finding arsenic in dead victims. Stomachs were boiled to extract arsenic from tissues. Then along came the Marsh test.

In 1775, chemist James Marsh mixed zinc and arsenic in a solution of nitric acid, producing liquid zinc nitrate and arsine as a gas. Upon oxidizing, arsine produces a garlicky smell. The zinc and acid produce arsine if arsenic is present in the liquid.

Finding arsenic in victims became easier, but what didn't was proving motive and opportunity.

Poison murders often lack witnesses, since these killers target victims in homes or hospitals. Many victims in the nineteenth century were murdered in their own homes, leaving little to find for evidence or witnesses if the killer was careful.

According to the book "The Secret Poisoner: A Century of Murder" by Linda Stratmann, between 1750 and 1914, 237 out of 504 criminal cases involved arsenic. So, does Mary Ann's defense stand on its own? Only until we once again hit the part where she wasn't impacted by wallpaper or anything else that contained arsenic by chance, and that she had arsenic for rat poison in the home at the time. If we look at motive and opportunity, it's there. She was married to Joseph Nattrass. As we explored in her psychology in part 2, marriage and children were never a keen interest for Mary Ann. She craved independence and a life where she didn't have to rely on men for income. Not only that, she was pregnant with the child of another lover's, a man she wanted to marry. But being bound at home with Charles Edward Cotton (her stepson from former husband Frederick) prevented her from doing so.

To touch on motive here, specifically for Frederick Cotton's death - did Mary Ann know she was going to be left with the seven-year-old boy, or was that an unpleasant surprise in the aftermath of her husband's death? If she knew she was going to be burdened with someone else's kid, she might not have killed Frederick, but merely fled and carried on to the next man. It wouldn't make sense for her to kill Frederick if she knew Charles would be left with her. Frederick's death would have provided another pay cheque, but Charles was an obstacle to her moving on. By this time, if Mary Ann killed as many people as speculated, she had 20 murders to her name she'd escaped suspicion on. What was one more?

We could also surmise as to why she murdered two other Cotton children before Frederick died. Perhaps she grew weary of the responsibility of being a stepmother. If she lacked the ability to emotionally bond with her biological children, she'd be even more detached from her stepchildren. She got no money from those murders, merely less responsibility.

Mary Ann was one of many poisoners from the nineteenth century haunting England. A media frenzy over the waves of arsenic deaths called poisoners the worst kind of criminal. Why was that?

Psychology of Poisoners

Stealth, secrecy and power are at the core of the psychology of these killers. Some were upper class, educated men, but we'll focus on the lower class women, like Mary Ann, who became killers. In the nineteenth century, women were at a massive disadvantage in society. Their only real worth was in marriage and having kids, the two things Mary Ann had little or no interest in, and only relied upon for financial survival, much like her mother did years before.

According to the UK Parliament website, divorce was rare before 1914 as it was expensive and accessible only to wealthy classes. Otherwise, solid proof had to be produced to claim adultery or cruelty - only if you were a man. In the first decade of the twentieth century, there was only one divorce for every 450 marriages. Women had no escape, which is way marriages lasted so long back then. They had no legal grounds or permission to file for divorce. They were married until one of them died, the husband disposed of her, or if she, like Mary Ann, simply fled.

Image by No-longer-here from Pixabay

The Matrimonial Act of 1923 finally allowed both partners to petition for a divorce on the basis of adultery. It wouldn't be until 1937 when this expanded to include cruelty, desertion and incurable insanity. The Divorce Act in 1969 finally allowed divorce after two years of separation with the other party's consent, or five years without that consent.

Birth control also didn't exist then. And while killing your own children is a horrific thought, and I in no way condone it, there is something to be said about a desperate woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, doesn't want to be a mother or knows she cannot provide for any kids she would have. The first latex condoms weren't made until 1855, and were still only available to upper classes due to a lack of education for the poor classes. The birth control pill wasn't approved for use until 1960.

So, it shows how much divorce reform and birth control freed and impacted women in a positive way. According to Stratmann's book, an analysis done for 1999 showed that poisonings accounted for only two or three percent of homicides (a simple Google search also shows these statistics to be similar to today - however I will note that domestic child killings have risen since the pandemic started). While some women may have been cold, callous and calculating, like Mary Ann, some were simply living in hellish marriages, having kids they didn't want or couldn't afford. Once abusive husbands lost their control and power, and once women had the choice to leave marriages and access birth control, these specific types of homicides decreased drastically. What we see today are the women who are psychopaths or sociopaths, who kill out of pure spite and greed. Mary Ann fits into the desperate woman category, but could also fall into the psychopath category.

Using poison to change their circumstances was the only form of power or control many women had in Victorian England, whether they were disposing of abusive or even inconvenient husbands, or were using some demented form of birth control. With how easy arsenic was to obtain, it gave women a convenient way to dispose of whoever they needed to. It gave them at least one thing they could use to get control over their lives.

That is, until they got caught.

Thank you once more joining me! This case has been truly fascinating to cover over the last three posts. Feel free to suggest other cases you'd like to see covered, or just some general feedback! Below are the sources I used, and a short list of reading suggestions for those of you down this rabbit hole with me. I'll post reviews for them as I read.

And if you missed them:

Part 1 - the life and crimes of Mary Ann Cotton.

Part 2 - the psychology of Mary Ann Cotton.

Sources/Reading List

UK Parliament website

Download Dr. Kedzie's book, "Shadows From the Walls of Death"

Books:

"The Secret Poisoner: A Century of Murder" by Linda Stratmann

"Poisoned Lives: English Prisoners and their Victims" by Katherine Watson

"The Arsenic Century" by Dr. James C. Whorton

Book Review: "The Secret Poisoner" by Linda Stratmann

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐(5/5 stars)

With a mix of stories, true cases, facts and sometimes startling statistics, Stratmann takes us into the dark world of poison and the murderers who have utilized the various ones over the past decades. She takes the reader all the way back into the nineteenth century to look at the oldest of poisons used for murder: arsenic. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. If I am to nitpick on the minor flaws: some of the sentences were very run-on and it felt like the book ended abruptly, but I didn't feel like it wrecked my reading experience. It is insightful, informative and intriguing enough to forgive those.

Victorian era murders and the rise of differing areas of forensics in this time is fascinating. "The Secret Poisoner" walks the reader through the roots of forensic toxicology and the sometimes messy contradictions it faced early on, while doctors and scientists tried to vehemently defend their reputations. The science behind it all is dramatically intriguing. It's a great reference to have read since much of my research for my own books focuses on female serial killers. I did, however, enjoy the insight of men who used poison to murder, and the psychology and motives behind that. Definitely an excellent read for anyone interested in early forensic toxicology, Victorian-era murders and the various poisons used throughout history.

The Degrees of Monstrosity Pt. 2

Last week, we covered the life and crimes of Mary Ann Cotton, also known as the West Auckland Poisoner. This week, I'll delve into her psychology. I'm making this a three-part series instead of a two part. I am still researching arsenic (finishing a fascinating book I found last minute! More details when I am done that!) and made more notes on her psychology than anticipated - but nothing new there!

A brief overview from last week:

Our female killer of interest was born Mary Ann Robson in Durham County, England on October 31, 1832. In the span of her life, it is believed she killed 21 people, poisoning them with arsenic. These alleged victims include husbands, children, her own mother and a sister-in-law. If you missed the details on her crimes, visit the first post here.

Mary Ann's perspective of the world would have rooted in her childhood.

It's where we develop our earliest beliefs and thoughts we often carry into adulthood. There was no real way to challenge world views or beliefs. The internet was far from being a thing. Women had few educational opportunities. Back in the 1800s, a woman's greatest value was in marriage and child rearing. But I don't think Mary Ann wanted that life. She watched her mother lose a child, baby Margaret, and the grief that caused. When Mary Ann was ten, her father, Michael, died working in a coal mine. This event, I believe, was a turning point. She watched her entire world crumble. The coal mine owners evicted the widow and her kids. A year later, probably out of a need for survival, Mary Ann's mother, Margaret, married another coal miner, George. This would have instilled a harrowing realization: men were in charge, men held the money, and women relied on them for basic survival. I believe this shaped how Mary Ann later viewed marriage and motherhood. Serial killers usually have that one event early in their lives that becomes a stressor; be it a death, a traumatic incident, or prolonged abuse. Somewhere in that, their brain and mental mindset changes. It alters their view of the world and how they interact.

Typically, with female serial killers, it is the loss of a mother or vital female figure that hinders their mental and emotional development. In this case, it was the loss of a father that changed Mary Ann's mindset. According to Martin Connolly's book, "Mary Ann Cotton, Dark Angel", she never got along with her stepfather. This second male figure, to Mary Ann, never lived up to what her father was. It's common for kids to reject their stepparents. According to Childfun.com, girls seem to take the adjustment of a new stepfather the hardest. This would make sense, especially if Mary Ann was close with her biological father.

Image by Prawny from Pixabay

Perhaps Mary Ann's resentment towards George came from the knowledge that her mother married him out of convenience. Having been evicted from the family home and losing the only source of income, Margaret would have had few options. She couldn't work with two small kids at home due to the lack of childcare. Her one option, really, was to remarry to establish some stability for her and the kids. It's easy to see how a young girl would come to resent both the circumstance and George, since he symbolized the man who was in charge, the one Margaret relied on for survival. Perhaps this was when Mary Ann began dreaming of her own independence, never wanting to become solely reliant on a man. After all, Mary Ann left home at 16 to work as a nurse, only returning to George's home when her post was complete. It seems like she sought independence from a young age.

Her first marriage in 1852 happened because she was pregnant, out of a need to legitimize the child. She was 19. This took her reliance off of George and set it upon her new husband, William. Perhaps she accepted her role as a wife and mother for the time being, hiding her resentment for the way society operated. However, out of the eight or nine children she had with William, only three survived before William's death in 1864. Two of the children died following this, all supposedly from gastric fever. The remaining child was left with Margaret and George while Mary Ann left.

This is the start of another behaviour pattern: abandoning her surviving children.

Early on, we see a pattern of rejection towards marriage and her own kids. Mary Ann didn't seem to emotionally connect with her children. She disposed of them so easily. To be fair, according to statista.com, the mortality rate in the United Kingdom in the 1800s for children under the age of five was 329 deaths for every 1000 births. One in three kids died before their fifth birthdays. Many died of various infections and issues in a time before medical science advanced. As of 2020, the mortality rate for this age range was four deaths per 1000 births. It's entirely plausible that some of Mary Ann's children died of infections or other causes, and that she didn't necessarily murder them. The deaths of these kids is pretty spot on for the statistics. If she did murder them, gastric fever (of which symptoms are similar to arsenic poisoning) would have been a convenient cover. However, it's important to note that William only took out life insurance policies on himself and the three surviving children before he died. Mary Ann had no clear motive to kill any of her children prior.

I do find it believable for her to have poisoned William and two of the children. Perhaps she didn't get the opportunity to poison the survivor, Isabella, or she spared her daughter to seem innocent. Whatever it was that saved Isabella's life, Mary Ann promptly left Isabella with Margaret and George and left with the insurance payouts.

Mary Ann's life after this becomes a line of husbands and kids that either died or were abandoned. In March 1867, Mary Ann visited her mother, who died within a week. As we recall, Margaret was doomed for death with hepatitis. Mary Ann was apparently close with her mother, and had no motive to kill her. There was no life insurance payout to receive from her death - so I don't think Mary Ann killed her mother.

She did, however, take Isabella back to the home of her then-husband, James Robinson. When Isabella and two of the Robinson kids died in April, Mary Ann only received the life insurance payout from Isabella. Her motives for murder were mostly for financial reasons. Unless the Robinson kids were problematic for her, she had no other reason to kill them. Yet after they married she did persist in asking James to take out a life insurance policy. Isabella already had one from her father, William.

As it had been with William, this was a marriage of convenience. Mary Ann was pregnant again. This baby, Margaret, died, and the doctor couldn't confirm a cause of death. Mary Ann had baby George in 1868, who would be one of the only two kids to outlive her. James caught her stealing, kicked her out, then she returned to leave George with a friend and disappeared. Here again is the abandonment of a child. It's curious that she returned George instead of killing him. Perhaps she knew James would suspect her and it was too close to being busted. Or, there was no life insurance policy.

Image by Oberholster Venita from Pixabay

Then came her love triangle after the death of her next husband, Frederick Cotton. His demise followed that of his sister and youngest child. I highly doubt Mary Ann killed his sister - again, no motive. But it's plausible she could have killed the child.

She became involved with John Quick-Manning and Joseph Nattrass. She became pregnant with John's child. This was where her life became even more complicated. Nattrass died and left her his seven-year old son, Charles. Now both options were off the table. Mary Ann couldn't work with a child at home, nor could she marry John, as he likely didn't want to raise someone else's kid.

We know for sure these last deaths were from arsenic poisoning. It was found in the stomach of Charles. Upon exhumation, arsenic was found in the bodies of Nattrass and two of the Cotton children.

Here comes the question her defense posed at her trial: did she truly murder Nattrass and the three kids? Or was there truly enough arsenic present in the wallpaper of the homes to kill them? And if so, why was Mary never ill? James Robinson also never fell ill, despite Mary Ann asking him to take out a life insurance policy. Not doing so likely saved his life. Mary Ann seemed to reject the expectations placed upon women of that time. Marriage was convenient for money and short-term stability, and the children served as life insurance payouts. When she couldn't kill them, she abandoned them. Serial killers have behavioural patterns. Mary Ann repeated a pattern of abandonment and death. She chose her victims carefully, not on impulse. This is telling - she was a psychopath, a black widow who killed husbands and children for financial profit. She took Isabella back only when Margaret died, which is telling. Isabella, like Charles, became an inconvenience. Mary Ann wouldn't have received any payouts from Charles's death. He was simply in the way of her marrying the next man who impregnated her, from another marriage of convenience.

Isabella was worth a pay cheque, whereas the reward from killing Charles would have been freedom.

That was all Mary Ann ever really wanted.

Join me - next time - as we delve into the history of arsenic, Victorian wallpaper and how plausible Mary Ann's defense really was. Thanks for reading! Feel free to subscribe for all things serial killers and my random writerly ramblings!

Sources:

"Mary Ann Cotton, Dark Angel" by Martin Connolly

Statista

ChildFun