I’ve spent countless nights staring at my ceiling fan, mentally rearranging the puzzle pieces of the Boston Strangler case like some morbid game of Tetris. And I’m not alone—this infamous series of murders has haunted true crime enthusiasts for decades, partly because of one nagging question: What if Albert DeSalvo wasn’t the only killer?
Let’s back up. Between 1962 and 1964, Boston transformed from a city of neighborhood stoops and unlocked doors to a place where women slept with kitchen knives under their pillows. Thirteen women were strangled in their apartments, most with their own stockings. No signs of forced entry. No witnesses. Just terror.
Albert DeSalvo eventually confessed to all thirteen murders while in custody for unrelated sexual assaults. Case closed, right? Not exactly.
The Confession That Never Quite Fit
DeSalvo’s confession had enough crime scene details to make investigators believe him. He knew things only the killer would know—or so they thought. But here’s where it gets weird: he was never actually charged with the Strangler murders.
I’ve read his confession transcripts more times than I care to admit (my husband Ryan once found me asleep with printouts scattered across our bed like some deranged collage). DeSalvo described crime scenes with eerie accuracy, but certain details felt… rehearsed? Like someone had coached him.
F. Lee Bailey—DeSalvo’s attorney and a legal heavyweight who could sell ice to polar bears—maintained his client was guilty. But Bailey also had a book deal about the case, which is about as subtle a conflict of interest as a bloodstain on white carpet.
The DNA That Changed Everything (Sort Of)
Fast forward to 2013. Investigators finally matched DeSalvo’s DNA to evidence from Mary Sullivan’s murder—the last victim attributed to the Strangler. This should have been the period at the end of a very long sentence.
Except it only confirmed ONE murder. What about the other twelve?
Former FBI profiler Robert Ressler (basically the Yoda of criminal profiling) pointed out something that makes my true crime senses tingle: the victims ranged from 19 to 85 years old. Any serial killer enthusiast worth their salt knows that’s an unusually wide age range. Serial killers typically have a “type”—it’s like their murderous brand identity.
The Multiple Killer Theory That Makes Too Much Sense
Author Susan Kelly spent years researching the Boston Strangler murders and concluded what many of us suspect: we’re looking at multiple killers who happened to use similar methods.
Think about it: some victims were sexually assaulted, others weren’t. Some crime scenes were meticulously arranged, others chaotic. It’s like comparing a Martha Stewart table setting to my attempt at folding fitted sheets—completely different energy.
The victims also came from different neighborhoods and social circles. In the pre-internet era, this matters. Killers typically hunt where they’re comfortable, not all over a metropolitan area.
The Forgotten Suspects
While everyone fixated on DeSalvo, other potential suspects faded into obscurity. There was George Nassar, DeSalvo’s prison buddy who some believe may have been the actual killer who fed DeSalvo details. Or what about the victims’ relatives and acquaintances who were never thoroughly investigated because DeSalvo’s confession seemed to solve everything?
The tenacious women reporters who covered the case at the time often raised questions about these overlooked angles that male investigators dismissed. (Shocking, I know. Nothing like 1960s sexism to hamper a murder investigation.)
Why It Still Matters
You might wonder why we should care about a 60-year-old case. Because if the multiple killer theory is correct, some of the Boston Strangler’s accomplices or copycats might have continued their crimes elsewhere, undetected.
Serial killers don’t typically retire to Florida to play shuffleboard. They stop when they’re caught or dead.
The Boston Strangler case represents something that keeps me checking my door locks at 3 AM: the possibility that justice was only partially served, that some killers walked free, and that the neat bow tied around this case was more about public relations than public safety.
I’d bet my complete collection of true crime podcasts that we don’t know the full story. And that’s scarier than any horror movie.
Would I have survived this crime spree? Probably not—I’m terrible at checking peepholes and have been known to open doors for pizza I didn’t even order. But I would have made one hell of a witness statement from beyond the grave.
Sleep tight, fellow crime junkies. And maybe double-check those locks.