HE JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT CAME OVER HIM!
Looking back at one of the most gruesome crime stories of the century
By Don Stradley
Albert
DeSalvo didn’t fit the image created by investigators searching for the Boston
Strangler – they’d wanted a super
criminal, a glowering brute who could talk his way into a woman’s
apartment, snuff her out with his bare hands (or with a knife, or a silk stocking around the neck), and escape into the shadows like a
phantom, or as the police expected, a mother-hating homosexual – but he seemed to know a lot about
the 13 killings that terrified the city between 1962 and 1964. The problem was
that investigators had wanted a madman who howled at the moon and slept on a
bed of nails. Instead, they got a sex-crazed loser who blamed his actions on an
unhappy marriage. Gerold Frank’s classic The Boston Strangler (now available
as a Kindle edition) not only captured DeSalvo in his disturbed glory, but was a kind of master class in how to write a true crime
story. Published in 1966, Frank’s template was just as influential on the genre as the other great title of that year, Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. For that matter, all modern serial killers seem linked
to DeSalvo in that they’re never horror movie villains, just seedy little dirtbags.
Frank
nails the frenzied paranoia of the time, writing “it was not the stranglings that
shook Boston so much; it was the abhorrent sexual aspect that summoned to mind
in Bostonians deep lurking fears of Sodom and Gomorrah.” Indeed, the city’s
buttoned-up bookstores wouldn’t carry copies of Lolita, yet the local newspapers were suddenly overloaded with grisly
stories about single women found dead in their bedrooms, with hints of sickening
violations, nudity, and rape. Frank sensed correctly that criminals are far
more interesting than cops, so much of the book’s glowing energy comes from the
various suspects. The degenerates brought in for questioning ranged from gigantic
mental patients to stammering perverts; when you add in the cavalcade of old
ladies convinced that one of their neighbors was the strangler, the story feels
like a David Lynch movie where everybody seems guilty of something.
DeSalvo,
too, was a gift for any crime writer. At times a hatchet-faced sex-maniac right
out of True Detective magazine, at
others a pathetic figure so desperate for attention that many thought his confession was a ruse, he was a typical small-time hood who habitually lied to make himself seem like a big shot. An entire cottage industry of books sprang
up in the ensuing years, spearheaded by skeptics who didn’t buy DeSalvo as the strangler.
Indeed, there are many compelling arguments that could be made in favor of
other suspects, and Frank actually touched on them long before it became
fashionable to disregard DeSalvo. Still, many decades after the book’s
publication and DeSalvo’s death, a DNA sample put DeSalvo at the scene
of the strangler’s final murder. You could almost hear him mumbling from beyond
the grave, I told you it was me, but you
didn’t want to believe me…
Movie critic James Agee once wrote that D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation was less about the Civil War than it was “a realization of a collective dream of what the Civil War was like..." Similarly, Gerold Frank's The Boston Strangler depicted the collective dream of a city choked by fear, which is more interesting than what we read in modern crime coverage, where goggled technicians examine pubic hairs and sperm samples, catching the devil not in a dark alley, but under the dispassionate glare of a forensics lab.
No comments:
Post a Comment