The Boston Strangler case remains one of America’s most unsettling criminal mysteries, not only because of the brutality of the crimes but also because of the lingering question: Was it truly the work of a single murderer? For decades, the public has associated the killings with Albert DeSalvo, the man who confessed to being the Strangler. Yet, when you look more closely at the evidence, the timeline, and the differences between victims, the picture becomes far less clear. Understanding this case means unpacking what investigators knew in the 1960s, what forensic science later revealed, and why some experts believe multiple killers may have been responsible.
Between 1962 and 1964, Boston was gripped by fear as a series of women, ranging in age from their teens to their late seventies, were sexually assaulted and strangled in their homes. At first glance, the crimes appeared connected: many of the victims were found with their clothing or stockings tied in a bow around their necks, a detail that became part of the Strangler legend. But even this supposedly consistent signature varied more than people realize. Some victims were posed in specific ways, while others were left as they fell. Some were assaulted, some were not. Entry methods differed—some doors appeared forced, others showed no sign of disturbance at all. Those inconsistencies later prompted detectives to question whether they were dealing with one offender or several working independently.
Albert DeSalvo’s confession certainly shaped public understanding. When he admitted to the crimes in 1965, the authorities were eager to close a case that had terrorized the city. DeSalvo was already in custody for unrelated sexual assaults, and his detailed statements seemed to tie up loose ends. But the closer you look at the confession, the more problematic it becomes. He knew some facts, but others seemed guessed, vague, or inconsistent with documented evidence. Complicating matters further, DeSalvo’s confession came without any physical evidence linking him directly to the crime scenes, something that was not uncommon in pre-DNA investigations but is harder to ignore today.
One widely forgotten detail is that at the time of the murders, several Boston police officers privately stated they doubted all the crimes were connected. They noticed that the first wave of victims were older women living alone, attacked in a similar pattern. Later victims were younger and assaulted in different ways. Some detectives believed a copycat or separate predator could have taken advantage of the rising fear and chaos. That theory gained traction again decades later when DNA testing became available.
In 2013, the case took a dramatic turn when DNA evidence from one victim, Mary Sullivan, was matched to DeSalvo. This seemed like the long-awaited scientific confirmation that he had at least killed one of the women attributed to the Strangler. But instead of solving the debate, it fueled it. The DNA match was specific to Sullivan’s murder—it did not connect DeSalvo to the other victims. In fact, no biological evidence from the earlier or middle murders ever tied him to those scenes. Some forensic experts argue that Sullivan’s death may have been the only one DeSalvo actually committed, or that he might have been involved in a subset of the killings, leaving the rest to other perpetrators.
Lost in the retellings is another overlooked point: DeSalvo himself never claimed his memory was perfect. He was under pressure, and some have suggested he could have been coached or motivated to confess for attention or for protection inside prison. Others believe he may have been telling the truth but exaggerating details to match what investigators expected. Either way, his confession alone cannot explain the wide differences in modus operandi across the murders attributed to the Strangler.
Today, the Boston Strangler is treated as one of the earliest examples of how public fear can shape a narrative that doesn’t fully match the evidence. The case also stands as a reminder of how difficult it is to link crimes without modern forensic tools. While DeSalvo may indeed have been responsible for some of the murders, many investigators still argue that the pattern is too fragmented for a single offender. The possibility of multiple killers remains open—and may never be fully resolved unless new evidence emerges.
The mystery endures not because the case is unsolved, but because the solution we were given has never felt completely satisfying.
