| The room reeks of money and power: Soft, subdued
lighting; walls paneled with irreplaceable aged walnut lovingly buffed
to a rich patina; tables covered with crisp, white linen.
The crowd -- mostly male, mostly late thirties
and up, conservatively attired in dark, well-tailored suits and expensive
silk ties, possibly corporate CEOs or CFOs, bankers, insurance executives,
or successful brokers -- hovers around the massive bar, conversing amiably
in hushed, cultured tones.
At a signal they move to their places. Tuxedoed
waiters bustle about, bringing garden salad, braised breast of chicken,
baked potato, steaming rolls fresh from the oven. Gradually, the friendly
colloquy dwindles as attention shifts to the head of the room. A picture,
several times life-size, pops up on a screen which has been set up behind
a lectern. It is a head and shoulders shot of a hard-looking woman aged
somewhere between 30 and 40. Her face is swollen, the skin mottled with
ugly, purple bruises. We are told that her name is Susan, and that the
slide was taken shortly after she had been roughed up by her boyfriend.
Another image fills the screen. It is a long
shot showing Susan, clad now in a blue and white blouse with a haunting
skull-and-crossbones motif, stretched across a rumpled motel room bed.
It is obvious that she is dead.
Other slides follow in rapid succession. They
increasingly graphic. One shows a needle-tracked arm; another is a close-up
of Susan's face. Sightless eyes; painful-looking contusions including a
shiner that glows with near neon brilliance. Officially, Susan died of
a drug overdose. But did she really?
During the presentation, lunch continues as
usual. The waiters flit about in apparent unconcern, serving carrot cake
and freshly brewed Colombian. No one among the hundred or so people witnessing
the presentation flinches at the gruesome illustrations. No one winces;
no one pushes away dessert as the talk turns grisly. Instead, the diners
are fascinated, expectant. This is, after all, what they came to see.
Everyone in the room, except for fewer than
a half-dozen special guests there by special invitation, is connected to
a group called the Vidocq Society, an exclusive, Philadelphia-based organization
that few beside law enforcement professionals or dedicated crime buffs
have ever heard of.
The Society was created almost a decade ago,
the brainchild of three men well known in criminal justice circles: William
Fleisher, a former police officer, FBI agent, and Customs Service administrator;
Frank Bender, a forensic reconstructionist whose work is recognized by
professional crime fighters around the world, and Richard Walter, a forensic
psychologist and criminal "profiler."
Named after Eugène-François Vidocq
(pronounced vee-DUCK), a mysterious Frenchman born in 1775 who was both
a convicted criminal and a prominent, early member of the organization
that evolved into Sûreté, the internationally known French
police force, the Society is unique both in purpose and configuration.
By decree of its founders, the Society is limited
to precisely 82 men and women, a semi-secret list of law enforcement professionals,
each of whom has to be voted into membership much as others are accepted
into a country club. The number was chosen because each member represents
one year of Vidocq's adventure-filled life.
After realizing they had more requests for
membership than they had openings, an "associate " category was created.
Currently, the Society has some 70 associate members. Counting both regular
members and associates, the Society has representatives in 17 states and
11 foreign countries, from Asia to the Middle East, Canada to South America.
In theory, the Society's goal is simple. Its
creators envisioned it as a group that would use the members' centuries
of combined experience to help solve extra-violent crimes, murders and
abductions in which the victim was killed. However, there is a gap between
principle and practice.
Since group members are either retired or come
from widespread jurisdictions (in fact, around the world) they would lack
authority to actively take part in a local investigation. As a result,
the group acts only in an advisory capacity.
The way it works is this:
Every case in which the Society becomes involved
has whiskers. That is, each has been around long enough to be taken off
the active list and shoveled into the "unsolved" file. Most cases considered
by the Society are five, ten, or fifteen years old. In taking this stance,
the Society is protecting itself from possible criticism of unwanted interference
by local investigators, who tend to be quite territorial. The importance
of this condition is further underlined by the fact that the Society accepts
only cases brought to them by a local investigator, a member of the family
of the victim, or a family representative, such as a private investigator
or other law enforcement professional.
Potential cases, whether they come from frustrated
lawmen or relatives, are put before members at a Society luncheon. These
presentations commonly are graphic and usually are accompanied by dialogue
that non-law enforcement people might find unsettling. This is one of the
reasons why the sessions are closed to the public.
Once the presentation is complete, Society
members who are present vote on whether to become involved. Associates,
despite their affiliation, are not given a voice.
Because everyone affiliated with the Society
is a volunteer, plus the fact that the Society has only limited funds,
it can accept only a small percentage of the cases it is asked to take
on. Even then, the degree of Society involvement varies widely, often consisting
only of a review of available documents.
However, this can be quite effective, as it
was in the case of Deborah Lynn Wilson, a student at Philadelphia's Drexel
University, whose barefoot body was found in a campus basement hallway
in 1984. She had been beaten and strangled to death. Despite a full-press
investigation, detectives were unable to find a viable suspect or come
up with a plausible motive for her murder. Eight years later, the Society
was invited to look at the paperwork. Following a review, the group made
a very simple but hugely practical suggestion: In view of the fact that
the woman was barefoot investigators should cross-check the records of
university staff members to see if any had ever been suspected of suffering
from a foot fetish. Using this hint as the basis for a new avenue of exploration,
investigators discovered a campus security guard who once had been court-martialed
for stealing women's sneakers. In 1995, almost a decade after Wilson was
murdered, the guard was convicted of killing her
Since the Society is headquartered in Philadelphia
and many of its members live in the area, Pennsylvania and New Jersey cases
get more attention. However, the Society has become involved successively
in investigations in cities as distant as Lubbock, Texas, and Little Rock,
Arkansas.
Because the degree of Society involvement can
swing so drastically -- begging the question of what is involvement
-- it is virtually impossible to say precisely how many investigations
it has taken part in or what the results have been. Also, given the tendency
by some local officials to resent the Society's intervention, the group
must tread a fine line. Sometimes, apparently fearful of being embarrassed,
local officials deny that the Society has played a role, significant or
otherwise, in solving a crime. In such situations, the Society usually
keeps quiet about its participation, preferring anonymity to a public argument.
On the other hand, some overworked investigators
welcome the group's participation. Take, for instance, what is the Society's
hottest current case, a 42-year-old Philadelphia murder that has been publicized
nationally in newspapers and on tv programs ranging from Dan Rather's nightly
news to the popular "America's Most Wanted."
Known as the Boy in the Box Murder,(see sidebar)
it centers around the killing of a blond-haired, blue-eyed child somewhere
between 3 and 5 years old whose body was found in a suburban wood on February
26, 1957. Despite huge efforts, the boy has never been identified and investigators
have never developed a serious suspect.
Late in 1998, the Society - at the request
of the Philadelphia Police Department - accepted the case for review. Currently,
there are three Society volunteers -- all retired Philadelphia officers
with a total of almost 150 years experience -- working with homicide detective
Thomas Augustine to try to resolve the four-decade old mystery. While some
investigators might resent the Society's presence, Augustine -- who can
devote his time only when he is not investigating an active murder - is
thankful for the assistance. "Am I upset by their participation? Absolutely
not," Augustine says emphatically. "I can use all the help I can get and
those guys are great. Really wonderful." |