Deviant Criminology
Dr. Richard Weaver Jr., Heather Kenney, and Rachel Czar take listeners on a journey through the world of true crime. With their unique careers in the criminal justice and academic world; they work to provide an entertaining and educational experience for listeners. This podcast examines many areas of true crime including; the formation of laws, cases that defined caselaw, and crimes that impacted the world. Please join us on this journey as we transition from professionals in criminal justice and academia to budding podcasters.
Deviant Criminology
Marjorie Jackson: The Eccentric Heiress, Her Murder, and the Mystery of Missing Millions
Marjorie Jackson, an eccentric millionaire heiress, becomes a target for robbery and intrigue due to her vast concealed wealth, leading to her tragic murder in 1977. This episode explores themes of vulnerability, societal neglect, and the dark intersections of wealth and crime.
• Marjorie's early life and ascent to wealth
• Her distrust of banks and the resulting hoarding behavior
• The initial robbery incident that heightened her vulnerability
• A deeper look into her eccentric lifestyle and public perception
• The final robbery and subsequent murder
• The trial of Howard Willard and the societal implications
• Discussion on the missing cash and public fascination with crime
• Reflection on victim protection and societal responsibility
www.deviantcriminology.com
One of my favorite things that interests me is the fact that we have these grand facilities in the United States and around the world where people put their money to protect it, so you don't have to worry about things like people breaking into your house and you becoming a target Me and my father which he seems to be a running theme in this like, hey, shout out to my dad who totally doesn't listen. But one thing he told me about and this case happened, as you'll hear, like back around the 1970s. But there was a grocery heiress by the name of Marjorie Jackson in Indianapolis. She was kind of an eccentric woman and kept a lot of cash in her house. Unfortunately, it made her a target for different criminals, not one or two like there. She had many crimes that were committed against her because of her eccentric behavior and her distrust of the banking system, which, oddly enough, I'm starting to have a distrust of the banking system. So this week we're going to talk about Marjorie Jackson and her murder. My name is Richard.
Speaker 3:This is Heather.
Speaker 2:And we are Deviant Criminology. So let's get started. So again, marjorie Jackson was this eccentric millionaire heiress who was murdered in this really shocking situation in Indianapolis in 1977. So today we'll kind of delve in a little bit about her life, because it's kind of an interesting life Hers, her husband, and then her tragic death, and then kind of a little bit of the aftermath, because of just what happened to her and some of the lights it showed on some issues and some things that we identified that really make this case interesting. So we will get started, nancy, guide us along the way.
Speaker 3:Marjorie Viola O'Connell was born November 30th 1910. So that gives you a little bit of framework about what her generational life would have been like as far as Great Depression and trusting banks. Her early life took an unexpected turn when she met Chester H Jackson while working at Murphy's Five and Dime store in downtown Indianapolis.
Speaker 2:If you go back and look at old pictures of Indianapolis and I think we've probably talked about this before when we talked about John Dillinger but what it was back in the 1910s, 20s and 30s is not what Indianapolis is now. So it's very interesting to think about what the store would have looked like, looking at historic pictures of the city and then knowing that that's all been tore down for commerce and these historical buildings and stuff are just gone.
Speaker 2:Which is really sad. It is, in my, really sad because indianapolis had some beautiful uh shop fronts downtown and the circle was not nearly what it is today. There was a good transit system like hey, fucking indianapolis, catch on that.
Speaker 3:Once you actually had a decent transit system and now you can barely get around yeah, well, same in c in Cincinnati we had awesome trains and then got rid of them all. So not all but too many. But anyway, at the time Chester was still married to his first wife Scandalous but he had an affair with Marjorie for several years and in 1952, Chester divorced his first wife and married Marjorie.
Speaker 2:I saw her ankles and they were just so tempting.
Speaker 3:Right, exactly.
Speaker 2:I saw her at the Five and Dime. It was so unbelievable.
Speaker 3:Now his wife's saying damn it, I should have done my own shopping, I shouldn't have ever let him go to the Five and Dime.
Speaker 2:Why did I ever let him go to other grocery stores?
Speaker 3:So Chester Jackson, he was no ordinary man and he was the president of Standard Grocery Company, which was a chain that had expanded to more than 250 stores around Indianapolis and the surrounding cities. Chester had taken over the company in 1931, following the murder of his father and store founder Lafayette Andrew Jackson.
Speaker 2:Not going to be a Broadway play about that guy, andrew Jackson Not going to be a Broadway play about that guy. So the Jackson fortune. In 1947, chester sold the grocery chain to the National Tea Company and he reinvested his money in various ventures and by the time of his death in 1970, the Jackson estate was worth an estimated $25 million and when he passed, marjorie inherited approximately $14 million, which by 2020 standards would be about $94 million. So one thing that's interesting about this is I and my father kind of said it too he kind of always referred to this as the Kroger heiress. But that's actually wrong.
Speaker 2:Like I did a lot of research on like what happened from the standard grocery company to when it went to the National Tea Company and kind of like a lot of businesses between I don't know 1930 and today had been sold so many times rebranded that it's almost untraceable to who actually owns those stores or if any part of what was standard grocery even exists, or if any part of what was standard grocery even exists. Chester and her had like really eccentric behavior. They were kind of known as these eccentric aristocrats in Indianapolis for their level of wealth. So once he passes away, marjorie becomes increasingly reclusive and even more eccentric than they were kind of already seen, as Neighbors reported strange behaviors, such as talking to animals, which I don't think that's strange. I'm going to call that out, that's what I thought, too.
Speaker 3:I'm like, if that's strange, then I'm in trouble.
Speaker 2:Like I talk to my pit bulls all the time they talk back sometimes in British accents, so I'm not sure but practicing odd religious rituals again, define odd, def, define odd, define odd and then also define like we're not just kind of telling tall tales about the crazy old lady on the block, like a lot of movies and tv shows are kind of based off of. Like oh, the crazy old lady on the block, the um, coming out of the christmas season home alone like the guy on the street that everybody's like he's a horrible man.
Speaker 2:he murdered his family and really just a sad old man that just kind of has recused himself because family issues. But the last one is kind of making racial, racial epitaphs, and I'm just going to be honest. This is 1970s in Indianapolis. Of course she was a little racist, um, indianapolis, um. So she set aside four days of the week as holy days for meditation and organ playing.
Speaker 3:Which I want to set aside four days of the week for meditation. I think that sounds like a good idea.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you're a multimillionaire. But again, like I think the problem with some of these stories you hear and stuff is a lot of this was collected. I mean, now there are a lot of things about her eccentric behavior, but some of these I wonder how much is like the facts that were really going on and then kind of like the tall tales that grew around this eccentric woman, um, marjorie distrust, uh, she distrusted banks, um, she didn't like them. Um, and this dislike intensified after learning that a bank employee had embezzled seven hundred thousand dollars from her account. So in response she began withdrawing massive amounts of cash from her bank accounts, often demanding up to a million dollars at a time. So over four months she withdrew nearly $8 million, storing the money in various locations throughout her home.
Speaker 2:Now her husband and her one of the eccentric behaviors that was kind of notified before even his death was his kind of hoarding of money and cash inside. I couldn't find much about his father's murder. So, hoarding of money and cash inside, I couldn't find much about his father's murder, so I don't know why that occurred. I also kind of didn't go down that wheelhouse but the not storing it and then people knew that she was doing this and that's kind of a bad combination Rich, eccentric woman that people already know about and then knowing, and people kind of reporting on this bad behavior.
Speaker 3:I think that was a sign of that generation, though, too, because my grandparents were born uh, she was born in 1910, I think we said and my grandparents were born within the 10 years after that, and they I don't know if you would say had a distrust of banks per se, but they did keep a lot of cash at home, a lot of things like hidden. Even us grandkids we didn't know where it was, and when my grandfather's sister passed away, it was kind of a joke. We needed to check every can and check every cookie jar and check everything else, cause who knows where she might have money tucked and um, a lot of things like that.
Speaker 2:Well, and when I look at it now and God, this dude's name is going to haunt me, I swear to God but like this was also when she would have been her early twenties and stuff, and her meeting her husband working in five and nine and stuff like this is when bank robbers John Dillinger and Van Meter and all these people, bonnie and Clyde, were huge. So not only do I wonder and I don't, I can't prove this, obviously we can't go back a hundred years for me to be like hey, so let me ask you about this but I do kind of wonder if there was also there. We know, in that time period there's a distrust of banks. People hated the banks, I hated the government because of what happened with that, the great depression and everything but also just like this distrust of keeping your money there because bank robbers and people stealing your money. And then here, lo and behold, somebody steals her money from the bank and she's like you know what? Everything I learned as a kid is right you can't trust leaving your money in the bank.
Speaker 3:Exactly.
Speaker 2:That was a tale to go off of.
Speaker 3:Confirmation bias Exactly so. Around May 16th 1976, there was a robbery at Jackson's home where she was robbed of $800,000 in cash and jewelry, which I thought was ironic because she had lost the $700,000 at the bank and that made it so that she didn't want to trust the bank anymore. But being robbed of $800,000 did not make her all of a sudden decide I shouldn't have money and jewelry in my house.
Speaker 2:Which I very much always and you and I have kind of like really based the whole podcast off of this. Like this is a victim that unfortunately ends up very tragically, but at the same time, when you look at this just in itself, like this seems like a bad return on investment. Like, okay, I'm taking my money out because I lost $700,000. Now I've lost $100,000 on top of that initial stole. I would have been safer leaving in the bank and having them steal $700,000 because I've now lost an extra $100,000.
Speaker 3:Yeah, exactly. So on top of that, she refused to press charges and I'm sure that attracted more negative attention to herself, because the suspects were arrested and she called it a will, the will of god, that they had taken her money. And, despite her reluctance, the three men were later prosecuted. Uh, in connection with this robbery, because you don't, you don't actually have to have the victim in order to prosecute the crime. Um, a lot of people don't know that. Um, but if you think of it like a murder, if you didn't have the victim's testimony in a murder case, would you still be able to convict? Yes, so anything?
Speaker 2:and I think that's sometimes what people understand like a lot of time and I learned this like when I became a cop this wasn't something I knew is almost all charges, when they're brought, it's the state versus somebody. It's not me prosecuting you, it's the state. The state is the one bringing the charges in protection of the victim. So even if she I don't want you to prosecute it's the state bringing the charges, not her. She doesn't really have the option to appoint, she didn't choose not to testify, but that's kind of how I've always interpreted it and that's kind of the interesting thing of state versus so-and-so.
Speaker 3:And it's exactly right, because as a prosecutor or as a police officer, you're supposed to be protecting the community at large. So just because she doesn't want to stop this person doesn't mean that we don't have a public interest in stopping that person from doing this again to somebody else, which of course you see with familiar relationships, like if a brother does something to a sister she might say I don't want to prosecute. Well, that doesn't mean that we don't want that brother taken off the street and, you know, put someplace else. We don't want him running around doing this to other people, type of a thing. So you're absolutely right, like she would have had input.
Speaker 3:And there's actually victims bill of rights that have been passed in several states saying we have to consider the victim input at certain key points. And in Colorado that specifically means that there are hearings like bail hearings, where the victim has a right to be heard by the judge. So if they decide to be present and wish to be heard, the judge has to hear them. And as a prosecutor we had a duty to notify the victim when the hearing was taking place. So if the judge asked was the victim notified of this court date, if we said no, they had to actually reschedule the court date so that the victim would have a chance to appear for that court date. And it was the important things like sentencing and bail hearings and things like that.
Speaker 3:So she at this point in time I don't know how much input she would have had in the case, but for sure she couldn't have just said forget it, I'm not pressing charges. And you mentioned that you can decline to testify. That's only true to a certain point, because if you are subpoenaed you have to show up. And if you show up and the judge says you have to answer that question and you don't, then they can hold you in contempt of court. So your silence only goes so far.
Speaker 2:And I think the other thing that, like, I may bring up again, I don't know because I may cover it here, but this would have been a huge case like $800,000, which means this would have been in the media. Oh yeah, so there's part of me and I couldn't find anything about this. Again, we're talking over 50 years ago, roughly, where it talked about, like if there were media reports or anything like a lot of this comes from documentation about the crime, but they didn't really get into like what news stories are out there? But the point is the media. Is there some ethical thing in the media where they may have made her a target by publishing like, oh, she had over $800,000 in cash and jewels in her house and they robbed her and she didn't want to press charges.
Speaker 3:So now are you inviting people to be like wait, she's an arc which we'll get into in a second yeah, I mean, especially given how much she had to begin with, like if it was just, you know, jane doe, you'd be like, oh shit, they took her life savings. But given that people already knew her as a public figure, they would know well, there's probably a lot more than just what was taken there. So Because of that, like we said, there were also undocumented break-ins and there was at least one other break-in, and possibly more, where she, again, being distrustful of law enforcement, never reported the incidents and her eccentric behavior and distrust of authorities likely contributed to her vulnerability as a target.
Speaker 2:These prior incidences highlighted the ongoing risk Jackson had from security external forces, the people kind of not even around her, and that was something that will come up here in a second. But like a lot of this is outside forces, it's not what I would have expected. Like when I started researching this I was like, oh, there's going to be maids involved in stuff. It's not. It seems that she is very targeted by people that have no connection to her. So the the final robbery attempt that we know of, which resulted in her murder, occurred on may 7th 1977 when howard willard and, manually, robin robinson idly shot jackson during a burglary on her home. This tragic event brought an end to the series of crimes targeting this eccentric millionaire widow.
Speaker 2:So I was kind of interested in like what the connection was Like. I said like I would have thought this was kind of an inside job, but from everything based on available information there does not in the courts show that there was no direct personal link between marjorie jackson and her killers. Their connection to her was primarily motivated just by the criminal intent to rob her. So willard and robinson learned about marjorie jackson's unusual habits of keeping large amounts of cash in her home, doesn't? I couldn't find like how they learned that, but again we know that ind Indianapolis is a big city, so they may have known people that knew her, or just if there were news stories coming about the prior crimes that had happened, because the burglary that ended up going to trial was 1976, and then this is 1977.
Speaker 2:So what articles could they have read that made them see her as a possible target? What articles could they have read that made them see her as a possible target? So this knowledge of her extended habits led them to target her residence for burglary. Willard reportedly referred to Jackson's home as the witch's house, which again kind of goes back to these stories of weird rituals, religious behaviors. It's worth noting that Jackson had again been the victim of a previous robbery in 1976. And then, in essence, the links between Marjorie Jackson and her killers again don't appear to be anything more than just criminal in nature. She didn't know them, did not have interaction with them, and they hadn't had interactions with her at a personal or social level.
Speaker 3:He referred to her as the witch's house. It sounds like he didn't really care for her. It was not considering her a human. Dehumanizing her, making it easier to victimize her, probably made it easier for him to rationalize I'm taking this money. She doesn't need it. She's just some crazy old bat and totally discounting her feelings or validity as as a human being absolutely, and it was, it was.
Speaker 2:I couldn't pull information like the actual and we try not to get into graphics anyway, but we'll kind of see, as how the crime unfolds, that there may be some some issues with that as well.
Speaker 3:So it basically sounds like they were just taking an opportunity that was available to them to target her, because they knew that she would have large amounts of money on hand at her house and they knew that she stored cash in her home. So on May 2nd 1977, howard William and Manuel Lee Robinson burglarized Marjorie Jackson's house and made off with about $800,000 worth of jewelry and cash. Tragically, they returned two days later, on May 4th, leading to a confrontation that would end her life. During the second burglary attempt, which you know, of course, they couldn't just be happy with the first $800,000. They had to go back for more. She was shot and killed with a 22 caliber rifle and, in an attempt to cover up their crime, willard and Robinson started a fire to um burn the house down.
Speaker 2:So that was kind of what I was wondering as well. Like they had the first attempt, I don't know if they went with the intent to murder, but I think this kind of comes down to the look what you made me do Like I didn't murder, she made me have to kill her, which is kind of this weird war of kind of like we thought like you're dehumanizing and you're blaming the victim for really what's your crime because you're trying to take some of that burden off yourself. But yeah, like you got away with it once and then two days later you're like oh, I've got to go back. Like you don't think that people might be heightened at this point or something. So these were not the brightest crowns in the box by any means.
Speaker 3:That. Or maybe they saw how easy it was to get in and out and thought well, this will be another quick and easy score, especially if she didn't have anybody to talk to Like, even if she was on heightened alert. If she doesn't trust law enforcement and she's not calling them, she's not pressing charges, she's isolated, who's she going to call to say hey, I need help?
Speaker 2:And there's not other people in the house. That may have been a deterrent if there's more people in the house or anything.
Speaker 3:Exactly.
Speaker 2:And there's not other people in the house. That may have been a deterrent if there's more people in the house or anything, and it's this from what I understand. Again, I don't think this house is there anymore, but it was a big house Like this is not a small like two bedroom house Like this was an eccentric billionaire's house. So they also may have been like oh, she's not going to find us on this side of the house or maybe she's gone to bed at this point.
Speaker 3:Yeah, exactly, find us on this side of the house, or maybe she's gone to bed at this point. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2:If she's asleep, then she won't catch us, and even then, it wasn't until may 7th that marjorie's body was discovered. The firefighters, who were responding to a neighbor's call about a smoky blaze, broke into jackson's house and found marjorie dead on the kitchen floor. As police searched the premises, they uncovered a shocking scene. Approximately Approximately $5 million in cash was scattered throughout the house, hidden in toolboxes, drawers, a vacuum cleaner bag and even a garbage can. So they left behind like $5 million in cash that was stored there, and come to find out there's more money that's still missing.
Speaker 3:Which is crazy when you think about it. That's a lot of money, especially since they had already killed her and, especially since you look at it, it was from May 4th to May 7th before anybody figured out something was going on. They potentially had a ton of time that they could have looked for this extra money.
Speaker 2:I think it's sad there's again this is just me and my social worker in the broader society, but that this woman was alone, like people were seeing this eccentric behavior. At what point could? And she's in her, she's 67, 68 at this time, so where were? Where was society to provide, like a social worker that could have tried to provide or make communication with her? Where is the responsibility on that bank teller that stole that seven hundred thousand dollars? That led to her distrust, that led to her hoarding her cash, that led to her becoming a target and being murdered for it?
Speaker 2:Like there's so many little things that we look at the repercussions of our actions down the road and what we could have done as individuals in the society along the way, like, oh, we're making up these horrible stories. Where were the people that tried to be that, that ear, that voice and help? And where were the courts that could have stepped in and been like you know what? Maybe we do need to put some type of guardianship over this individual because they're showing dangerous behaviors. And even just me, like as a social worker I think this is kind of a question for you Like you could have put a petition when she's already been robbed for $800,000. She's hoarding more cash Like hey, maybe we do need to put some type of guardianship to protect herself from harm.
Speaker 3:Which then you have to have somebody who is pushing. That, I guess, is the best way to put it. If she had had somebody else to count on, like a child or you know, a cousin or something like that, who would have gone to the court to petition for that, it would have been easier for it to happen. But it sounds like she had no one, so it would have been adult protective services who would have needed to do that, and most of those agencies are already spread extraordinarily thin. So I'm guessing that they probably wouldn't have wanted to take that on one, because they're already overworked and nobody's. You know the whole squeaky wheel. There's nobody screaming about this lady needs to be helped. And then, on the flip side of that, she had so much money and she already didn't trust the banks. I'm guessing she wouldn't have trusted, you know, the court or conservatorship or anything like that, so she probably would have fought that tooth and nail.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there's just a yeah, I guess, for me. I just like there's something in this tragic homicide that just look back and like there's so many points and even then like I don't know if adult protective services really existed at that point.
Speaker 3:That's true too.
Speaker 2:Like that's something that's really become big. I know in the last 15 years, especially with the growth of the internet and people scamming and taking advantage of the elderly, that we more cautious of that, but I I'm also wondering how much of that was. Well, she's a millionaire. She could buy security. She wanted it. It's not our responsibility.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I could see that too.
Speaker 2:So, within a month of the murder, authorities arrested howard willard and his former wife, marjorie pollitt, in tempe, arizona, don't know why I did not know how to say tempe. The couple had attempted to purchase a motor home with money from the robbery. And then manuel robinson was apprehended separately while buying a new car with stolen cash Again, not the brightest stars in the sky. One of the things you hear in every theft movie ever the Italian Job, which is a great movie, don't hold that against me, it is a good movie or the Ocean's movies is don't go buying flashy stuff right after a crime. It kind of links it to you, especially when you're somebody that's low-level criminal, doesn't have a lot of money. Suddenly you have cash to buy expensive cars. A new motor home might bring some attention to you.
Speaker 3:Which is amazing how many people actually do that.
Speaker 2:It is insane because it's the easiest way to get caught. Not little purchases, not maybe go rent a car that looks nice. If you're trying to be flashy because you have a little bit of money, which again that's not probably going to work. But you know, lay low, travel somewhere and say no, they want to go out. Because I guess that's the greed that comes with why you committed the crime in the first place. I want all this stuff and I want it now. You don't have the time where a normal person like I want a really nice car, I'll go get a job, save up and get it. The criminal mind in this situation is more like oh I just got $800,000 from murdering and robbing this old lady, I'm going to go buy $800,000 worth of new stuff. And that really catches people's attention. Howard Willard's trial was a landmark case in Indiana, being the first major trial in the state to allow video recordings inside the courtroom.
Speaker 3:So here we are a little bit of criminal justice history in Indianapolis Through the practice though the practice was short lived due to intervention by the Indiana Supreme Court, which I don't know. Your feelings on cameras in courtrooms. Do you have any strong feelings one way or the other?
Speaker 2:For me, yes, and it goes to the same reason. I hate cop shows that are live shows. People act differently when a camera's involved, even if they don't psychologically see it. I believe that you see people, they either can be more aggressive because, like on the cop shows, they're trying to be more macho and look at me, look at the authority I have, or they make mistakes because they're more concerned about the cameras that are around and that attention that it brings. So I've never been a big fan of cameras in the courtroom or with these live cop shows.
Speaker 2:And then the flip side of that as well is what if you're innocent and that's gone out to everybody, no matter. And we see this in other criminal cases throughout some of the history at least the us criminal justice system I know of a lot of people that are found innocent. They didn't do the crimes, but because it was so publicized and they were so publicly shown, they're always ostracized anyway Because in the court of public opinion they're still guilty. Well, they didn't prove you did it, but we know you did. So I'm not a big fan of it.
Speaker 3:I'm actually not either, because I feel like it puts too much pressure on witnesses, especially victims or lay witnesses, um police kind of. You know you sign up for it. You know that's part of the job. Most officers don't have to testify very often because most cases are pled out. I think at one point, um, one of the statistics we had, uh was about 80% of our cases were being pled out at the first appearance. So that doesn't even count. You know, going to trial it's just the very first appearance when they come through. So you know, on that sense, a lot of times police officers don't testify on cases. They don't go to court every day, it's not a regular occurrence. So I'm sure that they get nervous too when they have to testify, same as lay people and I can't imagine.
Speaker 3:Yeah, absolutely too, when they have to testify, same as lay people, and I can't imagine yeah, yeah, absolutely from the other side of it.
Speaker 3:you can, you can handle that part of it and you can become combative and I've seen that, like with defense attorneys rule, they'll try to bait people and things like that. And again, just like you're talking about, if there's cameras involved, I think that that would be worse, because I think it is an additional audience besides the judge, besides the jury, besides the defendant that now you have to worry about, and especially for victims who are like, for you know, marjorie here. If she had gone forward on one of those cases, if she was that reclusive, if she had social anxiety, I can't imagine her trying to go into a courtroom with a judge, a jury, the defendants and then cameras on top of that. Everybody would have been watching it if she was in there.
Speaker 2:Yeah no, I've just never been a fan of it. I think it's putting undue pressure, undue spotlights on people that may not be guilty. You're putting victims out there and you're putting their appearances and everything else for cases, especially anytime you start talking about more sensitive stuff, Like we talked with domestic violence, sexual assault. It's already hard enough to get victims to testify, and now you're going to put it live on TV.
Speaker 3:Which the hypocritical part of me. I do watch some of those things, so I have to admit that. But yeah, I mean personally I would say it's not a good idea in practice. So I'm glad that they did intervene and stop that practice. In December 1977, howard William was found guilty of Marjorie Jackson's murder and sentenced to life in prison. Manuel Robinson, on the other hand, was found not guilty of murder and armed robbery but was convicted on six other counts related to the crime. Related to the crime, marjorie Pollitt was convicted of conspiracy to transport stolen money interstate and received a five-year sentence.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and Howard Williams really makes out the sorry. Howard Willard really kind of makes out the worst in all this. I don't know if they may have had evidence or I didn't see anything about Manuel. Robinson may have turned state's evidence on him to like he committed the murder. I didn't. I don't. Robinson may have turned state's evidence on him to like he committed the murder. I didn't, I don't know. Like again we in 1977, like I don't.
Speaker 2:The court records aren't digitized. Now. It's not that easy. You know, I don't mind giving brief overviews and talk about cases. I'm not going to the courthouse to try and pay $150 to get court records from like 50 years ago. If you'd like that, please do it upon yourself and I will back you all day.
Speaker 2:But one thing that was found out about this is that there were still millions of dollars that are missing. So one of the most intriguing aspects of this case is the fate of stolen money. While much of it was recovered, reports suggest that a significant sum remains missing. Some speculate that an FBI agent working on the case might have stolen the unaccounted for cash. I really think that that's just that the media likes to hype, that possibly cops are dirty.
Speaker 2:I'm probably going to say there's a very small amount of truth in that, if there is any at all. I just think it's more that they had the ability to hide it. I mean they were found days later. There were probably other people involved If we were able to track their steps afterwards houses they went to and stuff places they were found days later, or probably other people involved, if we were able to chase the track their steps afterwards houses they went to and stuff places they were buried it. I mean we know, god damn it. I know John Dillinger was notorious for like going back to his home and burying cash on the property. So I think it's more realistic. They may have hidden the money, shared it, given it to other people to show stuff. Then it is an FBI agent committed a crime. Not saying it's not possible, though.
Speaker 3:Or it might've just been lost, Like they found some in a vacuum bag who's to say that? And a trash can too. Who's to say that it didn't get hidden somewhere and nobody saw it and it got thrown out? Like who's going to search a vacuum bag to look for money.
Speaker 2:Or other people when they knew about this, like again, I've I've secured crime scenes and this was not a small crime, this is a big house came to the house searching at night or broke in, or people from you know, people from the neighborhood, people that watch. There are people if you don't know this, here's a little tip people that read the obituaries and people that read, like people to watch face. Like again, this would have been facebook time, but you know there are people out there that watch facebook across the obituaries and stuff to tag specifically people's homes to a target during funeral hours and things like that. So there are people that just take advantage of these situations to rob or loot after the fact. So to say there was a cop or anything like that I think is just sensationalizing. But adding another layer of the mystery to the already sensational story is here we are 50 years later and none of that money has been found. So I'm sure there are treasure hunters out there that are like we're going to go find this money and so far nobody's found it.
Speaker 2:And finally, the Marjorie Jackson case remains one of the most infamous crimes in Indianapolis history. I want to take it from our little podcast to overcoming John Dillinger. I want to see this lovely woman's face as kind of remembering the victim of a horrific crime, instead of John Dillinger's dirty face, as like the face of Indianapolis let's change. So this is kind of a tale of wealth, eccentricity and then, sadly, the tragedy that can continue to captivate true crime enthusiasts of a wealthy person secluding themselves and becoming the target of greed and crime. I want to thank you all so much for listening to our little podcast. This is created with love and passion for criminal justice and true crime.
Speaker 2:So if you're enjoying the podcast, please follow us, like or rate us on whatever system you're listening to us on, subscribe to our podcast and download episodes. Downloads are important for our growth, as is growing our listeners. So if you wouldn't mind, take the time to ask your friends, family, co-workers, tell them about us through word of mouth, social media I don't care if you even scream at strangers on the streets. To help us kind of get out there who we are. If you're interested in learning more, you could visit our website at wwwdeviantcriminologycom. There you'll find some stuff about our backgrounds, references, show notes for each episode. You can also follow us on our Facebook page at Deviant Criminology. We also have an Instagram page, which is Deviant, underscore Criminology, or find me at Drrichardweaver on Instagram. And as we grow, we hope to develop a community that will grow with us. So again, thank you for taking the time to listen and have a good week. Thank you.
