Mind of a Serial Killer - SERIAL KILLER: The Axeman of New Orleans Pt. 2

Episode Date: October 8, 2026

Between 1918 and 1919, a killer slipped into homes across Greater New Orleans under cover of night, attacking families with an axe and leaving investigators with few clues and no clear suspect. In a letter published by a local newspaper, the Axeman taunted police and promised to spare any home where jazz music played... turning an entire city into a single, terrified audience. As arrests were made and convictions overturned, the true identity of the killer remained maddeningly out of reach.If you’re new here, don’t forget to follow Serial Killers & Murderous Minds to never miss a case! Want all 2 parts of every case all at once? Join Crime House+ and get both parts of each case dropped together on Monday ad-free. Join at crimehouseplus.com or if you’re listening on Apple Podcasts, tap “Try Free” at the top of this show’s page. Serial Killers & Murderous Minds is a Crime House Original Podcast, powered by PAVE Studios.🎧 Need More to Binge? Listen to other Crime House Originals Clues, Crimes Of Reddit, Murder True Crime Stories, Crime House 24/7, and more wherever you get your podcasts!Follow me on SocialInstagram: @CrimehouseTikTok: @CrimehouseFacebook: @crimehousestudiosYouTube: @crimehousestudios

Hi, everyone. Before today's episode, there's another show I want to tell you about. It's called What the Fact with Connor Tomlinson from Netflix's Love on the Spectrum and Carter Roy. Every week, they take three unbelievable true facts from history and tell you the full story behind them. Plus, Conner's infectious energy that'll make you realize history is the most fascinating thing on earth. Follow What The Fact wherever you listen or subscribe on YouTube at What The Fact Pod. This is Crime House. Most of us have gotten a message that immediately changes our mood. Maybe it's a text from a boss, a strange voicemail, or an email with a subject line we already know we don't want to open. But usually, whatever news the message brings isn't as terrifying as we imagined. But in 1919, a New Orleans newspaper published a message allegedly written by a killer

who had spent the past year slipping into homes at night and attacking people with an axe. And the murderer wasn't just threatening the city. They were telling people exactly what they needed to do if they wanted to survive. According to the letter, there was only one way to stay safe. You needed to play jazz music. The human mind is powerful. It shapes how we think, feel, love, and hate. But sometimes it drives people.

to commit the unthinkable. This is serial killers and murderous minds, a crimehouse original. I'm Vanessa Richardson. And I'm forensic psychologist Dr. Tristan Ingalls. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest minds in history, analyzing what makes a killer. Crimehouse exists because of listeners like you. Want even more? Join Crimehouse Plus and get both parts of every story dropped on the same Monday.

Completely ad-free. No waiting three days for part two. plus Crimehouse bonus episodes every month. To join, go to crimehouseplus.com. Or if you listen on Apple Podcasts, tap try free at the top of the serial killers and murderous minds page. Before we get started, be advised that this episode contains discussion of extreme brutality and violence against children, so please listen with care. Today, we're concluding our deep dive on the Axeman of New Orleans, a killer who left an entire city wondering who could be next. He slipped into people's homes in the middle of the night,

attacked them with terrifying force, and managed to disappear before anyone could catch him. As the attacks continued, patterns started to emerge, and the killer's reputation became as frightening as the violence itself. As Vanessa goes to the story, I'll be talking about things like what it does to a community when a violent crime spree ends without any real resolution, why potential suspects can become even more compelling once they're no longer alive to be questioned, and how unanswered crimes can leave behind theories, suspicion, and fear long after the attacks themselves are over.

And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? By March of 1919, the Greater New Orleans area had been terrorized by a string of brutal attacks in the middle of the night. At least five people, were dead, and four others had been seriously injured. Most of the attacks looked eerily similar. The victims were all bludgeoned while they slept. Axes were often left behind, and in several

cases, the killer had chiseled a panel out of a back door to get inside. Most of the families targeted were also Italian-American and connected to small grocery stores. But without modern forensic tools, it was incredibly difficult to know exactly which attacks were actually connected. Some may have been committed by the same person. Others could have been copycats, and some may have had nothing to do with the Axeman at all. Up to this point, police had only made an arrest in one of the attacks. Lewis Bessemer had been taken into custody after his companion, Harriet Lowe,

accused him of attacking her. But as the attacks continued, people couldn't help but wonder whether the police had gotten it wrong. And that question became even harder to ignore after another attack. It happened on March 9th, 1919, just across the river from New Orleans, in Gretna at the home of Charlie and Rosie Cortimilia. The couple were asleep with their two-year-old daughter, Mary, when someone broke into their home and attacked all three with an axe. Charlie and Rosie were gravely injured but survived. Mary did not. Soon after the attack, the police learned that the Cortemilias had been involved in a dispute with another family of grocers who lived nearby. The

Jordano's. The disagreement centered around a grocery store lease, and investigators believed it could have given the Jordanos a motive to want the Cortemilia family dead. But there was one major problem. While recovering in the hospital, Charlie and Rosie told police they'd gotten a glimpse of their attackers, and neither of them identified anyone from the Jordano family. Still, investigators pushed the theory. Police repeatedly questioned them. about whether the Giordanos could have been responsible, and when Rosie was finally well enough to leave, authorities took things even further.

Instead of allowing her to go home, police took Rosie to jail as a material witness and refused to release her until she gave them the answer they were looking for. Rosie had just survived a brutal attack that killed her two-year-old daughter. She was injured, traumatized, and now being held in jail.

After a day in custody, her story changed. Rosie told police that Orlando Giordano and his son Frank had been the attackers. After that, Rosie was allowed to leave and both men were arrested. We left off on how the tactics investigators used could make someone in Rosie's position more susceptible to suggestion and coercion in episode one. But Rosie actually stayed consistent for quite a while. She continued saying she didn't know who attacked her and that it was not the Jordano's until she was placed in custody and treated as though she were a suspect herself when she's the victim. And those are all conditions that can push someone toward compliance,

especially someone who's already exhausted, traumatized, in pain, and afraid. Rosie may still have known that she wasn't sure who attacked her. She may even have continued believing that the Jordanos weren't responsible, But giving investigators the answer they wanted was the fastest and seemingly only way for her to get any relief. And not just psychological relief. She also needed physical relief. She had just survived a brutal attack. She lost her two-year-old daughter and she's still recovering from her own injuries.

She needs rest. She needed to get out of that environment. So this doesn't really look like a case to me where her memory suddenly became clearer and she suddenly realized, oh no, it really was the Gordanos. This is an accusation that was produced under coercive conditions and significant distress. And the fact that she was allowed to leave immediately after she gave investigators the answer that they wanted only strengthens that. If someone genuinely doesn't remember what happened, can asking repeated questions like, was it this person, actually start influencing how they remember the event? Oh, yeah, absolutely.

especially in how they ask it. Leaning questions can be really suggestive and influential, but repeatedly asking if it was the Giordano's, for example, is continually introducing that as an idea in their memory. And the more that happens, the more familiar that can become. Eventually, it can get harder for her to distinguish between, you know, something you actually remember and something you've heard or thought about after the fact. We call that source monitoring error.

And depending on the kind of suggestion, that's being used, researchers have been able to get a minority of people somewhere in the 20 to 30 percent range and sometimes higher, depending on the circumstances, to later report suggested information as though they actually remembered it. And you need evidence of a mechanism for that error, but here there certainly is evidence of that possibility. Well, the Jordanos immediately maintained their innocence. They acknowledged there had been disagreements between the families, but insisted they were still on good terms and would never have resorted to violence. There were also some pretty obvious problems with the investigator's

theory. Orlando was 68 years old, nearly blind, and crippled with rheumatism. Meanwhile, Frank was more than six feet tall and weighed 275 pounds, which raised questions about whether he could have even squeezed through the small section of door the attacker had removed to get inside. And even though Rosie had changed her story, Charlie wasn't changing his. He continued to stand by the Jordanos and insisted they weren't the people who'd attempted to kill him. And while the Gretna Police Department believed they'd put the right killers behind bars, police across the river in New Orleans weren't so sure. Especially when just days later, a local newspaper received a letter dated March 13th, 1919, just a few days after the Cortimilia attack, and allegedly written.

by the killer himself. In the letter, the writer mocked the police for their attempts to catch him and claimed they were looking in all the wrong places. He even suggested they would never find him because he wasn't human at all. Instead, the author described himself as a demon from hell and bragged that he could kill thousands of people if he wanted to. Then he made a threat. The writer claimed that the following week, just after midnight, he would

returned to New Orleans and kill again. But there was a catch. He promised that any home where jazz music was played would be spared, which meant that anyone sitting in a quiet house that night was taking a serious risk. That got everyone's attention. When the night of the threatened attack arrived, dance halls and bars across the city stayed packed late into the night, blasting jazz music. Some residents even hired amateur musicians to play inside their homes, hoping it would be enough to keep the killer away. And there was something especially strange about the fact that it was jazz, music that was becoming deeply connected to New Orleans itself. And now, for one night, people weren't just playing it for entertainment. They were playing it because they were afraid.

It created an almost surreal image of the city. Music spilling out of bars, dance halls, and private homes, all because an anonymous killer had told them to play it. The Axeman hadn't just inserted himself into something that already felt distinctly New Orleans. His threat became part of the sound of the city that night. And the police remained on high alert. They patrolled the city and watched for any sign that the Axeman was about to make good on his threat. But as the night turned into mourning, nothing happened. No homes were attacked and no one was killed. killed. Assuming this was really the killer, I would say this is an interesting shift because the psychological gratification he was getting up to this point appeared to come from the actual attacks

and maybe even the way in which he gained entry into the home as well. But if he sent this letter and the community responded like that, that's testing the fear he's been creating in the community. That's an entirely different kind of gratification and power. And if it was him, then he also didn't necessarily need to hurt anyone physically that evening to get what he wanted or get what he needed. He could just walk through the city and hear jazz coming from house after house and know that they were doing this because of him. There's also something performative about this as well. He's communicating with the public. He's setting rules and he's making the community's tear a spectacle that he gets to kind of direct somehow. But again, that's provided he actually wrote it. And I'm

honestly not entirely sure that he did because I don't know that this fits with his profile so far. Whether or not this letter writer was the killer, when a killer starts taunting, is that usually about feeling smarter or more powerful than investigators? And does it reflect a growing need for credit? Yeah, it can be. Taunting can definitely make them feel more powerful, especially knowing that investigators are looking for them and they still don't have any leads. because the offender has the information, investigators don't, and they know it.

But it can also be, like you said, about a growing need for credit or recognition. They want people to know that they are responsible, recognize their pattern, and fear them without actually knowing who they are because they don't want to be identified. And there are other reasons as well, like control, maintaining the excitement, extending the experience, provoking. So there can be a number of other different reasons. It's not always just one, and it depends on the offender. When the night of the threatened attack came and went without anyone being harmed,

both the police and the public started questioning whether the letter had actually come from the Axeman at all. Some local newspapers criticized the outlet that had published it, arguing that the letter was so theatrical, with all of its talk about demons, hell, and supernatural powers, that it seemed more like someone putting on a performance than an actual killer making a threat. There was nothing in the letter that proved the writer had firsthand knowledge of any of the crimes. They didn't include any private details about the victims, the crime scenes, or the investigations that only the real Axeman would have known. Still, police tried to figure out who had written it,

but there was no clear trail connecting the letter to any one person. That didn't stop people from coming up with theories, and one of the most popular was that the letter had simply been a publicity stunt by a local man named Joseph Davila. Davila was a jazz musician, and shortly after the letter appeared in print, he composed and marketed a song called The Mysterious Axeman's Jazz. He used the panic surrounding the killer and his demand for jazz to promote his own music. Publicity would absolutely be a motivation for someone other than the actual offender to insert them. like this. The X-Man already had the attention of the entire city, so someone attaching himself

to that story gives them an audience. In this, maybe someone who wanted to promote jazz. If you're trying to sell music, that's pretty convenient, but it doesn't necessarily have to be financially motivated either, even though it seems like this really did boost jazz sales for a night as well in different ways. But like we talked about, just having this kind of influence can be rewarding. You're anonymous. No one knows who you are, but you write one letter and suddenly an entire city's reacting to something. And anyone who craves recognition, attention, or simply wants to see how much influence they can have could get something out of this. And then for others, deception can also be something that's appealing. Remember what we talked about in episode one.

People borrow from crimes, especially if they are a series of crimes. People also engage in copycat behavior, pretending to be the offender, and then watching newspapers publish your letter, watching police investigate it, and thousands of people taking you seriously could be attractive to someone who enjoys that level of notoriety and deception. People have pretended to be serial offenders for centuries, the most well-documented being Jack the Ripper. Even though no one could prove who wrote the letter or whether it had anything to do with the real Axeman, the attacks weren't over. After another cooling off period, the killer struck again. Sometimes the mysteries of the past tell us some very weird and wonderful stories. And indeed,

make us ask more questions, like why were soldiers stationed at Hager's Wall sent underwear? If you enjoy the bizarre, niche parts of history look no further than You're Dead to Me from the BBC. hosted by Greg Jenner, each episode pairs expert historians with brilliant comedians to learn and laugh about the past. The new season covers everything from the history of underwear to medieval saints. To hear more, search for your dead to me wherever you get your podcasts. By the spring of 1919, police began to believe the alleged Axeman letter may have been more of a publicity stunt than a genuine threat. So attention shifted back to the upcoming trials of the men who were already behind bars. in two cases, Lewis Bessemer and Frank and Orlando Giordano. Lewis's trial came first. His lawyer reminded

the court there had never been any physical evidence connecting him to the attack. The case rested almost entirely on Harriet Lowe's accusation, which she made while recovering from serious injuries, and after she had previously given police a very different description of the attacker, there was also the problem of Harriet herself. She'd died the previous August. She'd died the previous August. so the jury never heard her accusation from her, only secondhand from the people she'd made it to, and Lewis's lawyer got the police superintendent to admit, on the stand, that he'd publicly blamed every axe attack on one man, which meant Lewis Bessemer couldn't be that man, since he'd been in a cell when Joseph Romano and Mary Cortimilia were killed. On May 1st, the jury found him not guilty.

Then came the Giordano's trial, and once again there was no action. physical evidence tying either man to the attack, but in this case, prosecutors had Rosie Cortimelia a surviving witness on their side. She testified that Frank and Orlando were the men who had broken into her home, murdered her daughter, and nearly killed her and her husband. The defense challenged her account and even asked that she undergo a mental competency examination, but that never happened. And on May 26, 1919, after a trial that lasted five days, The jury found both men guilty. Orlando was sentenced to life in prison.

His 17-year-old son, Frank, was sentenced to death. Rosie's testimony is going to be very different to a jury because they're hearing it directly from her. Whereas with Lewis, Harriet had passed away, which I think contributed in part to him being found not guilty. First-hand accounts are much more powerful to a jury, and that makes Rosie's testimony more convincing. Jurors aren't only processing the facts of the case. They're watching the witness tell the story, hearing the emotion in their voice, and imagining what it would have been like to experience it. It's an emotional experience.

And Rosie's experience was incredibly emotional. She was brutally attacked, and she lost her two-year-old daughter, Mary. And there's something else here that really bothers me. Rosie continues to be treated almost as though she's the problem that needs to be examined. Now, to be fair, asking for a competency evaluation of a witness who had suffered this kind of head injury is reasonable. But what seems to get far less scrutiny is how police obtained her accusation in the first place, which we discussed in episode one. Rosie was a victim whose child had been murdered, who had suffered a serious brain injury herself and who repeatedly told investigators she didn't know who attacked her initially. and she was taken directly from the hospital into custody as a material witness,

but kept there overnight, and it only released when she accused the two men police had been suggesting to her. But they are not questioning any of that behavior. They're just questioning hers again. By the time Frank and Orlando Giordano were sent to prison, the axeman hadn't attacked anyone in months. And for a while, it seemed possible that police had finally gotten it right. Maybe the Giordanos were responsible for the attacks that had terrorized New Orleans for so long.

But that thought didn't last. This next account has been contested. But according to some sources, on August 10th, 1919, an Italian grocer named Steve Boko was asleep inside his New Orleans home. The next thing he knew, he was awake, badly injured, covered in blood, and desperately trying to get outside for help. Steve struggled to stay upright as he called out for someone to help him. Eventually, he stumbled to a neighbor's home. The neighbor opened the door to find a blood-soaked Steve and immediately noticed his severe head wounds.

But when they asked Steve what happened, they were met with silence. Steve couldn't form any words. Seconds after the door opened, he collapsed and lost consciousness. His neighbor immediately called for help, and an ambulance rushed him to the hospital. doctors discovered he'd suffered a severe skull fracture and found it remarkable that given the extent of his injuries, Steve had managed to stay on his feet long enough to get help. Steve is in a life or death situation, and if possible, the body can temporarily prioritize survival over almost everything else. The sympathetic nervous system kicks in and it releases stress hormones like adrenaline.

The heart rate and blood pressure increase and it gives you more energy and people, pain can become temporarily manageable. Your attention then becomes more narrowed onto whatever is necessary for survival. And for Steve, that's simple. Find someone and get help. And under that kind of acute stress, people can function temporarily with injuries as serious as Steve's. They just may not fully register the severity of their injuries because they're so focused on action. But Steve still did have a catastrophic head injury. The adrenaline got him. to his immediate goal, and only then did he collapse. As Steve recovered in the hospital, investigators questioned him about what had happened,

but he couldn't offer them much information. He was badly disoriented from the attack and had no memory of seeing the person responsible. So investigators turned their attention to his apartment. Almost immediately, they found something familiar. Inside the kitchen was an axe, covered in blood, and consistent with Steve's injuries. A lower panel had also been removed from one of the doors, giving the attacker away inside. And just like several of the Axeman's earlier crime scenes, Steve's belongings had been rummaged through, but items of real value had not been taken.

It looked exactly like the attacks that had terrified New Orleans before. But this time, the police couldn't find anyone in Steve's life who had an obvious reason to hurt him. No witnesses had seen anyone coming or going. Steve couldn't describe as attacker, and there was nothing at the scene that pointed investigators toward a suspect. So almost immediately, the case went cold, and just weeks later, it happened again. 19-year-old Sarah Lohman lived with her parents on 2nd Street in New Orleans. Unlike most of the victims who had come before her, Sarah wasn't Italian, and her family didn't own a grocery store. But in the early morning hours of August 3rd, 1990,

that didn't seem to matter. At around 3.30 a.m., Sarah woke up to a stinging pain in her ear. When she opened her eyes, she saw a man standing over her. Terrified, she screamed for help. Her cries sent the attacker running, and he escaped through her open bedroom window. It also woke Sarah's parents who were sleeping in the room next door. When they rushed in, they found her frightened and, at first, seemingly unhurt. It was only hours later when she complained of a pain in her head that a doctor found a small

laceration behind her ear. The police were called, and right away they noticed the scene looked different from the others. There was no axe left behind. In fact, there was no weapon inside the house at all, and the door hadn't been chiseled open. Investigators believed the attacker had entered through the same bedroom window he used to escape. But something familiar turned up when police searched outside. At a school undergoing repairs near Sarah's front yard, they found an axe. When investigators spoke with her, Sarah was able to give them a description of the man. She said he was about 26, of rather dark complexion, five foot eight and around 165 pounds, wearing a dark coat and pants, a white shirt with dark stripes, and a dark cap pulled low over his

eyes. The police immediately found that description interesting because it didn't match the one they'd gotten before. When Joseph Romano was killed on August 10th, 1918, his niece Pauline had described the man fleeing their home as tall, close to six feet, and heavily built. Sarah's attacker was five foot eight. Either the axeman looked like a different man that night, or Sarah's attacker wasn't the axman at all. Okay, so there are psychological explanations as to why two people could describe the same offender differently, especially under circumstances like these, presuming it is the same offender, of course. But in this case, the attacks are happening at night in their own home where there is an assumption of relative

safety. Guards are down, people are vulnerable, and they're asleep. And then everything happens quickly. People are trying to orient themselves. They're frightened. Their attention is divided. They're trying to prioritize a threat that they're not even sure of what exactly it is. They're not focused on the correct estimation of height on the person fleeing in attempted murder. And height and weight are relative too, because it depends on what angle you're seeing them from. It depends on how far you are from them and whether you're seeing them clearly. These are happening at night. Lighting isn't the best. All of that makes a difference in what estimation they're getting. Stress can also affect memory because remember in moments like this, attention is narrowed on survival. This is why there

are discrepancies and eyewitness testimonies and eyewitness accounts so often. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, both attacks were the ax man. The same person. Does switching up a victim pattern suggest earlier similarities were more about opportunity than preference? It could. Serial offenders tend to select victims based on some combination of accessibility, vulnerability, and desirability. So when there's a change in their typical victim pattern, I usually wonder whether their earlier choices were really their actual preference or whether they were more reflective of one or more of those factors. Sometimes offenders develop what looks like a very specific victim type, but it's really a reflection of availability or, or accessibility, like being around the same kinds of people or neighborhoods or opportunities. What does stand out to me, though, here is the laceration behind Sarah's ear that's different.

If you recall, though, from episode one, with the first victims, Catherine and Joseph, the offender used a razor to cut their throats and that that razor was later found. So I'm wondering if he was starting to do that with Sarah and she woke up to that. So I would want to know if this was also a razor that was suspected to have been used there. I want to know how superficial or deep that cut was. What was the suspected purpose of it? Because if we're trying to determine whether these attacks are connected, a very specific and unusual behavior like that that we haven't seen since Joseph and Catherine could potentially tell us more than whether actually these victims fit a same demographic profile, I think.

Well, despite Sarah's description of the man, police couldn't connect anyone to her attack. They also couldn't identify any enemies who might want to hurt her. But if Sarah really was another one of the ax man's victims, it meant something important had changed. She wasn't Italian. Her family didn't own a grocery store, and the attacker hadn't needed to chisel his way through a door to get inside. For the first time, the pattern that had once seemed to define his victims was start. starting to disappear. Suddenly, it became much easier for almost anyone in New Orleans to imagine that they could be next.

Amid the chaos of a medieval battlefield, one man raises the crown. But out of the carnage, Henry Tudor plans to give the realm he's conquered hope. A new king, a new era, a new dynasty. England is about to fall under the spell of the Tudors. Join me, Dan Jones, for the unmissable story of a family you'll never forget. This is history, The Tudors. Watch on Spotify, YouTube, or listen, wherever you get your podcasts. By the fall of 1919, New Orleans had been living under the Axeman's shadow for nearly a year and a half.

Several people had already been killed, and although the last few victims had survived, it seemed like whoever was responsible was determined to make sure the next one didn't. On the night of October 27, 1919, 35-year-old Mike Pepitoni was at home with his wife, Esther, and their six children in Mid-City in New Orleans. Mike was an Italian-American grocer, and like several of the Axeman's earlier victims, he operated a small corner store out of the same building where his family lived. And that evening, business had been especially good. A circus was in town, which brought crowds to the neighborhood and into Mike's store.

By the time he closed up his shop and went to bed, he had more cash than usual inside the house. Sometime later, while Mike and Esther were asleep, someone made their way inside. The attacker found Mike in bed and brutally struck him in the head. When Esther woke to the commotion, she saw the shapes of two men slipping out of the bedroom into her children's room. One was tall and thin, the other shorter and stockier. interestingly, a combination of the two different descriptions from the Romano and Loman attacks. Once the attackers believed he was dead, they quietly left the house without harming Esther or any of the children. Esther watched the men disappear down the street before turning back to

her husband. Mike was still alive, but barely. Blood poured from his wounds. The attack had been so violent that blood spatter covered the room, even reaching the ceiling. Esther rushed to the window and screamed for help. One of her daughters ran outside looking for anyone who could help. Eventually, a sheriff returning home from work heard the chaos and came in. Once inside, a few things about the scene

immediately stood out, like a potential murder weapon. A 14-inch iron bar with a heavy three-inch nut on the end had been left on a chair beside the bed. Okay, a different weapon doesn't necessarily mean a different offender. If this is the same person, then the change could have been practical,

especially if he has been using weapons that belonged to his victims. If they didn't have an axe, but they had this, then that would actually fit with his pattern, especially because the underlying method remained relatively consistent with the exception of him not attacking Esther. That's notably different. And maybe it's because she woke up. What I would be looking at is how he entered, when he attacked,

whether the victim was asleep, where he struck him and what he did afterward, and whether the weapon was brought with him or found at the scene. But also, we have to be sure that the iron bar was the actual weapon, too. Finding it beside the bed, sure, that's suspicious, but it's not evidence either. We'd need evidence from the injuries, blood, hair, or other material that links it to the assault before assuming that's what caused it. If it was, then I would want to know if it belonged long to Mike and Esther or if it was just brought there. The police superintendent arrived thinking the axman had struck again. It didn't take him long to change his mind, but a few details still pointed the other way.

He'd been attacked while he slept, and despite robbery being an obvious possibility, the takings from a weekend of circus crowds were still tucked in a cupboard, untouched, and there was no sign anyone had searched the house for valuables. There were also important differences. There was no chiseled panel in the back door. The attackers appeared to have gotten in after breaking a window, and most importantly, Mike hadn't been attacked with an axe. Mike died just hours later from his injuries.

As police started looking into his life, they found a few reasons to wonder if his murder was the work of the ax man or something else entirely. Witnesses reportedly remembered seeing Mike arguing with two men earlier that day, but no one could identify who they were. Then investigators learned that violence had already touched the Pepitoni family before. Nine years earlier, Mike's father, Peter Pepitone, had shot and killed a man named Paul de Cristina, a suspected gunman police believed was part of a long-running vendetta with another family.

Peter was convicted of manslaughter and sent to prison. After learning that, police had to consider that maybe someone had come after. after Mike as part of that old feud, but the police couldn't prove the theory. And without evidence pointing them toward one suspect, Mike's murder eventually went unsolved. And after that, something strange happened. The attacks stopped. After nearly a year and a half of fear, there were no more murders in New Orleans attributed to the Axeman. The killer who'd been able to enter homes wherever and whenever they wanted simply disappeared. That left the people of New Orleans with no real answers, and even more reason to question

whether police had ever gotten close to catching him or them, especially a few months later. In February of 1920, Rosie Cortimilia, the woman who'd survived an axe attack alongside her husband and watched her two-year-old daughter die, walked into the offices of a local newspaper and admitted something shocking. She said she'd falsely accused Frank and Yerner. Orlando Giordano. Rosie now said she'd never actually seen who attacked her family and claimed the police had pressured her into naming the two men. Her new version of events eventually led to Frank and Orlando having their convictions overturned. In December of 1920, both men were freed. We talked about Rosie's accusation in episode one and a little bit earlier now. It was made under a lot of

coercive pressure while she was still recovering. We don't know whether Rosie ultimately came to truly believe that Frank and Orlando were her attackers or whether she knew the entire time that they were not. It's possible, though, that she did come to believe it or she convinced herself of it because that was easier than confronting the possibility that she helped convict to people that she never actually saw. But I also think the timing of her recantingness is interesting. She came forward now after the murders have stopped and substantial time has passed without another attack. That could have made it much harder for Rosie to continue maintaining an accusation that she knew wasn't based on something she actually saw. Whatever allowed her to live with it before may no longer have been enough.

And either way, she knows now that the testimony she gave wasn't true. regardless of why she gave that testimony, and we talked about all the possible reasons why that was, staying silent may actually become harder to live with than admitting what she did. And with two people's lives depending on it, there's an enormous moral reason for her to correct the record, regardless of how frightening or humiliating that admission might be for her. Do you think that telling the truth later on

became her way of trying to regain some control over something that happened when she felt almost powerless? Absolutely. She's reclaiming her power and making decisions entirely on her own terms now. She was previously coerced and often people feel like the choices that were made under coercion were not really theirs because truly they weren't. And what she is doing now is giving her agency and allowing her to have a corrected experience over something that happened when she had little to no control. So it can be restorative, which can be empowering and healing. Once the Giordano's were cleared, that meant that after all of the arrests, interrogations,

trials, and convictions, the police were back to square one. But eventually, they got an unexpected lead across the country. By 1921, Mike Pepitone's widow, Esther, had moved to California and remarried a man named Angelo Albano. Angelo apparently ran in some of the same circles as a man named Doc Mumfrey, who Esther knew from New Orleans. Then one day, Angelo left home to run an errand, and he vanished. Esther never saw her second husband again.

Shortly after, Doc Mumfrey suddenly appeared in her life. According to Esther, he came to her home demanding money and jewelry and threatened to kill her the same way he'd killed her husband. That was enough for Esther to act quickly. She went to her bedroom, came back with a revolver, and fired it until it was empty. Then she dropped it, fetters. a second one and emptied that too.

Eleven bullets were in Mumfrey's body when he came to rest at the bottom of the stairs. Three of them were in his back. After Mumfrey was dead, some sources say Esther made a startling claim to the police. She believed Doc Mumfrey was the Axeman. Uncertainty is very psychologically powerful because the Axeman attacks had stopped before,

so when they suddenly stopped again, without an arrest, without a body, without any clear explanation as to why, people don't necessarily know that they can trust that without closure. The threat response doesn't just switch off because nothing has happened recently. If you don't know why the danger stopped, part of you may still be waiting for it to start again. And Esther had already lost one husband in that brutal attack from the Axeman. She's a victim herself. So when Doc, who's also from New Orleans, shows up after her second husband disappears, demands money, threatens to kill her, and mentions her husband is dead, and that he killed him.

It's very easy to see how that could trigger a fear response. That doesn't mean her belief that Doc was the Axeman is accurate at all. I think simply being from New Orleans demanding money and jewelry and making a threatening statement isn't evidence of that, but in a situation like that, fear can be. make it feel real to Esther because she's already been through something very similar and she's faced the loss of another husband. It's retramatization combined with a threat response. And identifying him as the X-Man was likely, I think, an over-justification or even a rationalization for how she reacted to that. And that's what can happen to someone who's been through trauma

and lived in fear for so long without any closure or any certainty and has been retramatized and threatened again. It doesn't happen in all cases, but it certainly can happen. Is it possible that the death of a potential suspect actually make theories around that person grow stronger because there's no longer any way to confirm or disprove them? Absolutely, because again, we need certainty. We need predictability. We need a coherent story. And if the suspect is presumed dead, there is no one left a question. There are no more suspects. There is no more evidence or any more alibis. And that's how speculation grows, especially in communities. They start to fill in the gaps. They start to try and solve the case. We want closure and we want resolution. But as we've seen throughout history, that oftentimes leads to wrongly accusing innocent people as well. If Esther was right, the man who could have finally answered one of New Orleans' biggest mysteries was now dead. Whatever Doc Mumfrey knew about Angelo, Mike, or the Axeman murders, died with him.

Esther was eventually put on trial for killing Mumfrey, but she argued that she'd acted in self-defense. A jury found her not guilty. The police could never question Mumfrey about any of the murders because Esther had killed him, and to this day, it's unclear if he had anything to do with that infamous letter from hell. But the authorities did learn some interesting details about his troubling past. Mumfrey had a long criminal history in New Orleans. He'd been convicted in connection with the bombing of an Italian grocer's business after an extortion attempt,

and had also been questioned in connection with the murder of another Italian man. He'd also been arrested alongside Angelo Albano back in 1916, years before either man left for California. And it was hard to ignore the timing of everything, though the timing is harder to square than it first appears. Mumfrey had been arrested in January of 1919 and ordered out of New Orleans two months before the Cortimilia attack and nine months before Mike Pepitone was killed. Of course, none of that could prove that he was the killer. In the decades that followed, some historians came to believe the axman may have been someone police never considered at all. One theory is that he was simply an unknown burglar who targeted small grocery stores and homes,

sometimes attacking when he was interrupted and sometimes able to disappear without ever being identified. No theory ever produced enough evidence to unmask the axeman for certain. And now, more than a century later, the killer who terrorized greater New Orleans for a year and a half, half remains unknown, leaving behind a trail of brutal attacks, and one question the city has never been able to answer. Who was the Axeman? Before we get out of here, it's time for the Angles' angle, where I'll tell you three pieces of advice I'd give our subject if they were my patient. First, this is for educational entertainment purposes only. This is general psychological commentary. It's not therapy, treatment, diagnosis, or individualized mental health advice,

and it does not establish a psychologist-patient relationship. With those ethical disclaimers out of the way, here's what I'd tell the Axemen of New Orleans if he came into my office, whoever he is. Number one, there are no axes here. Just kidding. Okay, in all seriousness, this is a hard one, because we don't know who he is or what his actual motive was. And on that note, the first would be learn what you are getting out of this violence. Whatever the motivation is, the violence is doing something for you psychologically. Maybe it gives you a sense of power, control, excitement, relief, gratification. But until you understand what you need, you're repeatedly trying to meet something through hurting other people.

And you're just going to keep returning to that same cycle. So before anything else, you need to figure out what that. that is and find a way for you to meet that need without harming anyone. So break that cycle of violence. Number two, learn to tolerate urges. Having a violent thought, fantasy, or urge doesn't require you to act on it. Learn to recognize what you're thinking, feeling, fantasizing about, and what circumstances increase the likelihood that you'll act on it. Then put distance between the urge and the opportunity. Remove access to weapons.

Leave the situation, contact someone, anything to disrupt the pattern. Number three. You can feel important without influencing people's feelings in harmful ways. If that letter really was yours, though I don't think it was,

but I'd be very interested in why you wrote it. You had people changing their behavior out of fear, but fear isn't respect and it doesn't bring connection, it brings alienation. So if being seen and feeling important or being influential is something you need, then there are much better ways of getting that than terrorizing a city.

Thank you for joining me on this episode of Angles' Angle. Take your axe with you. I'll see you in the comments. Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time for a deep dive into the mind of another murderer. Serial killers and murderous minds is a crimehouse original power.

powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on all social media at Crime House. Don't forget to rate, review, and follow Serial Killers and Murderous Minds wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference. And to enhance your listening experience, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode of Serial Killers and Murderous Minds ad-free, along with early access to each thrilling two-part series.

Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, and Forensic Psychologist Dr. Tristan Engels, and is a crimehouse original powered by Pave Studios. This episode was brought to life by the Serial Killers and Murderous Minds team, Max Cuddler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benadon, Lori Marinelli, Natalie Pritzowski, Sarah Camp, Alyssa Fox, Mara de la Rosa, Claire Swartlander, Marky Lee, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening. If you're looking for your next podcast, check out What The Fact, with Connor Tomlinson from Netflix's Love on the Spectrum and Carter Roy.

Every week, they take three unbelievable true facts from history and tell you the full story behind them. Follow What The Fact wherever you listen, or subscribe on YouTube at What The Fact Pod.