Mind of a Serial Killer - SERIAL KILLER: The Midnight Assassin Pt. 1

Episode Date: July 6, 2026

In 1884, a brutal killer began targeting Black female domestic servants in Austin, Texas, attacking victims in their sleep and vanishing without a trace. With no forensic tools and deep racial prejudice shaping the investigation, police arrested countless innocent men while the murders escalated in frequency and violence. The case, known as the Midnight Assassin, remains unsolved to this day.Join Crime House+ to binge a special limited series on Murder: True Crime Stories for America’s 250th: The Crimes That Built America. These are the cases that created the FBI, gave us Miranda rights, sparked criminal profiling, and gave us America’s Most Wanted. Join at crimehouseplus.com or if you’re listening on Apple Podcasts, tap “Try Free” at the top of this show’s page. You’ll also get both parts to every Serial Killers & Murderous Minds case released at once ad-free.🎧 Need More to Binge? Listen to other Crime House Originals Clues, Crimes Of…, Murder True Crime Stories, Crime House 24/7, and more wherever you get your podcasts!Follow me on SocialInstagram: @CrimehouseTikTok: @CrimehouseFacebook: @crimehousestudiosYouTube: @crimehousestudios

Hi listeners, exciting news. Crime House Plus and Murder True Crime Stories are celebrating America's 250th by dropping a four-part limited series on the Crimes That Built America. These are the crimes and cases that gave us Miranda rights, sparked criminal profiling, and a murder that built America's missing children movement. Follow Murder True Crime Stories for a new episode every Monday leading up to July 4th, or you can listen to all of them right now with Crime House Plus. To join, go to Crimehouseplus.com, or if you're listening on Apple Podcasts, tap try free at the top of this show's page.

This is Crimehouse. Nobody likes to feel unprepared, whether it's a big exam, an important meeting, or even just figuring out what's for dinner. We usually feel better when we have a plan. Unfortunately, it's not always possible to think ahead, but most of the time the consequences are manageable. Sometimes, though, our lack of preparation can lead to urgent and even dire outcomes. This was the case for law enforcement in Austin, Texas, in the mid-1880s, when a brutal and sadistic killer roamed the streets at night. Each time, the killer slipped back into the darkness completely unseen.

The police never saw it coming, and they never knew how to catch the person, or people, terrorizing their city. In the end, the lack of investigative resources paved the way for multiple violent deaths. And the people of Austin were left to wonder if they'd be protected or if they were next. 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 Killer Minds, a crimehouse original. I'm Vanessa Richardson.

And I'm Forensicsicologists. Dr. Tristan Engels. 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, this episode contains discussion of murder and sexual violence against women and minors. So please listen with care. Today, we begin our deep dive on the Midnight Assassin, an unidentified serial killer who terrorized the city of Austin, Texas for years, shedding light not just on deep racial prejudice, but inadequate investigative resources. The case of the Midnight Assassin, all also known as the servant girl annihilator, remains a haunting mystery. And nowadays, people wonder if the killer

may have actually been one of the most gruesome in the world. As Vanessa goes through the story, I'll be talking about things like what certain aspects of extreme violence may reveal about an offender's psyche, how circumstantial evidence can create bias in an investigation, and why some violent offenders break patterns in their MO. And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? In 1884, the city of Austin, Texas was booming. A new state

capital building was under construction, and the University of Texas had recently opened its doors. People were moving into the city at high rates, looking for opportunity. At the same time, it had been less than 20 years since slavery was outlawed. Racism was still deeply woven into everyday life. Austin's black residents were often pushed into low-paying domestic jobs, while wealthy white families held most of the city's power and influence. Not only that, but local police struggled to keep up with the city's rapid growth, which meant they weren't prepared for the horrific and sudden events of December 30, 1884. That night, Austin was in the midst of a brutal cold snap.

Snow blanketed the ground, as 25-year-old Molly Smith returned her. home from a long day. She was a cook for a wealthy family, the halls. Molly was African-American. Like many black women in Texas at the time, she worked as a domestic servant and lived in a small apartment behind her employer's family home. Molly's boyfriend, Walter Spencer, lived in the apartment with her. Molly had only been working for the Hall family for about a month, so the couple had just gotten settled into their new home together. They snuggled into bed that night. And the next morning, when Walter woke up, their domestic bliss had been replaced with a nightmare. It was just before dawn when Walter opened his eyes. He was in immediate and intense pain.

Soon, he realized he was badly injured. Disoriented, Walter tried to understand what could have happened. He scanned the room and noticed blood splatter on the walls. He looked around for Molly, but didn't see her anywhere. Terrified. Walter led out a blood-curdling scream. Members of the Hall family came running. They were shocked to see how badly beaten he was. Walter said he believed someone must have attacked in the night and that he lost consciousness. But more importantly, he had no idea where Molly was or if she was okay. The halls rushed Walter to the hospital, then began their search for Molly. A few hours later, around 9 a.m., a servant at a neighboring home discovered her body in their backyard. The police were immediately called.

When officers arrived, the scene was horrifying. Molly's face had been beaten so badly she was barely recognizable. Her nightgown was torn apart and she'd sustained a serious head wound. Molly's skull was nearly split down the middle, which made the police think the attacker had used an axe. Molly and Walter were very vulnerable here. Molly was a black woman working as a domestic servant during a period of enormous social change. Slavery may have been abolished legally, but prejudice, resentment, and racial violence doesn't just disappear overnight. At the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean that this murder was racially motivated. She may have simply been perceived as an accessible and vulnerable victim.

But predatory offenders in particular tend to seek opportunities where they can maintain control, and there are very few circumstances more vulnerable than being asleep in your own home. And one of the most important details here is that both victims were attacked, but Molly sustained the lethal injuries. So Walter may have been a secondary victim, not someone that the offender necessarily came there to kill, but if he was going to be able to take Molly out of her home without waking him, he needed to ensure that Walter wouldn't be able to stop him, alert others, or identify him. So rendering him unconscious would be a way to do that. And the severity of Molly's injuries may also tell us something about the offender's state of mind.

Extreme violence can sometimes reflect intense anger, personal grievance, or just a need to completely dominate their victim. What do you think about the fact that Molly's body was found somewhere else? It was taken from their room. I think that the most likely explanation is a practical one. The offender has no way of knowing how long Walter's going to remain unconscious, and an attack with an axe requires quite a bit of force. It's violent, it's messy, and it's noisy.

And every minute that they remain inside her residence increases the risk of being interrupted or identified. So by moving Molly outside, he was likely creating more time and opportunity to carry out the attack while reducing the risk of Walter, regating consciousness or neighbors becoming aware of what was happening. And it's also nighttime. So the darkness would also provide some kind of concealment and make it easier for them to escape as someone approached. But from a behavioral standpoint, this isn't unusual. And in this particular incidents, it's not surprising he chose to do that. As police analyzed the scene, they pieced

together a theory of what had happened the night before. First, they found signs of a violent break-in at the apartment. One of the windows was shattered and bloody handprints were smeared across the doorway. Then, since Molly's body had been found outside in the snow, partially naked, officers believed she'd been attacked inside her home before the assailant dragged her outside and killed her. Maybe so they could see better in the moonlight. From there, investigators couldn't help but notice another crucial detail. The fact that Walter had been injured badly enough to lose consciousness, but he survived. In their eyes, they thought this could mean Walter was the attacker

and had staged things to make it seem like he was a victim. Their suspicions only worsened when they questioned Walter and he couldn't give any meaningful description of the attacker. In fact, Walter barely remembered any details from that night. To the police, his memory loss seemed a little too convenient. But there wasn't any evidence linking him to the murder and suspicion quickly fell on another man, one of Molly's former boyfriends, William Brooks.

William worked as a bartender at a local saloon near the Hall family's home. Police wondered if he'd become jealous after Molly moved on with Walter, and if that jealousy had spiraled into rage. They took William into custody, and he quickly provided an alibi. He said he'd been at a bar the night of the attack. When investigators looked into William's story, it checked out, so they let him go. Given the limited forensic tools at the time, this would become an early pattern in the investigation. Police making arrests based on suspicion rather than hard evidence.

All the police had to go on were witness statements, basic autopsies, and whatever physical clues they found at the scene. What's frustrating is that even though this was happening in the 1880s, the same underlying problem exists whenever investigators have limited evidence. There's always tremendous pressure to identify a. suspect quickly, especially for a horrific crime like this, and that can sometimes lead investigators to focus on the person who seems most plausible rather than the person most supported by the evidence. We talked a lot about this last week in our episodes on The Mad Butcher, a depression-era case, though not entirely modern day, but going back to William, he's a logical first step. We know that current and former intimate partners are statistically common suspects and violent crimes

against women, so it's not unreasonable to investigate William. But there are real risks when suspicion starts to drive the investigation instead of evidence. For example, that can also shape the real suspect's behavior. They are likely to become more emboldened because there is little physical evidence tying them to the crime or there are no consequences. And then there are risks of suspecting the wrong person because an arrest is not evidence of guilt, especially in an era before DNA, fingerprints, surveillance footage, or forensic testing. Investigators often had to start with the basics, who had motive, opportunity, or a connection to the victim. And sometimes that points them in the right direction, but sometimes it doesn't. And that's why corroboration is so important.

And in this case, they arrested William first, they got his alibi, which they then independently verified, and then they let him go, which is how it should be done. Only police can't arrest on probable cause first, which doesn't stop the potential damage to a person's reputation when it turns out that that person is actually innocent. Well, with practically zero evidence to go off of, police hoped Molly's murder had been an isolated tragedy. But in a fast-growing city like Austin, there were plenty of dark corners for a killer to disappear into and plenty of opportunities to strike again. On May 6, 1885, Eliza Shelley spent the day working as a cook and domestic servant for a wealthy family known as the Johnsons.

Eliza was in her early 30s and lived with her three young children in what was known as a freedman's settlement, a neighborhood largely made up of formerly enslaved people and their families after the Civil War. These communities were often overcrowded, poorly lit, and severely under-resourced, making it easy for someone with evil intentions to move through unnoticed. And that evening, as Eliza put her children to bed, she had no idea that danger was lurking. Once her kids were tucked in, Eliza fell asleep in her bed. The next morning, her children awoke to find her gone. They immediately went outside to look for her,

and that's when they spotted a blood-soaked bed cover on the ground. When they pulled back the cover, the children found their mother's deceased body. Their screams brought neighbors running, and before long, police had another disturbing criminal. crime on their hands. Like Molly Smith, Eliza's head had been nearly split open, an injury that appeared consistent with an axe. Police also noticed stab wounds above her ear and near her eyes. They could hardly believe that they were dealing with yet another brutal murder, and they feared

that just like before, they'd have no leads. However, officers soon uncovered some crucial information. First, they noticed a trail of bare footprints leading away from the body, which they they believed likely belonged to Eliza's killer. Not only that, but this time, police had a witness, Eliza's eight-year-old son, who offered some insight into what happened the night before. The little boy told investigators that a man had come into his room

and asked where his mother kept her money. When the child said he didn't know, the man warned him to cover his eyes unless he wanted to die too. It was something to work with, although the boy wasn't able to provide a description of the man, other than the fact that he wore a rag over part of his face, and he wasn't sure if the attacker was white or black.

No one should be brutally murdered like that, and no child should have to be a witness in their mother's murder, but this poor child was. And people sometimes assume that children are either completely unreliable or completely honest, but neither of those extremes is supported by the research. Children can provide very valuable information about events that they directly experienced. In this case, he was told to cover his eyes unless he wanted to die. If he followed those instructions, then that would help explain why he was unable to provide much of a

description. He also observed that the offender had covered his face. We also have to consider the effects of fear. Fear can cause attention to focus on what feels most important for survival. And for an eight-year-old child, that is not likely going to be any kind of identified. details. It will likely be the threat itself. A strange man told him that he would die too if he didn't comply. And for a child, that is likely going to immobilize him with fear. And the fact that he remembered being told to cover his eyes is consistent with that. It stands out to him as the most salient part of that experience. But also, children don't have the developmental or cognitive abilities to necessarily know, hey, I need to pay attention to these identifying details in this

moment. They aren't thinking the police are going to need them later. And the brain is not always prioritizing details during moments of fear. It's prioritizing survival. So it's not surprising that his description was limited. What is potentially valuable is that his account may tell us something about the offender's behavior. He's deliberately concealing his identity. So he's avoiding detection. So it's likely he fears that he will be personally recognized by people in this community. This is the 1800s. Most people lived, worked, socialized, and went to church within relatively small communities that were very tight-knit. So it's very likely he lives among them too. I'm not saying he does for certain because I certainly have no way of knowing that, but it is highly probable he does. Oof, that is terrifying.

And the fact that the attacker let her children live, Eliza's children were still obviously alive and even interacting with him. What might that suggest about this attacker's criminal mentality or his intent? Yeah, I think now there's a pattern because now we have two murders, and in both cases there were other people present. In Molly's case, Walter was severely beaten and left unconscious, but he was left to live. In Eliza's case, the offender spoke directly to her son, threatened him, and then let him live. That suggests the offender was not simply attacking every person he encountered. His violence appears selective. He was willing to harm or threaten others when necessary, but he wasn't indiscriminately killing everyone in the home.

And from a behavioral standpoint, that may indicate a specific objective. Whether that objective was the women themselves, robbery, or something else, the other individuals present. may have not been central to his goal. So in this case, he made it seem like he was there for robbery with his interaction with Eliza's son. But I don't necessarily believe that because the level of violence appears disproportionate if robbery was the sole objective. And we don't even know if he actually took anything from the home to begin with. But this is purely speculative. But the sense I get is that he did not expect to find her son awake. This is nighttime. Eliza put her children to bed. I'm thinking he probably knew that. Maybe he would be.

was watching. He was caught off guard and said the first thing he could to Eliza's son to prevent him from screaming. It was pretext, a way to control him and it worked. That's the speculation or theory that I have. With those few critical details from Eliza's son, police believed they finally had something to work with. And later that same day, they zeroed in on a suspect. 19-year-old Andrew Williams was a young black man who police had noticed lingering near the crime scene shortly after Eliza's body was discovered. Officers found it suspicious that Andrew wasn't wearing any shoes, especially considering the barefoot prints found near the murder scene. But despite the suspicion, police once again had no hard evidence tying Andrew to the crime. Plus, a lot of people

in the neighborhood couldn't afford shoes, so even their circumstantial evidence was weak. Over the next week, investigators struggled to uncover new leads, until finally, one of Eliza's neighbors contacted them. Soon, what seemed like a promising lead would spiral into a new wave of prejudice and fear. By mid-May of 1885, two black female servants had been brutally killed in what police believed were unrelated crimes about four months apart. And while Molly Smith's murder was still unsolved, investigators thought they finally might have a real suspect in the murder of Eliza Shelley. one of Eliza's neighbors was suspicious of a 30-year-old man named Ike Plummer, who also lived nearby.

Apparently there'd been tension between Ike and Eliza for weeks leading up to her death, and on the night of the attack, the neighbor overheard Ike and Eliza arguing over money. He'd asked her to lend him some cash, and she said no. Then she told him to leave her and her family alone. Eliza's neighbor said that Ike had stormed off, and that when they peeked out their window, they'd noticed a half. hatchet tucked into his pocket. And before leaving Eliza's property,

Ike had turned around and shouted, quote, I'll see you again if I live, end quote. Finally, the same witness claimed that Ike had returned to his own home sometime after 1 a.m. the night Eliza was killed.

Investigators looked into Ike more and discovered he'd recently been fined for vagrancy. It seemed like he may have threatened Eliza to help him. And when she refused, he killed her out of spite. Even though the case against Ike was circumstantial, his record and the witness tip were enough to justify his arrest. If we step back and we look at the facts, I can absolutely understand why investigators focused on Ike. He allegedly argued with Eliza. He was reportedly carrying a hatchet. He made what sounds like a threatening statement.

And he was supposedly back at a suspicious time the morning after the murder. It's a strong lead, and those are all facts worth investigating. With all of that, suddenly it feels like we've solved a case. Eliza refuses to help him. He becomes angry. He threatens her, and later she's dead. That's a very satisfying narrative a prosecutor would love if there was strong evidence. One question I'd be asking is whether these facts uniquely point to Ike, or are they giving them more weight because they fit a story that they want to be true? For example, Was he really carrying a hatchet or was it something else? Can you prove it? Also, carrying a hatchet in the late 1800s may not have been unusual. There's also hindsight bias or retrospective interpretation. Because once we know Eliza was killed with a hatchet, a witness seeing Ike with something that could have resembled a hatchet, suddenly could become a hatchet. And once we know she's dead, a personal dispute suddenly sounds like a murder threat. You cannot work an investigation backwards for, from the outcome and cases like this. But it's still a lead that they should have absolutely followed up on. Do you think people have a tendency to cherry pick evidence that confirms an existing bias?

Yes, that's called confirmation bias. And that's the tendency to seek out, focus on, and give greater weight to information that supports an existing belief while discounting or overlooking information that challenges it. So if investigators go into this lead believing that Ike is their guy, there's a risk that every new piece of information starts getting interpreted through that lens. Like the hatchet becomes more significant, the argument becomes more significant. The statement he made sounds more threatening. Meanwhile, alternative explanations, contradictory evidence, or other viable suspects may receive less attention.

Good investigations don't just look for evidence that confirms a suspect's guilt that they have a theory on. they actively test whether the evidence could point somewhere else. Well, with Ike Plummer now behind bars, the police felt like they had at least gotten one killer off the streets. But interestingly, despite the similarities between Molly and Eliza's murders, investigators didn't think the two crimes were linked. They believed each woman had been killed by someone they had known, but they didn't think the same person had killed them both.

Now, through a modern lens, it feels like the beginning of an obvious killing pattern. But in 1885, the idea of a serial killer didn't really exist yet, so police weren't trained to connect the dots. This might be why, just two weeks later, while Ike was still behind bars, tragedy struck again. On May 23, 1885, Irene Cross, a 33-year-old black servant for the wealthy Whitman family, went to bed in the small backhouse where she lived on her employer's property. Irene had left the front door unlocked for her son who hadn't returned home yet. Before he got there, someone else slipped through the door, and sometime in the middle of the night, Irene was attacked in her sleep.

But unlike Molly and Eliza before her, Irene woke up and managed to fight back. She stumbled out into the yard and screamed for help. People rushed out to help her and were met with a horrifying scene. Irene was still alive, but she was brutally in her. One of her arms had been nearly severed. She had a massive gash across her head near her eye that was so severe it looked like her attacker had tried to scalp her. Police were quickly called to the scene, hoping Irene could explain what happened and who did this. But unfortunately, she succumbed to her injuries before she could tell them anything. Irene had become the third

victim of the mysterious and violent deaths in Austin, and when investigators talk to her children, they realized this case would be just as tough to solve. One of Irene's kids told the police that the attacker was a, quote, chunky black man, end quote, who was barefoot and had his pant legs rolled up. He also said the man wore a brown hat, a dirty coat, and carried a knife. Still, police faced the same major problem they had from the very beginning. There was no real physical evidence to work with. Once again, investigators relied heavily on suspicion.

They still didn't believe one person was behind all these killings, but they started to think that maybe the victims weren't actually personally acquainted with their killers. So they started arresting countless men in connection to Irene's murder. However, they focused solely on certain types of men. Black men were already heavily scrutinized in the Reconstruction era Deep South, and the investigation dialed up the level of racism even more. Most of the suspects taken into custody were black men, who made a living from manual labor or as domestic servants.

Earlier, I talked about how slavery may have been legally abolished, but that doesn't mean it abolished racist beliefs, attitudes, or practices. And this is a good example of what I meant by that. And now, to be fair, they did have a witness who described the attacker as a black man. That's relevant information, and it would have been appropriate to investigate individuals who matched that description. But based on what we've heard, it sounds like police may have taken a very limited description and expanded it into suspicion of an entire group or category of people.

They're not looking for people that fit that description. They're looking at all black men who made a living in a particular way, regardless of their description, and they're indiscriminately arresting them. That's a very different investigation, and that can create tunnel vision. That's when investigators become overly focused on a particular theory or group of suspects. It's the physical manifestation that results from confirmation bias. And it can become self-reinforcing. Because think about it, if police are primarily questioning, arresting, and scrutinizing black men working in a particular field,

then most of the information they collect will also involve black men, likely in the same environment. That can create an illusion that the evidence keeps pointing in the same direction. when in reality, the investigation wasn't even open to alternative possibilities at all. Now that it was clear that the violence wasn't going to stop, fear spread throughout Austin. Suspicion toward black men skyrocketed, and so did the arrests. Men were constantly being picked up, questioned, and released, only to sometimes be arrested a second time days later.

Some were being held longer than others, but most of the cases eventually fell apart. Time after time, police failed to find any solid evidence to link suspects to any of the murders. Meanwhile, the violence didn't stop. Austin's servant community remained under attack, and police reports started piling up. There was suddenly a wave of break-ins and violent assaults

targeting domestic workers across the city. In one case, a servant was struck in the head with a stone after refusing to give money to an intruder. In another, two servants living together were shot through their own windows, leaving both seriously injured. Thankfully, they survived, but fear inside the community was growing fast.

As the attacks became more widely known, it raised another unsettling possibility. Were some of these crimes the result of copycats? Domestic workers were often isolated, vulnerable, and living in small homes separated from wealthy families, which made them easy targets for anyone looking to exploit the panic already spreading throughout Austin. Members of the black community demanded that police do more. One concerned resident even suggested forming vigilante groups and driving so-called vagrants and drifters out of the city entirely.

But despite the growing panic and public pressure, police didn't seem to have control of the situation. If anything, it seemed like they were struggling to keep up. The number of officers on Austin's force simply hadn't kept pace with the city's rapid growth. And that meant the people who were already the most vulnerable, black working class servants and laborers were left with very little protection, wondering if they would be next. This community is being targeted as victims, and they're being targeted as suspects. That's an incredibly difficult position to be in. When people believe they're at risk of being harmed, they often come together for protection. and support, just like you described.

But if members of that same community are also being viewed with suspicion by authorities that can create internal tension and uncertainty about who can be trusted within, psychologically, that kind of environment can create chronic fear and hypervigilance. People may become afraid to be alone, afraid to sleep, afraid that they or someone they love could be next by either police or this offender. And at the same time, they may feel reluctant to interact with law enforcement if they believe they themselves could become suspects. It can also damage social cohesion. Communities tend to function best when people trust one another and trust the institutions responsible for protecting them. And right now, that's very hard for them to do. When the trust isn't there, people become isolated and less willing to seek help or share information, which can prolong the investigation too, especially if they have valuable information to share. The ripple effect of this is very powerful. So you mentioned fear and hypervigilance.

Is it possible for trauma to occur on a collective level? And if so, what are the associated risks or outcomes of such a phenomenon? Yes, absolutely. Trauma doesn't only occur at the individual level. Researchers have documented collective or community traumas where the effects extend to entire groups of people. And one of the reasons serial violence can be so disruptive to a community, is that it creates fear that's difficult to contain. People start changing their routines, monitoring surroundings more closely, sleeping less, and becoming more vigilant to potential threats,

and understandably so. And I remember when I worked in prisons, we were taught to take different roots home every day. They suggested we avoid establishing predictable routines in the event someone was watching us on the outside for someone on the inside because something like that had happened before. Obviously, that's a very different situation. But it speaks to the principle that when people perceive a threat, whether it's direct or indirect, whether it happened to them or it happened to someone else, they often change their behavior or they're taught to in an attempt to regain a sense of safety and control. And in this community, with a series of unsolved murders or attacks, that might mean avoiding certain places, staying indoors after dark, checking on neighbors more

often or becoming much more cautious than they were before. And that over time can lead to symptoms of trauma like chronic anxiety, irritability, sleep disruption, and feelings of helplessness. Investigators kept relying on the only method they knew of, arresting black men. They did this throughout the summer of 1885, but no charges ever stuck. That was also the case for Ike Plummer, who was eventually released, which meant each murder remained unsolved. And the worst was yet to come.

Soon a fourth murder would occur, and it would be the most gruesome and evil one yet. By August of 1885, three black women in Austin were brutally attacked and killed while they slept. Despite all the fear and pressure building in the city, the police hadn't made progress in any of the cases. So far, the only outcome was that black men were being heavily scrutinized as suspects, and the police based their arrests on nothing but prejudice

and suspicion. This tactic clearly was ineffective because on August 30th, the violence escalated. That night, 50-year-old Rebecca Ramey was asleep in her room with her 11-year-old daughter, Mary. Rebecca worked as a cook for a wealthy family and lived in small, separate quarters on the property. Sometime late that night, someone forced their way inside and beat Rebecca. unconscious. Then they abducted Mary. When Rebecca woke up in the early morning hours, she found herself battered, bleeding, and worst of all, alone. She searched for her daughter everywhere and eventually found her lying motionless outside. It would have been an absolutely heartbreaking scene for any parent to discover. When police arrived, even they were shaken

by the gruesome brutality before them. Mary had been killed by a headwomen, wound near her ear, but that wasn't all. When the medical examiner looked at Mary's body, they determined that she had also been sexually assaulted. This makes me rethink the previous encounters where this offender interacted with or was seen by the victim's children in the home. Initially, it seemed as though they were not the primary target, which I still think is very plausible. But it could also be plausible that those children were not harmed because they were boys. at least in Eliza's case, she had multiple children, but her one child was a boy. We don't know the gender of the rest of her children. In Mary's case, in Rebecca's case, she had one child in the home with her, and it was a daughter. And as far as we know, Mary is the only daughter of a victim that he's encountered alone. Regardless, this is a major escalation of violence. Until this point, he has strictly targeted adults and there has been no evidence of sexual violence. And there has been no evidence of sexual violence. in those prior murders. When there are escalations of this magnitude, they typically occur for a few

reasons. One is growing confidence. He has been committing some very risky and brazen crimes, but consistently evading detection. In some cases, that can result in more risk-taking behavior over time. Another possibility is that more of the underlying motivations are emerging. He's engaging in behavior that serves a purpose beyond killing. Initially, it felt more rage-driven with him. Now it seems more driven by power, control, fantasy fulfillment, possibly even sexual gratification, or some combination of these. It's still too early to tell for sure, but this is information nonetheless. Mary's attack added an even darker layer to the string of murders that was rapidly spiraling out of control. Fear in Austin reached a new level and the community desperately wanted answers.

Then at Mary's crime scene, police got what they felt was a break in the case, bloody footprints. The footprints didn't match Mary or Rebecca. To investigators, this meant they must have belonged to the killer. Just like with the footprints found at Eliza's crime scene, it was obvious that the killer wasn't wearing shoes, but this time investigators noticed another key detail. Upon examining the prints more closely, they realized the person who left them appeared to be missing a pinky toe, a detail that would later take on significance. For many in Austin, the murders felt almost impossible to explain. They couldn't understand how someone could move through neighborhoods in the middle of the night, break into homes, brutally attack people, and then

disappear without anyone seeing them. In some cases, neighbors reported hearing nothing at all, not even watchdogs barking. Before long, some residents started to convince themselves that the attacks weren't being carried out by an ordinary person or people at all, but something supernatural. They thought maybe some unseen nefarious power was behind the killings.

Soon all across Austin, families began placing candles in their windows at night, hoping the light would somehow protect their homes from whatever evil haunted the city. One thing we know about human psychology is that people are uncomfortable with uncertainty. You'll hear me talk about this a lot. Most of us would rather have an explanation we don't like than no explanation at all. Think about what this community is experiencing.

People are locking their doors. Watchdogs aren't alerting anyone. There are no arrests and the offender keeps disappearing. The murders don't seem to follow a pattern that people can understand or control. That's a recipe for fear and helplessness, and don't forget, it's the 1800s. It's not like they can put up security cameras. So their options for feeling secure are limited. And when people feel helpless, they naturally start searching for explanations. Those explanations may vary, but psychologically having an explanation gives people something to respond to. It creates a sense of predictability and allows them to take actionable steps that help them feel safe. like placing candles in their windows. Thus, the supernatural explanations. So in a strange way, believing there is a supernatural force at work can feel more manageable

than accepting that a stranger can enter homes at night, evade detection and capture, and strike in ways that human men wearing a badge are unable to stop. While some people rush to protect themselves against otherworldly threats, Others believed the real problem was far less mysterious. They thought the city's police force was simply incapable of stopping whoever was behind the killings, and this belief took off in the media. After Mary Ramey's murder, news of her death, and the growing string of violent attacks across Austin started spreading far beyond the city limits,

making headlines across Texas and eventually across the country. Soon, the media coverage gave rise to an explosive, theory that one single person was behind all the murders. Austin law enforcement still hadn't openly considered this possibility, but the idea soon spread through the public, especially when the press dubbed the killer, the Midnight Assassin, or the Servant Girl Annihilator. The nicknames only seemed to heighten fear of sudden, unexpected attacks, and with that attention came heavy criticism. In September, the Austin Daily Statesman newspaper openly called out the city's police force accusing leadership of incompetence and even corruption. The paper described the midnight assassin murders as, quote, cunningly planned, carefully directed and intelligently consummated.

While also pointing out that many of the men the police had arrested didn't seem to fit the profile of someone smart enough to commit the crimes, including Ike Plummer. The newspaper went even further, criticizing city officials for failing, to act, while in their words, unbridled ruffians spread terror throughout the city. In perhaps the most damning line of it all, the paper claimed Austin's crime rate was as bad as anywhere in the civilized world. Unfortunately, the increased media coverage still didn't keep people safe. On September 28, 1885, 20-year-old Gracie Vance was at home with her boyfriend, Orange Washington, in their small cabin located on her employer's property. Gracie was a black woman who worked as a servant for the wealthy Dunham family.

That evening, she and Orange had two friends over. The night seemed calm, despite the fact that neighbors had reported hearing loud arguments between Gracie and Orange in the past. Sometime after midnight, when Gracie, Orange, and their company had fallen asleep, Gracie's employer, Mr. Dunham, was jolted awake by what sounded like slapping noises coming from the cabin. He assumed it was just another physical altercation between Gracie and Orange, so he went back to sleep. But around 1 a.m., he woke up again, this time to the unmistakable sound of breaking glass and a scream. It was enough to make Mr. Dunham grab his gun and run

toward the cabin. When he got there, he saw one of Gracie's friends struggling with a man outside. At the same time, the loud commotion brought neighbors out of their homes. The attacker's seemed to realize people were coming and fled. People fired shots after him, but he got away. By the time police arrived, the killer was gone, and the damage had already been done. Gracie's body was found about 75 yards from the cabin. She'd been beaten to death with a rock, and, like Mary Ramey, sexually assaulted. Inside the cabin, Orange Washington lay dead, with his head nearly split in half. Finally, a bloody axe believed to be the murder weapon had been left on their bed. Now investigators have to consider if Orange was an intended target or whether he was a secondary

victim like Walter potentially was with Molly. What stands out to me is that he was killed inside the home while Gracie was removed from the home. To me that suggests that Gracie was still his primary target and orange was potentially an obstacle or secondary victim. But the more this case contains facts that have multiple potential interpretations, it's going to become harder to identify a clear pattern or motive for investigators. Do you think the extreme violence was actually a greater link between the murders, or do you think it was the gender of the victims? I think behaviorally, the extreme violence is a stronger link. The victim selection appears to vary, but the method, the risk the level of violence have remained consistent.

It seems fairly clear that the primary victims are women, or at least female. But again, we have the benefit of hindsight in research now that investigators at the time did not. Today we know that victim characteristics are only part of the equation. We also look at offender behavior. And in this case, it's repeated nighttime home invasions, extreme violence, lethal head wounds, and then escape from the scene. Those are all kinds of behavioral patterns that modern investigators are trained to look for, but they weren't necessarily concepts that law enforcement in the 1880s would have been thinking about in the same way because the research and the understanding of serial offending just wasn't developed.

They still hadn't even thought that this is the same offender for all of these murders. Well, one thing we know for sure, the Midnight Assassin had struck again. At this point, there was no denying it. the attacks in Austin were becoming more violent, brazen, and frequent. Whoever was responsible wasn't just getting away with it. They were escalating. And the next time violence erupted, the victim's identity would stun everyone in Austin. Thanks so much for listening.

Come back next time for the conclusion of our deep dive on the Midnight Assassin. Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is a crimehouse original 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 Instagram 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, 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 Plus, Crimehouse Plus, and get both parts of every story dropped on the same Monday. Crime House 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. 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 Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benadon, Lori Marinelli, Natalie Pritzowski, Sarah Camp, Alyssa Fox, Nicolette Tavallero, Kaylee Pine, Marky Lee, Sarah Batchelor, and Carrie Murphy.

Thank you for listening.