Mind of a Serial Killer - SERIAL KILLER: The Midnight Assassin Pt. 2

Episode Date: July 9, 2026

Despite a year of killings, the Austin police made no credible arrests in the Midnight Assassin investigation, and two innocent husbands were prosecuted while a key suspect died without ever facing trial. The case remains unsolved more than 140 years later, with some theorizing the killer may have gone on to commit similar crimes around the world.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…, 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, it's Vanessa. Before today's episode, I want to take a brief moment to tell you about a show from Crime House's sister studio, Rewind, that I know you'll love. It's called Government That Doesn't Suck, hosted by professors Lindsay Cormack and Greg Jackson from History That Doesn't Suck. Ever wonder how the weather forecast on your phone is so accurate, or how your mail still gets across the country for less than a dollar, or who actually built the highway you drove on this morning?

Each episode tells the surprising story of an American institution that you'll never look at the same way again. Listen to and follow Government That Doesn't Suck every other Monday on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or watch video episodes on YouTube. This is Crime House. Sometimes you just want to blend into the crowd. Maybe you put on a hoodie and sunglasses to run errands, or you sit in the back of the classroom or conference room. It's normal to not feel like your best self sometimes and to avoid unwanted attention. But for some, anonymity isn't just a coping mechanism. It's a tactic, a way to avoid detection when carrying out nefarious and even gruesome acts.

In 1880s, Texas, a brutal killer, or killers, perfected the art of going incognito, and to this day, we're left to wonder if whoever was behind the violence had, hadn't just targeted the city of Austin, but cities all over the world. 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 Engels. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest minds in history, analyzing what, 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 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. Before we get started, be advised, this episode contains discussions of murder and sexual violence against women and minors.

So please listen with care. Today we conclude 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, 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 to the story, I'll be talking about things like how distrust toward law enforcement can impact investigations, why investigators sometimes conceal key information from the public, and how some serial killers are able to blend into society and hide in plain sight. And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? By September of 1885, six members of Austin's black community were brutally killed in their sleep. Molly Smith, Eliza Shelley, Irene Cross, Mary Ramey, who was just 11 years old, Gracie Vance, and her boyfriend, Orange, Washington. Most of the victims died from severe head wounds, and at the most recent crime scene, when Gracie and Orange were killed, police found a bloody axe. and despite the sheer level of violence involved with each crime, some cases stood out.

First, Mary and Gracie had each been sexually assaulted before they died. And Orange was the only male victim whose injuries had resulted in death. Finally, police found bare footprints at the scene of Eliza and Mary's murders, which they believed had been left by the killer. And when they looked closely at the prince outside Mary's home, it appeared her killer was missing his pinky toe. Even before the MO of the attacks began to shift, many investigators believed the murders were being carried out by different people. This was largely because at the time, the concept of a serial killer wasn't very prevalent.

Despite this belief, the media and many members of the public had started to think a sole culprit was behind each crime. And the media had dubbed the unidentified killer, the Midnight Assassin or the Servant Girl Annihilator. This theory also led to outrage that police hadn't uncovered any legitimate leads or brought charges against anyone. Since each victim was black, Austin authorities mainly targeted black men as suspects. And when officers couldn't find any hard evidence linking these men to the crimes, they turned to more drastic methods by beating confessions out of a few people. But it never worked, and eventually each suspect was released. Desperate for answers, Austin's mayor eventually brought in private detectives from Houston,

hoping fresh eyes could uncover new clues. But their tactics soon caused controversy. The PIs used bloodhounds to search for the killer, and the hounds only ever seemed to go after black men, which led many to believe they'd been trained to do exactly that. Fear of being falsely accused became so widespread that some black men began tying small bags of strong-smelling, spices around their ankles in hopes of warding off the dogs. As more and more people felt

unfairly targeted and unsafe, people became unwilling to speak to the police at all, which made it difficult for investigators to learn anything about the victim's lives before they died. We've already talked about how prejudice can narrow an investigation and damage trust in episode one, but there's another issue that often gets overlooked. Bias can spread. If local investigators already had assumptions about who was responsible, it's possible those assumptions influence the private detectives who were brought in. If they were told that a particular group is suspicious, that can affect what they notice, what questions they ask, and how they interpret ambiguous evidence. It's also possible they already had existing biases given the era,

but either way, if they entered the investigation after hearing that black men were primary suspects that can shape expectations. And theories can become contagious and that can influence investigators, witnesses, and even entire institutions. The danger is that people may feel they're independently reaching the same conclusion when in reality they all started from the same set of assumptions. How do you think law enforcement can earn back public trust after something like this? Trust is restored by behavior. If a community believes it's being, unfairly targeted, law enforcement has to demonstrate that through behavior. They have to show that investigations are being guided by the evidence, not assumptions, and that they are being done

fairly and humanely. That means following leads wherever they go, being transparent about what is known and unknown, and applying the same standards to everyone. And one thing research consistently finds is that people are more willing to trust authorities when they believe the process is fair, even when they don't like the outcome. People want to know that they're being treated with dignity, that they're being heard, and that decisions are being made objectively. They've done a lot of harm to a community that has been systematically harmed for so long. It's going to take a lot of time for the community to trust again as it was, but certainly more now. Well, despite all the arrests, interrogations, bloodhounds, and public pressure. The police still weren't any closer to identifying

the real killer. Sometimes they even circled back to the same people they'd already cleared to take a harder look at them. One of those people was Walter Spencer, the live-in boyfriend of the first known victim, 25-year-old Molly Smith. Walter had originally come under suspicion immediately after Molly's murder, but there wasn't enough evidence linking him to the crime. However, since there were no other suspects, authorities decided to arrest him anyway, and in December of 1885, nearly a year after Molly was killed, Walter went on trial for her murder. At first, the news made people wonder if authorities were actually making progress, but they soon realized how wrong they were, because the case against Walter was extremely weak. Prosecutors presented zero physical evidence, and they

never found any witnesses who could connect him to the killing. So after two days, the jury acquitted Walter. And while the police continued to pursue the wrong suspects, the violence continued. This time, it struck where people least expected. Susan Hancock was known as one of Austin's most refined white women. She was educated, well off, and the wife of a respected mechanic named Moses. On Christmas Eve of 1885, almost a year after the violence began, Susan's daughters went out to a party. She left the front door unlocked for them, then went to bed in her own room. At the time, it wasn't unusual for married couples to sleep separately. Still, Moses seemed attuned to his wife because at some point during the night,

he woke up feeling like something was wrong. It's unclear exactly what woke him. Maybe he heard a noise, but whatever it was, Moses got out of bed to check on Susan. When he entered her room, he was horrified. Susan's bedsheets were covered in blood. and he didn't see her anywhere. He searched the house in a panic before running into the backyard

where he finally found Susan lying in a pool of blood, barely conscious. Her head was badly wounded and blood poured from her ears. Moses picked her up and screamed for help. Neighbors rushed to the scene and someone quickly alerted the authorities.

This time, doctors accompanied the police. They noticed that Susan's skull had been fractured in two places. Moses told them that he'd seen a pair of men fleeing the scene and jump over a fence. Police immediately released bloodhounds to track the scent, but they weren't able to follow it. Soon after, Susan died of her injuries. Like all the other victims, her death had been sudden and tragic. The only difference was that Susan was the first white victim.

It's not uncommon for serial killers to expand their victim pattern, like going from adults to children, for example. Most of the time, this is due to circumstances, opportunity, or escalation of behavior. But this is unusual. Not only has this offender changed races, he's changed socioeconomic class as well. Serial offenders choose victims who are available, vulnerable, and desirable. And he's been primarily targeting marginalized black women, one black child, Mary, and what I believe was a secondary male victim, but now he's targeted an average.

affluent high status white woman. So let's recap a minute. We have been operating on the theory that the offender is a black male based on eyewitness accounts. And that theory is actually very likely, statistically speaking, because most serial killers are intracial, meaning they target individuals within their same race. Does that mean that's always the case? No. But it's not common to go outside of that. So this is very unusual. If Susan's murder was committed by the same person responsible for some or all of the murders in the black community, then what might that signify about the killer from a psychological or behavioral standpoint? Could this

shift in victim pattern have been a way to throw off investigators? That's the question I immediately had. So why the change? It doesn't seem as if she was a secondary victim because she was taken outside, just like the rest. She was killed in the same method. than all the previous victims were. And you didn't mention any confirmation that he sexually assaulted her, though, which is very telling to me.

Because if the other sexual assaults weren't escalation of his methods, and he didn't sexually assault her, she may have been killed for a different purpose rather than for personal gratification. Targeting Susan is going to draw more attention from the public, law enforcement, and the media, which doesn't seem like a smart choice

if he wants to avoid detection, but at the same time, if he's, in fact, a black, man like we are theorizing he is, he was already living under the threat of being identified, arrested, or swept up in the investigation like the rest of his community. So it's very probable that this pattern change was circumstantial or strategic to preserve his anonymity. This is a theory and just that, since I have absolutely no proof, but given how atypical this is, it feels like he did this to draw attention away from the black community.

I think he felt like it would take heat off himself in some strange way, but in fact, it was just going to amplify it. Susan's death marked a significant shift in the crimes, and it was only just the start of the horror that night. While reporters and police were still gathered at the Hancock's home, speaking to witnesses and analyzing the scene, they learned about another crime scene just a 15-minute, walk away. Yula was just 17 years old and had recently given birth to a son. Officers and neighbors

thought maybe something had happened to the baby and they rushed over. However, when they entered the house, they were completely stunned. Yula's baby was safe, but her husband, James, was sitting in a blood-soaked bed with a severe wound to his head, and Yula was gone. Police quickly noticed a bloodied axe on the bed near James, as well as blood-soaked. footprints leading outside. They rushed to find Yula, and near a fence in the yard, they saw her on the ground. The officers ran to her, but it was too late. Yula was already dead. Not only was her head badly injured, but she'd been completely stripped of her clothes, and investigators noticed something deeply disturbing that hadn't happened at other scenes.

A large piece of wood had been deliberately placed across Yula's body, and the killer posed her arms, so they stretched outward. Investigators had never seen anything like it, and upon further examination, it became clear that Yula had been sexually assaulted before she was killed, just like two of the victims before her. Police scoured the scene for any other possible clues, but didn't find any. However, they pried up one of the floorboards from inside the home so they could preserve the bloody footprints as evidence.

Two murders in one night is significant, and even more so. when you consider the circumstances. Firstly, this was a very risky situation because with every murder, there's a risk of interruption, detection, or identification. But at the same time, if this is him,

he already committed one murder at an affluent house, and he likely knew that most people would be distracted by the news of that or the majority of the police department would likely be there, and that would buy him time.

Second, both victims were white, and like I mentioned, that's going to influence public perception. This is going to start challenging assumptions, but also instilling more fear within the community as a whole. But now we have body positioning or staging. That's also new, because he likely felt he had more time to spend with Yula's body

than he historically has had with any victim in the past. He took advantage of that, and he posed her. These back-to-back murders could signal compulsion, but they could also signal urgent, see opportunity or confidence as well. There are multiple explanations here that can produce the same behavior. And if he is in fact murdering these women for strategy, he's got a small window of time to do it. He knows that these will be taken more seriously than the victims he's previously targeted. So the urgency is certainly there. But of course, it's equally possible that this was more about

confidence or that this was a copycat. But if it is him, he is disorganized. But he also knew that women lived in these homes. He's not arbitrarily choosing these homes hoping to find a desirable victim living there. What do you think it says about the killer having posed Eula's body and adding that piece of wood on top of her? That's so strange. Generally, when an offender spends additional time with a victim post-mortem, investigators and psychologists begin considering whether that behavior served a psychological purpose, we can't know exactly what that purpose was without them telling. us. It's possible the positioning of the body and the placement of the wood were symbolic. It's possible they reflected a fantasy, a desire for control, or some other form of psychological

gratification, which is not uncommon in sexually motivated offenses. It's also possible. The behavior served a more practical purpose. One thing to consider, however, is that this may not reflect a change in the offender as much as a change in circumstances. His earlier attacks often involved surviving witnesses, interruptions, or a need to flee quickly because he was avoiding detection. Here, he may simply have had more time, like I mentioned, than he did in any prior offenses. So if investigators and community members were focused on Susan's murder, or if he felt there was a lower risk of interruption, that may have created an opportunity that didn't previously exist. This may have been the first time he had the time and privacy to engage in behavior that

may have been present all along. The Christmas Eve murders marked a massive turning point in the case because for a year, the violence had been concentrated within Austin's Black servant community. But now, two white women had been attacked and murdered in the same disturbing way on the same night. As the community saw it, no one in the city was safe anymore. At the same time, no one had any idea that the police were about to make a huge discovery and keep the whole thing a secret. On Christmas Eve night of 1885, the city of Austin endured two more brutal murders, bringing the total victim count to eight. The most recent victims, Susan Hancock and Yula Phillips, have been attacked in their beds with an axe before being left for dead outside. Yula had also been sexually assaulted.

It was the same horrifying violence Austin's black community had been experiencing for the past year, but now it had crossed racial lines, which brought much more attention to the cases. For the first time, outrage over the murders became truly citywide. Before Austin's white residents

didn't think it could happen to them, but now fear spread through every neighborhood and public anger toward the police reached a breaking point. People no longer believed the authorities had control of the situation, and pressure mounted for them to do something, anything, to stop the killings. The public outrage fed into a larger question as well, whether multiple people were behind the murders or if there was one so-called midnight assassin terrorizing the city. Law enforcement still seemed to believe each victim had been killed by someone different. And to address public fears, the city marshal issued sweeping new instructions to,

police officers. They were told to stop and question every single man they encountered out on the streets at night, regardless of race. If those men couldn't provide what the police considered a legitimate reason for being outside after dark, they were reportedly given 24 hours to leave the city altogether. Officials also ordered bars and liquor stores to close by midnight to clear the streets. They appointed 30 additional police officers to the force to help meet demand, and said there should be someone positioned on nearly every street corner until the violence stopped. The escalation and safety and security after the deaths of Susan and Yula have several possible explanations and they're not mutually exclusive. One, and perhaps the most obvious,

is that the threat was becoming harder to ignore. There have been multiple brutal murders, and now two white women had been killed in a single night. That alone may have increased the sense of urgency among both officials and the public, even if they felt they were committed by different people. It's also reasonable to consider the role of social attitudes at the time. We know that race influenced many aspects of life during this period, which includes when they prioritize attention and safety. The murders of Susan and Yula, two white women, generated a level of public concern and political pressure that the murders of Molly, Eliza, Mary, Gracie, and Orange did not, or that the brutal attacks of Walter, Rebecca, and James did not. The reality is

public officials often respond to multiple pressures at once, and there was now more concern for public safety, concern about public confidence, and concern about criticism of law enforcement, as well as concern about maintaining order in a city that was becoming increasingly frightened, and that concern seemed to escalate after the deaths of Susan and Yula. What are the risks involved? when investigations become driven more by public outrage like this one and political pressure than actual evidence. It intensifies the need to get results, and that further amplifies many of the risks that we've already been discussing, including confirmation bias, tunnel vision, pressure to identify a suspect, and overlooking alternative explanations. But another risk is that officials begin prioritizing actions that are visible over actions that are effective. These measures you described, they may reassure the public that something is being done because they're visible, but reassurance and safety are not necessarily the same thing.

Closing businesses, imposing curfews and questioning people on the street creates a greater sense of control over the community, but they don't necessarily bring investigators any closer to identify knee offender. In fact, some of these measures can create unintended consequences. Like, for example, it can affect the community economically. People may become afraid to be outside for reasons beyond fear of being targeted by the serial offender. Community members may be discouraged from organizing their own efforts to protect one another. And law enforcement resources may be diverted toward enforcing restrictions rather than solving the case or other crimes that are happening in the community. All for, at least in this case, the appearance. of action.

Even after the murders of Susan Hancock and Yula Phillips, police still thought multiple offenders were responsible. And because the newest victims were white women, many investigators assumed the attacks must have been carried out by a completely different killer than anyone who'd previously targeted black victims. While police believe the killers were likely someone close to each woman, the public's theories about who the murderer was spiraled out of control. One rumor that gained serious traction was that the killer might be someone who'd escaped from

an insane asylum at night and somehow slipped back into the institution without anyone noticing. To many residents, the explanation felt just as believable with anything the police had offered. In the midst of the panic, gun stores reportedly sold out as terrified residents armed themselves however they could. Old weapons were pulled out of storage, and some people became so frightened they decided to move away from Austin altogether. Then, for the first time since the murders began, the authorities finally decided to offer money in exchange for information.

On New Year's Eve, the governor of Texas announced a $300 reward. Then it was up to $1,000 each for information leading to the arrest of whoever killed Susan or Yula. Meanwhile, there was also a $1,000 reward for information in the case of black victims, but they were all grouped together instead of individually like the white victims. Earlier we talked about ways law enforcement can rebuild public trust. Well, this would likely set that effort back

and for some people, perhaps irreparably. This disparity is difficult to ignore. All five of the offenders' black victims, including Mary, a child, were grouped together for the same reward being offered for a single white victim. And this was occurring only a few decades after slavery,

when black people had literally been bought, sold, appraised, and assigned monetary value. And of course, a reward is not the same thing as slavery, but symbolism matters. And for some members of the black community, this could reinforce the belief that their lives, their suffering, and their deaths were still being valued differently. And if there were already concerns

about whether these victims were not receiving the same attention, urgency or resources as others, disparities like this one were not going to ease those concerns. Instead, they likely deepened feelings of alienation, distrust, and invisibility among members of a community that was already marginalized and living in fear. Pretty soon, it became clear just how much investigators were prioritizing Susan and Yula's deaths. By January 2nd, just one week after the murders, police announced the arrest. of two suspects, Susan and Yula's husbands. While the authorities believed they finally had two murderers behind bars, another violent incident shook things up. Unlike before, this one didn't

occur in the middle of the night. It happened in full public view. On February 8, 1886, a 19-year-old cook named Nathan Elgin attacked a black woman named Julia, who was a customer at a bar where Nathan worked. It's unclear what triggered Nathan, but after a initially attacking her inside the bar, he dragged Julia into a nearby house and started beating her so violently that people back at the bar could hear her screams. Two nearby police officers, along with several residents, rushed inside and pulled Nathan away. They tried to subdue him, but he was so filled with rage, it was impossible. Then Nathan pulled out a knife. The moment officers saw the weapon, they shot Nathan, and he died the next day.

Thankfully, Julia survived. At first, the incident seemed like just another violent altercation in a city that was already on edge, especially when officers spoke to witnesses who described Nathan as volatile and aggressive. People who knew him were all too familiar with his violent temper. But during Nathan's autopsy, the medical examiner discovered something startling. Nathan was missing a toe on his right foot. Investigators anxiously thought back to the first. footprints found at the scene of Mary Ramey's murder, where they found footprints showing a missing

toe. At that moment, they began to wonder if Nathan had been responsible for any of the past violence. So before Nathan was laid to rest, authorities took a cast mold of his foot. Then they compared it to the preserved footprint from the scene of Yula's attack. And while it's unclear whether that footprint also showed a missing toe, the authorities believed it was a match. It might have been a huge break in the case. However, Yula and Susan's husbands were already in custody. Unwilling to throw a wrench in those cases, investigators kept Nathan's missing toe and his possible connection to the previous murders secret from the public. Okay, so they want to keep it secret from the public. There are a few reasons why they would choose to keep this confidential from them.

One is purely investigative. From a practical standpoint, investigators sometimes do withholding. information from the public while they determine whether a lead is meaningful, while they corroborate evidence, or avoid influencing witness statements. So secrecy alone is not necessarily suspicious or malicious. What makes this situation interesting is the timing, because by this point, Susan and Yula's husbands are already in custody and the public believes that they are suspects. If investigators suddenly announced that another individual appeared to share a really distinctive physical characteristic that was found at previous crime scenes, and it's one person suspected of multiple, if not all, murders. It could raise questions about the strength of

the existing cases and the investigation itself. Second, institutions are often sensitive to anything that complicates an existing narrative that the public has. That doesn't always mean they're acting with pride or shame, but once people publicly commit to a theory, they can be reluctant to introduce information that will undermine it, especially when so much is writing on it or they have a lot of people to answer to or if they've already been under scrutiny. So it's possible the secrecy served a legitimate investigative purpose, but it's also possible that it was narrative control. And it sounds by how you described it, that it might be the latter. Either way, if this evidence is reliable and ultimately points to the correct person, then they risk delaying the investigation by

failing to aggressively pursue or publicly acknowledge a potentially important lead. Meanwhile, Moses and James are still going through criminal trial proceedings. With Nathan Elgin now dead, investigators believed there was only one real way to see if he was actually the killer, to wait and see if the murders continued. Months passed without any more killings. And it's possible that law enforcement became more convinced that Nathan had been the midnight assassin all along. But with all the criticism they faced, they may not have wanted people to know that they'd caught the killer by chance, so the authorities moved forward with the suspects they

had, Moses Hancock and James Phillips. But city officials couldn't keep secrets forever, and soon, bombshell revelations would come to light. In February of 1886, the authorities had reason to believe that a 19-year-old man named Nathan Elgin may have been to be. responsible for at least some of the violence that had plagued Austin. However, the police had killed Nathan in the process of stopping his attack on another woman, and Susan Hancock and Yula Phillips' husbands, Moses and James, had already been arrested and charged for their murders. So even when investigators found evidence that potentially linked Nathan Elgin to other crimes, including Yula's murder, they swept it under the rug, and they never told the public about it, which

meant Moses and James' cases moved forward as planned, and the controversy surrounding them caused quite a stir. When James's trial began in May of 1886, the courtroom quickly filled with rumors, gossip, and conflicting testimony. One of the most explosive claims came from Yula's sister, who testified that Yula may have been pregnant from an affair at the time of her murder. She said a family friend had bought medication intended to cause a miscarriage, which raised speculation, that James may have discovered the affair and killed his wife in a fit of rage. Even though James had been found badly wounded at the scene, a local doctor testified that his injuries could have been self-inflicted

during some kind of disturbed episode. This theory created a lot of buzz, especially when James' mother testified that the acts that police found on the bed near him was theirs. James and Yula kept it stored in a shed on their property. However, in the courtroom, the defense's... compared James's feet to the footprints and they didn't match.

His feet were much larger, but this didn't seem to sway the jury. They thought it was unlikely that a stranger would have known exactly where to find the axe. In the end, they found James guilty of second-degree murder and he was sentenced to seven years in prison.

It's one thing not to disclose this to the public, but it's another not to disclose it internally or investigatively. And another thing that's aggravating about this, is that since Nathan has died and the murder stopped, that could be attributed to James and Moses being incarcerated, which strengthens their case against these potentially innocent men. And their focus on spouses and intimate partners is because, which we talked about before,

statistically, they're frequently responsible for serious violence against their partners and women. So from an investigative standpoint, it's reasonable place to start. but every case still has to be evaluated on its own with evidence, and these investigators had evidence that they intentionally filtered out. We talked about confirmation bias throughout this investigation and how theories can become contagious. Well, theories can influence everyone around a case. Once James became the primary suspect, family members, friends, witnesses, and even community members may have started re-evaluating past events as well. A new motive suddenly emerges without any proof. How does his sister know that James knew about Yula's pregnancy or even her affair?

Or his mother's claim that her acts had been used. How can she prove that James was the one who used it? That doesn't mean anyone was intentionally lying. In fact, they may have sincerely believed they were helping. But once a theory takes hold, it can influence what people remember or discuss and how they make sense of what they think they knew. This is truly a very tragic case from start to finish. Well, whether or not James was innocent, his defense team was still fighting for him. After his conviction, they filed an appeal arguing that there was no evidence that James knew about his wife's affair,

which made the infidelity angle inadmissible. The court agreed. James' conviction was overturned in late 1886, but the authorities had another bite at the apple, Moses Hancock. and his trial kicked off a few months later in May of 1887. Moses had been the one to find Susan and call for help the night she died. A lot of people had been heartbroken at the thought of his traumatic loss, but now prosecutors wanted to paint Moses in a different light. They said he was an angry alcoholic who'd been physically abusive toward her for a long time,

and they called Susan's own sister to testify to these claims. One of Susan's neighbors added even more damaging testimony, claiming that she once asked if Moses could stay the night at his house because he was drunk and she was afraid of him. The prosecution had hard proof to back these claims up, too, a letter from Susan to Moses they found at the bottom of a fake flower box saying that while she loved him, she couldn't tolerate his drinking anymore. It seemed to confirm all the emotional testimony and rumors surrounding the marriage. but the prosecution still lacked one critical thing, hard physical evidence proving he'd murdered his wife. Plus, the defense latched onto Moses' claims that he'd seen two men fleeing her murder scene and jump a fence.

Not only that, but the Hancock's teenage daughter testified that her mother had never felt secure enough to actually show Moses that letter. It was a huge wrench in the prosecution's entire argument. The defense also had a surprising, witness in their corner, Sheriff Malcolm Hornsby. He didn't think Moses was guilty because he finally told the jury about Nathan Elgin, his missing toe and how there hadn't been any more murders after his death. When it was time for the jury to deliberate, they couldn't reach a verdict. Three jurors

voted guilty, while eight voted not guilty, and another undecided. Eventually, the case against Moses was dismissed. For those close to Susan who believed her husband was responsible, it was a devastating outcome. And soon, other aspects of the investigation began unraveling, too. Again, it's one thing not to disclose that to the public, but quite another not to have disclosed it to the court or internally earlier on. But doing so now was critical because it introduces reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is not the same thing as proving someone else committed the crime. It simply means there's a reasonable alternative explanation that prevents jurors from reaching a firm conviction that the defendant, in this case Moses, is guilty. Prior to Nathan,

jurors were largely evaluating whether Moses committed the murder. After learning about Nathan's missing toe, his violent behavior, the apparent match to evidence from a previous crime scene, and the fact that the murder seemed to stop after his death, jurors were faced with another possibility. And at that point, they had to wonder if they could rule Nathan out. And if the answer is no, that can be enough to create reasonable doubt. But this doesn't just introduce reasonable doubt in a legal sense. It may also introduce doubt about the investigation and the institution itself. By this point, James had already gone through criminal proceedings, been convicted, and been forced to appeal. Moses was in the middle of his own trial. Families had testified against them.

witnesses had taken the stand. Jurors had been asked to weigh these men's guilt. If investigators were aware of potentially significant information pointing in another direction and chose not to disclose it publicly, people are going to begin questioning not only the suspects, but the process. Whatever trust they may have had was likely completely gone at this point. What's especially tragic is the ripple effect, which I've talked about already, but these accusations didn't just affect James and Moses.

They affected their families, their reputations, and their relationships. Family members were forced to consider whether someone they loved might be capable of committing these crimes. Even if those suspicions were later called into question, the damage caused by them doesn't simply disappear. It's hard to repair something like this. After Moses and James walked free, no one was ever arrested for Susan and Yula's murders again. In fact, no one was ever tried for any of the cases. killings. And now, more than 140 years later, Nathan Elgin's possible involvement remains one of the biggest unanswered questions about the case. According to some historical accounts,

in addition to the arguments that led to James' acquittal, Nathan may have had a motive for his behavior. Apparently, his mother had forced him into servitude as a child. Since a young boy his age wasn't capable of hard labor, it's believed he may have spent a lot of his early life under the authority of female employers and domestic workers. Some historians and researchers have wondered whether those experiences contributed to resentment and anger that led Nathan to murder. Over the decades, countless other theories have emerged too. One of the most famous ideas is the theory that the Austin murders may have somehow been connected to the Jack the Ripper killings, specifically that the Midnight Assassin and Jack may have actually been the same person. The theory mainly comes to,

from the timing and brutality of the crimes. The Midnight Assassin murders happened first, and then just a few years later, Jack the Ripper's infamous killings began in London. Supporters of the theory also point out that after the Ripper murders suddenly stopped, reports of similarly brutal attacks surfaced in places like Nicaragua, Tunisia, and Jamaica,

all locations with international cargo ports, which led people to think the killer could have smuggled himself into different countries. People point to his violent behavior, the missing toe, the apparent footprint match, and the fact that the murders seem to stop after his death. He was younger than most serial offenders are when they become active, which is very unusual, but that's not enough to rule him out. So whether Nathan was actually responsible is, you know, still open to debate, like you said, but that theory is at least built around facts that are directly connected to the investigation. The Jack the Ripper theory operates a little differently. Psychologically, people are drawn to dramatic explanations that connect famous mysteries together,

especially unsolved ones. We've seen many with the zodiac killer as well. But all it does is expand on the mystery. But let's break them down. So here are some commonalities. They both brutally attacked, marginalized, and vulnerable women at night, and successfully evaded capture, and then they suddenly stopped. The similarities really end there.

Here's how they differ, though. The Midnight Assassin targeted women while they slept in bed, often next to partners or with children in the other room. Jack the Ripper targeted sex workers in public spaces. The Midnight Assassin used blunt force trauma with an axe or similar tool, and Jack the Ripper used knives and engaged in post-mortem mutilation. One is a home invasion type of predator, and the other is like a street predator. These are two very different profiles. And with regard to the international travel, that was absolutely possible back then, but if we're talking about a young black line cook, that theory requires him to repeatedly find work, save money, relocate to international places, and establish himself there, and continue offending across multiple countries while avoiding detection. And he would have to be doing all of that during a period when racial discrimination created additional barriers to employment and trash. and economic opportunity. And none of that is impossible, but it makes this theory less plausible.

Whether the killer was Nathan Elgin or someone else entirely may never truly be known. What we do know is that not a single victim tied to the string of violence that rocked Austin in the 1880s ever received clear justice for the horrific ways their lives were taken. And even now, more than 140 years later, the case still does. lingers as one of America's earliest and most disturbing, unsolved murder sprees.

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 Crime House original powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your supports. If you like what you heard today, reach out on Instagram at Crimehouse. 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 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 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, Markey Lee, Sarah Batchelor, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening.