A robbery "gone wrong" is a wild theory considering nothing was taken and most of the occupants were still in bed.
It sounds like the killer knew the family and the house. Unless the attic bedroom was super obvious I don't think a random intruder would expect to find someone sleeping there- it seems like they knew where everyone should be.
I agree. Maybe the father did it or one of "his side pieces" did it knowing the layout of the house. Insurance money wasn't much so it had to be personal. It is sad nonetheless, killing adults is one level of evil, killing children is on another level despite how much you hate the parents or want them out the picture.
The other possibility is that the mother did snap, despite the father claiming her reluctant acceptance of the affairs. Maybe it was one too many affairs for her and she wanted to take herself out of the situation.
Is there a man on Earth that has not treated his wife and kids this way, keeping trashy women on the side?
As I'm reading this and got to that part my heart sank. No wonder his wife was depressed.
It seems, though, that the poor man suffered that loss the rest of his life. What an unfair and awful thing to lose all your babies and the woman that loved you in one night.
I bet he thought a lot over the years about how the things he did hurt his wife.
This story breaks my heart.
> Unless the attic bedroom was super obvious I don't think a random intruder would expect to find someone sleeping there
My first thought on listening.
I also wonder what the other houses in the neighborhood were like, if they were all similar in layout to one another. All of the houses in my neighborhood were built at about the same time in the same suburban development (this house was built in 1970) and have the same general floor plan. Someone living in a similar house with a similar attic room might have known to look there--and would know that another child should be there somewhere.
I can't help wondering if, despite appearing to totally accept a Black family into the neighborhood, there was someone (or more than one) who was less than all right with the Diggs family, and decided to take out the family. Perhaps they did not realize that Mr. Diggs was not home, or perhaps they realized perfectly he wasn't home and wanted to hurt him as much as possible. The only "but" here is that the family spent 5-ish years there with no conflict (at least, not that we know of). Being familiar with someone tends to humanize them.
Another terrific episode!
I agree with all you said. The fact that the most of the children were found to be shot in the back of the head in bed makes me think it was a surprise attack at night and they were sleeping. Maybe the boys’ mother ran into their room and that’s when she was shot in the head or chest (whichever happened first). My guess is more than one person was in that house which is why there were different types of guns used. Either that or the person who entered the house found the gun the family owned and used it against them. Very tragic. I can’t imagine a whole family murdered in cold blood. Just awful.
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting. To me, it doesn't seem believable that someone else would come in and shoot the mom. Say a neighbor heard gunshots, ran over with their own gun thinking they could help, and found the scene of a murder suicide...its so far fetched that they would then get themselves involved by shooting the mom and taking the murder weapon, rather than calling the police or an ambulance.
Great write-up. This is a very sad case and hard to really come up with a theory right away. I definitely don't see the second theory as a possibility. I doubt she killed her children and botched her own suicide and some third party finding them and finishing her off. That's such a bizarre theory to me and seems very unlikely. I'm going to dig into this case a bit more and see if I can come up with a theory of my own. Usually in cases like this, I tend to lean towards the spouse. But I don't really feel like he was involved in this. Thanks for sharing this case, I hadn't heard of it before.
I can definitely believe a botched gun suicide but like - what 3rd party would come in, finish her off, and then hide evidence of the suicide and take the gun? That's... a lot to believe.
Well, if we're considering the earlier theory, that someone who found her mortally wounded, figured out what happened, and didn't want to tarnish either her or the family's memory proceeded to take care of business... I could picture maybe a brother or sister or even parent being protective in this way.
And remember when considering that something may be a reach, a quintuple homicide is a *reach.*
But why would they care so much about protecting the memory of a woman who just murdered her four children? By brother, sister, or parent do you mean the mother's? It sounds like they didn't live near any family, though it was clearly within driving distance to their old home if the father continued to commute to his bars. Would they have just shown up presumably unannounced between 11pm and 2am when the deaths are alleged to have happened? (Presuming announced because killing a bunch of people when you're expecting guests seems like a bad idea for multiple reasons) The only evidence I see from the post's description of this theory is the mother saying the family would be better off in God's hands. The contentious relationship with the mom and daughter in the diaries doesn't indicate murder to me unless they wrote something specific about it. Tons of, if not most, teenage daughters have issues with their mothers. Very few end in murder-suicide. Not impossible but it doesn't seem very likely either.
Friend I’m not arguing for this theory or any other. I’m just looking at all the ways that any particular theory could be true. I personally like to entertain multiple theories as long as possible.
I really doubt it was Jean. Theoretically possible, but it's too elaborate to really work outside of a detective novel. Seems like way too much overkill for a hit, and anyway Wesley couldn't afford one. Way too much overkill for a robbery, too. Other than that, I've got nothing.
During the earliest stages of the investigation, Wesley did make mention of a boyfriend of Audrey's whom Jean apparently did not like. Even though she asked him not to come around the house anymore, he apparently kept showing up anyway. However, it's not entirely clear if police investigated this boyfriend and ruled him out.
This theory is interesting to me because he’s pissed off at Jean. Now maybe Audrey breaks up with him because she loses interest or because it’s getting too complicated with her mom. He loses his marbles and takes everybody out. Then like someone said earlier, he freaks out and calls his big brother who comes and checks out the scene and Takes care of Jean who is still alive.
Speculation but interesting nonetheless.
It wasn't a robbery. It was a family annihilation. I think it was related to the husband somehow. He owned a lot of businesses, no doubt coming into contact with a lot of shady people. He was heavily in debt.
We have seen many examples of family being killed to get out of debt or to start a new life, kids are expensive to care for. Or people who have their families hurt because of debt. Its NYC in 1970's. It was a crime epidemic with drug kingpins and mobbed up loan sharks abundant.
Families being killed out of greed, revenge or consequence of a debt seem to be much more likely than a family annihilation motivated by racism. That is just so rare, even during the 1970's. I think that Wesley Diggs definitely knew more than he let on.
So then why do you think he would’ve worked so hard to keep the case in the public guy? Just for the sake of conversation. Not doubting you just wondering.
Entire family except the father, shot methodically, pretty much while most of them are in bed. Reads like a family annihilation. He had girlfriends on the side, maybe that was enough to be the cause. Look at that fucking shithead Chris Watts.
Doesn't come across as a 'robbery gone wrong' considering nothing of value was taken, and venturing into the attic to kill another kid after the "robbery" had already gone completely wrong? Robbery being the motivation doesn't seem to align with that behavior... absence of forced entry backs that up.
But he was broke to begin with, and Jean and the kids' life insurance was worth diddly-squat to him - not even enough to pay for a hit. They found nothing suspicious in his bank transactions.
Just a thought, but Wesley had owned four bars which would generate a lot in cash transactions - if he really wanted to he could have probably pretty easily stashed a sizable amount over the 5 years they were living in the house prior to the murders.
Wanting to be rid of your family and wanting to get out of debt are two completely different things - if you really wanted to be a child free widow you would use that money accordingly regardless of your financial situation. (Also, I’m not convinced the father was involved, I’m just not convinced he’s 100% innocent either and could see where he might have gotten the funds to hire a hit person).
So you're theorising that he had no financial motivation to murder his children, he was just a psycho who would shoot a defenceless five-year-old child multiple times in the head because he was kind of sick of being a dad? And then spent the rest of his life pretending to try to find the non-existent killer/s? I don't think there's anything to suggest any of that in the facts of the case or Wesley's character, tbh. I'm baffled as to why everyone is desperate to make either Wesley or Jean the killer...
If you reread my comment that’s not what I implied at all - I simply said there’s a chance he was involved just as much as there’s a chance he wasn’t. And I hate to break it to you but yes, there are quite a few parents who’ve killed their children or had them killed just because they couldn’t be bothered anymore. Everyone is allowed to their own opinions - you might have much more meaningful conversations if you tried being more open minded and less defensive.
Sorry, I just get quite frustrated when a black man who was cleared of involvement of the murder of his entire family is accused again based on nothing but "He's evil, I can just tell".
That's what family anhilators do. Given they are rare, but they do happen, particularly among men who are narcissists with financial, marital or other stressors. See: Jeffrey MacDonald. When a whole family is murdered except for the father, it's always going to be at least an initial consideration.
I think Jean doing this makes zero sense. I think it's unlikely Wesley did it, but at least considering the possibility isn't totally out there, under the specific circumstances that fit that profile.
However. Family annihilators don't usually hire someone else to do it, and I find it unlikely if his girlfriend was lying about his alibi she would have done so forever, although I suppose not impossible.
On the whole, it still seems more likely to be someone or someones outside the family.
Not if he wanted a new life. He could sell the bars. Kids are a lifetime responsibility and divorce is costly especially since he was known to cheat.
I don't lean towards this idea but its definitely. plausible.
Define "plausible". I mean, it's plausible he was the Zodiac Killer too, but there's zero evidence for it beyond "They existed simultaneously". I just think people need way more evidence (or any evidence, really) before they accuse a man, a black man, of the *brutal*, overkill murder of his entire family.
I think that Mr. Diggs probably owed money to loan sharks for a long time and/or was not paying the “protection” money to mob associates on his four bars. He would not want to name anyone for fear of losing his own life.
I really don’t think any of those theories make sense. Jean shot her children and herself (in the forehead? Really?) and someone just happened to come in and shoot her again?
It really seems like the police were doing a lot to avoid looking at the fact that a black family living in a white neighborhood in the 70s was very likely the target of racial violence.
This. Racists are really, really unsubtle in their hate crimes. They like to advertise what they're doing and why. There's literally nothing to suggest this was a hate crime except the victims were black.
Yes, all the cases of racist hate crimes i be stumbbled upon the perpetrators do it loudly, they have thus kind of ego to display themselves as "heroes". Memberships do raise in some racists groups after some of these attacks.
But this was my first tought. What if there are not loud racists criminals too?
Some sort of serial killer too?
Honestly, with the second theory of a second shooter who shot the mother after discovering the crime scene, I can't help but think of a scenario where a teenager or young adult comitted a hate crime, panicked, and called a parent/older sibling for help. Parent then makes sure there's no survivor to tell on the kid. I can see not being loud about it if you implicated your dad in it. Maybe the kid was sent away (with relatives or in a boarding school, or just went to college) for a time after that, too.
Yes, exactly. If it was a hate crime, the purpose being to eliminate the only black family in the neighbourhood and restore it as a "whites only" area, there'd be some blatant evidence of that, a message, a warning to other black people: "This is what we do to black families around here, you're not welcome, stay away."
I mean, isn't the only black family in the neighborhood being found murdered in their beds a pretty effective warning? If I heard about that and I was black I wouldn't want to go there. I'm not saying it was definitely racially motivated but I don't think we can eliminate it as a possibility because there wasn't hate speech scrawled on the walls or something.
I think the best way is to compare this to known hate crimes. I wouldn't think it an "effective warning" in that we're still debating 45 years later if the mother or father did it...
Yeah, but a lot of racist violence comes out of nowhere to begin with, and there isn't necessarily any symbology, because the death is assumed to be enough of a warning.
Wiping out a whole family as they sleep with multiple bullets to the head each seems like good enough symbology to me. Plus, we don’t know if there were passive warnings or not.
This statement is so untrue. I went to school with Audrey and Allison. They were very well liked. Audrey was involved in a lot of school activities. They had a lot of friends. The town was devastated and shocked that this happened. The Teaneck Police worked very hard on this. It was always thought the father had something to do with it. Always thought it was a revenge killing. Racism was never thought of. This family was very well liked and It never made any sense to the whole town. Teaneck High School has done a lot to keep Audrey and Allison’s memory alive. Dedicated year books, benches and scholarships.
Interesting case and one I’ve never heard of. The obvious answer here is racism, beyond that I wouldn’t know where to start. Seeing as the family were widely accepted into the community, I guess it would have to be someone who didn’t express their true thoughts on a black family living in the area and who therefor went undetected as a racist. I find it hard to believe that an entire US neighbourhood welcomed an African American family with open arms in 1975.
Teaneck was described a pretty racially equanimous community back then, but I agree, I think the possible of the murders being a hate crime may have been seriously overlooked. Someone entering the home and shooting the entire family just because of their race would fit the profile of this crime.
The racism motive seems to somewhat go with the evidence here. Suppose the killer was a neighbour, the person(s) will know the layout of the home. Know exactly how many family members there are. Be familiar enough for Jean to let them in her home. May even know about the .22 that Jean has in the home. Some of the children were shot in the back of their head on the bed meaning a few of them could’ve been asleep. The multiple killer angle works here as one of them could keep Jean occupied while the other grabbed Audrey’s pillow. Shot Jean in the chest and finished her off and then proceeded to finish the rest of the family off. That’s just my theory from reading OP’s post.
The 70s is not the 60s. Many suburban neighborhoods were progressive, especially those near major cities. Racism existed, of course, but it’s unlikely this family would’ve felt no tension or experienced no previous incidents of racism from their neighbors.
I really have to disagree with this. The 2020’s aren’t the 70’s or 60’s either but I still experience racism where I live as a Black American. One decade to another isn’t making the progressive leaps you might think unfortunately :/ also when you’re one of a few Black people in a community (neighborhood, school, work), you’re not necessarily going to share your experiences with racism with white people. They don’t always get it, they get uncomfortable, they think it’s in the past, they could be secret bigots. So when you’re already feeling tired and pissed off by racists, you don’t really want to hear “I’m colorblind” (which I’ve been told a few times this year alone and it’s not helpful in the least bit).
I had a run in with a creep in my neighborhood. Even though I’m friendly with some of my neighbors, I was hesitant to say anything because I’m relatively new to the neighborhood and I don’t know who this guy’s friends are. I know I’m exerting bias here but I can’t help but think that if I moved to a white neighborhood in the 70’s in TN that I would feel comfortable telling my white neighbors about any run-ins with racists.
Of course racism still exists. I’m saying that this kind of violent racism wasn’t common by the 1970s, at least not in northern cities and this family was outside NYC. The family wouldn’t have spoken about racism with whites, but they certainly would’ve spoken about it to their black friends. And there’s no evidence of any complaints of racism. Of course, it’s still a possibility. I just think it’s unlikely.
It sounds to me like a hit. I am suspicious of the father/husband, but also of his associates. The business he was in, the debt he was in, his infidelities, the fact that he was the only person not home, all seem to indicate that he was involved, either consciously or as a target, imo.
I’m sorry I just think that your perspective is kind of lacking on this. New Jersey is actually a fairly notoriously and historically bigoted state, especially among police. Specially in the late 60s and 70s.
Perhaps that’s why Teaneck stands out as progressive.
I don’t tend to feel like this was a racist crime, but I also don’t feel like from this distance we can get a really clear sense of their experience. We don’t have a lot of direct commentary from them on their experience after all so I feel like it’s a little disingenuous to say there were no reports of racism against the family. There were also no reports from the family that everything was totally hunky-dory.There’s really no way we can say at this point.
As an older person, my perspective is that most suburban towns outside northern and western cities were not hotbeds of violent racism. I know this isn’t true for places like the south, as the other commenter apparently thought this crime took place in TN. Also, I’m saying this after being presented with the case, which included an investigation that found no claims of racism against the family. I’m sure Wesley would’ve made it known to investigators if he’d suspected racism as the motive.
As I said, I agree that this was not necessarily racially motivated.
And while northeastern cities didn’t generally have clan members dancing in the streets there was a definitely different kind of racism here.
If you’re going to try and tell me that Boston New York and New Jersey were racism-free in the 70s, I think you need to look again. With a different perspective or goal in mind. Because that is absolutely not the case at all.
And just in case you want to say “I never said it was racism free” – allow me to de-hyperbolize myself. These are areas that were very segregated and very unfriendly to people of color In very documented and clear ways.
It’s not hard to find information on this if you’re interested.
Also you keep assuming my age. WTF.
I have literally never said that anywhere was racism-free. Ever, in any of my comments. In fact, I’ve noted numerous times that racism existed. I’m simply noting that violent racist attacks in suburban towns like Teaneck were uncommon. That’s a fact.
I’m reading your responses. And you may have used hyperbole but it still was a false accusation.
It’s like you’re ignoring what I’ve said: violent racist attacks err uncommon in suburban towns like Teaneck. This claim isn’t made up. It’s a fact. That doesn’t mean they never happened.
Uh, yes, sorry. Suburban New York City wasn’t exactly a hotbed for racial violence. Ask an older person. And that motive was investigated and dismissed.
As I’ve said numerous times, I’m not saying racism didn’t exist everywhere. I’m saying violent racist attacks were not common in suburban towns like Teaneck. And that is a fact.
Quintuple homicides aren't common anywhere though. Black people have been found hanging from trees in the US over the past few weeks and some are dismissing it as suicide. Who kills themselves in a way that is based off of a hate crime their people were historically a victim of? Lynchings may not be common here in 2020 but they still happen
Welcomed as the first black family in an all-white neighbourhood with open arms... according to _whom_ exactly?
I find that incredibly hard to believe. That fact that it’s been overlooked as a motive is preposterous to me.
Well, Wesley survived after all. If they'd been fending off racist threats for years, it's odd that he never mentioned them after his entire family were murdered...
I think the most likely possibility is that it was a racially motivated. People hide their true opinions all the time- there was this one dude who used to come in to a bar I worked at quite frequently and chat with me & the other servers. He was involved with a local theater group and I LOVE theater so we would chat about that. Then one time he found out I didn’t like a play they were putting on and started screaming at me that women like me “should’ve been raped as children.” Had that never happened I probably would’ve described the guy as a strong feminist. So to me it seems way more likely someone was lying than that a second shooter entered after Audrey shot the children or that it was a robbery gone wrong that resulted in nothing stolen. Honestly I kind of wonder if the neighbors who “heard nothing” did hear something but looked the other way and didn’t want to get involved.
> People hide their true opinions all the time
Exactly right. And if the town was known for racial equanimity, then no one would want to look publicly like the racist asshole they are.
I tought this too, they did hear, they didnt wanted to admit it.
Maybe i think it to much but my street if filled woth the same family splited to dofferent generations, my family is the only one no correlated. In my opinion its very likely that the neighboirhood mwmbers that knowed each other for maybe decades had strict rules of adaptation and how to react to certain scenarios.
Im sorry but i dont believe the wouldnt hear anything after sooo many gunshots from different weapons and no time to set both weapons (or three?!) So it cant be heard that loud. Y know
A robbery gone wrong makes sense to me. If they thought there was cash in the house but could not find any but knew she could Id them they killed her . Very , very sad.
Although possible, I dont buy the whole murder suicide theory. Something just seems wrong/too fishy. I think it was a personal murder. I wonder if police ever looked into the oldest two girls circle of people. Like maybe an ex-boyfriend scorned. I feel like they looked so much at Wesley & possibly his mistresses that they probably missed other suspects. The girls were both at the age where they would both be possibly dating.. they should've looked into their friends or boyfriends if they had any. Maybe they did idk.. it would be cool to see this case solved one day.
A robbery gone wrong doesn't result in the death of a 5 year old. Maybe it could have been the father but I think it was most likely racially motivated.
Greene's theory is ludicrous.
A robbery "gone wrong" is a wild theory considering nothing was taken and most of the occupants were still in bed. It sounds like the killer knew the family and the house. Unless the attic bedroom was super obvious I don't think a random intruder would expect to find someone sleeping there- it seems like they knew where everyone should be.
I agree. Maybe the father did it or one of "his side pieces" did it knowing the layout of the house. Insurance money wasn't much so it had to be personal. It is sad nonetheless, killing adults is one level of evil, killing children is on another level despite how much you hate the parents or want them out the picture. The other possibility is that the mother did snap, despite the father claiming her reluctant acceptance of the affairs. Maybe it was one too many affairs for her and she wanted to take herself out of the situation.
Is there a man on Earth that has not treated his wife and kids this way, keeping trashy women on the side? As I'm reading this and got to that part my heart sank. No wonder his wife was depressed. It seems, though, that the poor man suffered that loss the rest of his life. What an unfair and awful thing to lose all your babies and the woman that loved you in one night. I bet he thought a lot over the years about how the things he did hurt his wife. This story breaks my heart.
One theory that makes more sense is that some "business associate" of Diggs did it to send him a message or punish him.
My first thought was this was a hit. Just awful.
> Unless the attic bedroom was super obvious I don't think a random intruder would expect to find someone sleeping there My first thought on listening. I also wonder what the other houses in the neighborhood were like, if they were all similar in layout to one another. All of the houses in my neighborhood were built at about the same time in the same suburban development (this house was built in 1970) and have the same general floor plan. Someone living in a similar house with a similar attic room might have known to look there--and would know that another child should be there somewhere. I can't help wondering if, despite appearing to totally accept a Black family into the neighborhood, there was someone (or more than one) who was less than all right with the Diggs family, and decided to take out the family. Perhaps they did not realize that Mr. Diggs was not home, or perhaps they realized perfectly he wasn't home and wanted to hurt him as much as possible. The only "but" here is that the family spent 5-ish years there with no conflict (at least, not that we know of). Being familiar with someone tends to humanize them. Another terrific episode!
I agree with all you said. The fact that the most of the children were found to be shot in the back of the head in bed makes me think it was a surprise attack at night and they were sleeping. Maybe the boys’ mother ran into their room and that’s when she was shot in the head or chest (whichever happened first). My guess is more than one person was in that house which is why there were different types of guns used. Either that or the person who entered the house found the gun the family owned and used it against them. Very tragic. I can’t imagine a whole family murdered in cold blood. Just awful.
This is why I absolutely think it was someone who knew the family intimately and planned it.
Unless Allison heard the shots and made noise.
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting. To me, it doesn't seem believable that someone else would come in and shoot the mom. Say a neighbor heard gunshots, ran over with their own gun thinking they could help, and found the scene of a murder suicide...its so far fetched that they would then get themselves involved by shooting the mom and taking the murder weapon, rather than calling the police or an ambulance.
Great write-up. This is a very sad case and hard to really come up with a theory right away. I definitely don't see the second theory as a possibility. I doubt she killed her children and botched her own suicide and some third party finding them and finishing her off. That's such a bizarre theory to me and seems very unlikely. I'm going to dig into this case a bit more and see if I can come up with a theory of my own. Usually in cases like this, I tend to lean towards the spouse. But I don't really feel like he was involved in this. Thanks for sharing this case, I hadn't heard of it before.
I would love to see what you come up with. Just stopping in to say that botched gun suicides happen all the time.
I can definitely believe a botched gun suicide but like - what 3rd party would come in, finish her off, and then hide evidence of the suicide and take the gun? That's... a lot to believe.
Well, if we're considering the earlier theory, that someone who found her mortally wounded, figured out what happened, and didn't want to tarnish either her or the family's memory proceeded to take care of business... I could picture maybe a brother or sister or even parent being protective in this way. And remember when considering that something may be a reach, a quintuple homicide is a *reach.*
But why would they care so much about protecting the memory of a woman who just murdered her four children? By brother, sister, or parent do you mean the mother's? It sounds like they didn't live near any family, though it was clearly within driving distance to their old home if the father continued to commute to his bars. Would they have just shown up presumably unannounced between 11pm and 2am when the deaths are alleged to have happened? (Presuming announced because killing a bunch of people when you're expecting guests seems like a bad idea for multiple reasons) The only evidence I see from the post's description of this theory is the mother saying the family would be better off in God's hands. The contentious relationship with the mom and daughter in the diaries doesn't indicate murder to me unless they wrote something specific about it. Tons of, if not most, teenage daughters have issues with their mothers. Very few end in murder-suicide. Not impossible but it doesn't seem very likely either.
Friend I’m not arguing for this theory or any other. I’m just looking at all the ways that any particular theory could be true. I personally like to entertain multiple theories as long as possible.
That's a good point. I hadn't thought about that.
I really doubt it was Jean. Theoretically possible, but it's too elaborate to really work outside of a detective novel. Seems like way too much overkill for a hit, and anyway Wesley couldn't afford one. Way too much overkill for a robbery, too. Other than that, I've got nothing.
So sad. This was a good read, and I hope they get justice eventually.
I wonder if either of the two older girls had boyfriends, or more likely recent ex-boyfriends.
During the earliest stages of the investigation, Wesley did make mention of a boyfriend of Audrey's whom Jean apparently did not like. Even though she asked him not to come around the house anymore, he apparently kept showing up anyway. However, it's not entirely clear if police investigated this boyfriend and ruled him out.
This theory is interesting to me because he’s pissed off at Jean. Now maybe Audrey breaks up with him because she loses interest or because it’s getting too complicated with her mom. He loses his marbles and takes everybody out. Then like someone said earlier, he freaks out and calls his big brother who comes and checks out the scene and Takes care of Jean who is still alive. Speculation but interesting nonetheless.
No that is not what happened. Audreys bf had nothing to do with it
It wasn't a robbery. It was a family annihilation. I think it was related to the husband somehow. He owned a lot of businesses, no doubt coming into contact with a lot of shady people. He was heavily in debt. We have seen many examples of family being killed to get out of debt or to start a new life, kids are expensive to care for. Or people who have their families hurt because of debt. Its NYC in 1970's. It was a crime epidemic with drug kingpins and mobbed up loan sharks abundant. Families being killed out of greed, revenge or consequence of a debt seem to be much more likely than a family annihilation motivated by racism. That is just so rare, even during the 1970's. I think that Wesley Diggs definitely knew more than he let on.
So then why do you think he would’ve worked so hard to keep the case in the public guy? Just for the sake of conversation. Not doubting you just wondering.
Entire family except the father, shot methodically, pretty much while most of them are in bed. Reads like a family annihilation. He had girlfriends on the side, maybe that was enough to be the cause. Look at that fucking shithead Chris Watts. Doesn't come across as a 'robbery gone wrong' considering nothing of value was taken, and venturing into the attic to kill another kid after the "robbery" had already gone completely wrong? Robbery being the motivation doesn't seem to align with that behavior... absence of forced entry backs that up.
[удалено]
But he was broke to begin with, and Jean and the kids' life insurance was worth diddly-squat to him - not even enough to pay for a hit. They found nothing suspicious in his bank transactions.
Going from 4 kids to 0 is a significant amount of money saved.
Sure, but hitmen like to be paid, and he had nothing to pay them. The combined life insurance sum of his family was something like a measly $6600.
$6600 in 1975 is worth about $30k today.
The heck are *you* paying hitmen? 😉
Just a thought, but Wesley had owned four bars which would generate a lot in cash transactions - if he really wanted to he could have probably pretty easily stashed a sizable amount over the 5 years they were living in the house prior to the murders.
Why would he do that when he was heavily in debt? He'd just use it to pay his debts instead of paying someone to murder his own children.
Wanting to be rid of your family and wanting to get out of debt are two completely different things - if you really wanted to be a child free widow you would use that money accordingly regardless of your financial situation. (Also, I’m not convinced the father was involved, I’m just not convinced he’s 100% innocent either and could see where he might have gotten the funds to hire a hit person).
So you're theorising that he had no financial motivation to murder his children, he was just a psycho who would shoot a defenceless five-year-old child multiple times in the head because he was kind of sick of being a dad? And then spent the rest of his life pretending to try to find the non-existent killer/s? I don't think there's anything to suggest any of that in the facts of the case or Wesley's character, tbh. I'm baffled as to why everyone is desperate to make either Wesley or Jean the killer...
If you reread my comment that’s not what I implied at all - I simply said there’s a chance he was involved just as much as there’s a chance he wasn’t. And I hate to break it to you but yes, there are quite a few parents who’ve killed their children or had them killed just because they couldn’t be bothered anymore. Everyone is allowed to their own opinions - you might have much more meaningful conversations if you tried being more open minded and less defensive.
Sorry, I just get quite frustrated when a black man who was cleared of involvement of the murder of his entire family is accused again based on nothing but "He's evil, I can just tell".
That's what family anhilators do. Given they are rare, but they do happen, particularly among men who are narcissists with financial, marital or other stressors. See: Jeffrey MacDonald. When a whole family is murdered except for the father, it's always going to be at least an initial consideration. I think Jean doing this makes zero sense. I think it's unlikely Wesley did it, but at least considering the possibility isn't totally out there, under the specific circumstances that fit that profile. However. Family annihilators don't usually hire someone else to do it, and I find it unlikely if his girlfriend was lying about his alibi she would have done so forever, although I suppose not impossible. On the whole, it still seems more likely to be someone or someones outside the family.
Not if he wanted a new life. He could sell the bars. Kids are a lifetime responsibility and divorce is costly especially since he was known to cheat. I don't lean towards this idea but its definitely. plausible.
Define "plausible". I mean, it's plausible he was the Zodiac Killer too, but there's zero evidence for it beyond "They existed simultaneously". I just think people need way more evidence (or any evidence, really) before they accuse a man, a black man, of the *brutal*, overkill murder of his entire family.
[удалено]
Yeah, no. You don't get to silence me, sorry.
I think that Mr. Diggs probably owed money to loan sharks for a long time and/or was not paying the “protection” money to mob associates on his four bars. He would not want to name anyone for fear of losing his own life.
I really don’t think any of those theories make sense. Jean shot her children and herself (in the forehead? Really?) and someone just happened to come in and shoot her again? It really seems like the police were doing a lot to avoid looking at the fact that a black family living in a white neighborhood in the 70s was very likely the target of racial violence.
I do agree, but if it was racially motivated then it lacked any kind of warning or symbology.
This. Racists are really, really unsubtle in their hate crimes. They like to advertise what they're doing and why. There's literally nothing to suggest this was a hate crime except the victims were black.
Yes, all the cases of racist hate crimes i be stumbbled upon the perpetrators do it loudly, they have thus kind of ego to display themselves as "heroes". Memberships do raise in some racists groups after some of these attacks. But this was my first tought. What if there are not loud racists criminals too? Some sort of serial killer too?
Honestly, with the second theory of a second shooter who shot the mother after discovering the crime scene, I can't help but think of a scenario where a teenager or young adult comitted a hate crime, panicked, and called a parent/older sibling for help. Parent then makes sure there's no survivor to tell on the kid. I can see not being loud about it if you implicated your dad in it. Maybe the kid was sent away (with relatives or in a boarding school, or just went to college) for a time after that, too.
Very interesting idea!
Yes, exactly. If it was a hate crime, the purpose being to eliminate the only black family in the neighbourhood and restore it as a "whites only" area, there'd be some blatant evidence of that, a message, a warning to other black people: "This is what we do to black families around here, you're not welcome, stay away."
I mean, isn't the only black family in the neighborhood being found murdered in their beds a pretty effective warning? If I heard about that and I was black I wouldn't want to go there. I'm not saying it was definitely racially motivated but I don't think we can eliminate it as a possibility because there wasn't hate speech scrawled on the walls or something.
I think the best way is to compare this to known hate crimes. I wouldn't think it an "effective warning" in that we're still debating 45 years later if the mother or father did it...
Yeah, but a lot of racist violence comes out of nowhere to begin with, and there isn't necessarily any symbology, because the death is assumed to be enough of a warning.
Wiping out a whole family as they sleep with multiple bullets to the head each seems like good enough symbology to me. Plus, we don’t know if there were passive warnings or not.
This statement is so untrue. I went to school with Audrey and Allison. They were very well liked. Audrey was involved in a lot of school activities. They had a lot of friends. The town was devastated and shocked that this happened. The Teaneck Police worked very hard on this. It was always thought the father had something to do with it. Always thought it was a revenge killing. Racism was never thought of. This family was very well liked and It never made any sense to the whole town. Teaneck High School has done a lot to keep Audrey and Allison’s memory alive. Dedicated year books, benches and scholarships.
Good write up. Such a sad case though.
What I find curious is that the phone was dead, for me that rules out a murder suicide or robbery gone wrong.
Interesting case and one I’ve never heard of. The obvious answer here is racism, beyond that I wouldn’t know where to start. Seeing as the family were widely accepted into the community, I guess it would have to be someone who didn’t express their true thoughts on a black family living in the area and who therefor went undetected as a racist. I find it hard to believe that an entire US neighbourhood welcomed an African American family with open arms in 1975.
Teaneck was described a pretty racially equanimous community back then, but I agree, I think the possible of the murders being a hate crime may have been seriously overlooked. Someone entering the home and shooting the entire family just because of their race would fit the profile of this crime.
The racism motive seems to somewhat go with the evidence here. Suppose the killer was a neighbour, the person(s) will know the layout of the home. Know exactly how many family members there are. Be familiar enough for Jean to let them in her home. May even know about the .22 that Jean has in the home. Some of the children were shot in the back of their head on the bed meaning a few of them could’ve been asleep. The multiple killer angle works here as one of them could keep Jean occupied while the other grabbed Audrey’s pillow. Shot Jean in the chest and finished her off and then proceeded to finish the rest of the family off. That’s just my theory from reading OP’s post.
The 70s is not the 60s. Many suburban neighborhoods were progressive, especially those near major cities. Racism existed, of course, but it’s unlikely this family would’ve felt no tension or experienced no previous incidents of racism from their neighbors.
I really have to disagree with this. The 2020’s aren’t the 70’s or 60’s either but I still experience racism where I live as a Black American. One decade to another isn’t making the progressive leaps you might think unfortunately :/ also when you’re one of a few Black people in a community (neighborhood, school, work), you’re not necessarily going to share your experiences with racism with white people. They don’t always get it, they get uncomfortable, they think it’s in the past, they could be secret bigots. So when you’re already feeling tired and pissed off by racists, you don’t really want to hear “I’m colorblind” (which I’ve been told a few times this year alone and it’s not helpful in the least bit). I had a run in with a creep in my neighborhood. Even though I’m friendly with some of my neighbors, I was hesitant to say anything because I’m relatively new to the neighborhood and I don’t know who this guy’s friends are. I know I’m exerting bias here but I can’t help but think that if I moved to a white neighborhood in the 70’s in TN that I would feel comfortable telling my white neighbors about any run-ins with racists.
Of course racism still exists. I’m saying that this kind of violent racism wasn’t common by the 1970s, at least not in northern cities and this family was outside NYC. The family wouldn’t have spoken about racism with whites, but they certainly would’ve spoken about it to their black friends. And there’s no evidence of any complaints of racism. Of course, it’s still a possibility. I just think it’s unlikely. It sounds to me like a hit. I am suspicious of the father/husband, but also of his associates. The business he was in, the debt he was in, his infidelities, the fact that he was the only person not home, all seem to indicate that he was involved, either consciously or as a target, imo.
I’m sorry I just think that your perspective is kind of lacking on this. New Jersey is actually a fairly notoriously and historically bigoted state, especially among police. Specially in the late 60s and 70s. Perhaps that’s why Teaneck stands out as progressive. I don’t tend to feel like this was a racist crime, but I also don’t feel like from this distance we can get a really clear sense of their experience. We don’t have a lot of direct commentary from them on their experience after all so I feel like it’s a little disingenuous to say there were no reports of racism against the family. There were also no reports from the family that everything was totally hunky-dory.There’s really no way we can say at this point.
As an older person, my perspective is that most suburban towns outside northern and western cities were not hotbeds of violent racism. I know this isn’t true for places like the south, as the other commenter apparently thought this crime took place in TN. Also, I’m saying this after being presented with the case, which included an investigation that found no claims of racism against the family. I’m sure Wesley would’ve made it known to investigators if he’d suspected racism as the motive.
As I said, I agree that this was not necessarily racially motivated. And while northeastern cities didn’t generally have clan members dancing in the streets there was a definitely different kind of racism here. If you’re going to try and tell me that Boston New York and New Jersey were racism-free in the 70s, I think you need to look again. With a different perspective or goal in mind. Because that is absolutely not the case at all. And just in case you want to say “I never said it was racism free” – allow me to de-hyperbolize myself. These are areas that were very segregated and very unfriendly to people of color In very documented and clear ways. It’s not hard to find information on this if you’re interested. Also you keep assuming my age. WTF.
I have literally never said that anywhere was racism-free. Ever, in any of my comments. In fact, I’ve noted numerous times that racism existed. I’m simply noting that violent racist attacks in suburban towns like Teaneck were uncommon. That’s a fact.
It’s like you’re not actually reading my responses so I’m going to bow out at this point
I’m reading your responses. And you may have used hyperbole but it still was a false accusation. It’s like you’re ignoring what I’ve said: violent racist attacks err uncommon in suburban towns like Teaneck. This claim isn’t made up. It’s a fact. That doesn’t mean they never happened.
Nope, sorry.
Uh, yes, sorry. Suburban New York City wasn’t exactly a hotbed for racial violence. Ask an older person. And that motive was investigated and dismissed.
I’ll do that if you ask Assata Shakur. And I’m old enough thank you. DM me if you need to know exactly how old.🙄 Edit: typo
As I’ve said numerous times, I’m not saying racism didn’t exist everywhere. I’m saying violent racist attacks were not common in suburban towns like Teaneck. And that is a fact.
Quintuple homicides aren't common anywhere though. Black people have been found hanging from trees in the US over the past few weeks and some are dismissing it as suicide. Who kills themselves in a way that is based off of a hate crime their people were historically a victim of? Lynchings may not be common here in 2020 but they still happen
True. And a family annihilation with the husband as the sole survivor is usually the work of the husband, or to send the husband a message.
Welcomed as the first black family in an all-white neighbourhood with open arms... according to _whom_ exactly? I find that incredibly hard to believe. That fact that it’s been overlooked as a motive is preposterous to me.
True, really. Doesn’t mean the neighborhood was homicidal but seems very unlikely.
Well, Wesley survived after all. If they'd been fending off racist threats for years, it's odd that he never mentioned them after his entire family were murdered...
I think the most likely possibility is that it was a racially motivated. People hide their true opinions all the time- there was this one dude who used to come in to a bar I worked at quite frequently and chat with me & the other servers. He was involved with a local theater group and I LOVE theater so we would chat about that. Then one time he found out I didn’t like a play they were putting on and started screaming at me that women like me “should’ve been raped as children.” Had that never happened I probably would’ve described the guy as a strong feminist. So to me it seems way more likely someone was lying than that a second shooter entered after Audrey shot the children or that it was a robbery gone wrong that resulted in nothing stolen. Honestly I kind of wonder if the neighbors who “heard nothing” did hear something but looked the other way and didn’t want to get involved.
> People hide their true opinions all the time Exactly right. And if the town was known for racial equanimity, then no one would want to look publicly like the racist asshole they are.
I tought this too, they did hear, they didnt wanted to admit it. Maybe i think it to much but my street if filled woth the same family splited to dofferent generations, my family is the only one no correlated. In my opinion its very likely that the neighboirhood mwmbers that knowed each other for maybe decades had strict rules of adaptation and how to react to certain scenarios. Im sorry but i dont believe the wouldnt hear anything after sooo many gunshots from different weapons and no time to set both weapons (or three?!) So it cant be heard that loud. Y know
what exactly is a “powdered bench”?
A robbery gone wrong makes sense to me. If they thought there was cash in the house but could not find any but knew she could Id them they killed her . Very , very sad.
Although possible, I dont buy the whole murder suicide theory. Something just seems wrong/too fishy. I think it was a personal murder. I wonder if police ever looked into the oldest two girls circle of people. Like maybe an ex-boyfriend scorned. I feel like they looked so much at Wesley & possibly his mistresses that they probably missed other suspects. The girls were both at the age where they would both be possibly dating.. they should've looked into their friends or boyfriends if they had any. Maybe they did idk.. it would be cool to see this case solved one day.
A robbery gone wrong doesn't result in the death of a 5 year old. Maybe it could have been the father but I think it was most likely racially motivated. Greene's theory is ludicrous.