Case No. 87765/Moulineaux 17/9 Suplice
Subject: Maximilian Ogden
Attachments: Taped interview (16/9)
Signed statement (16/9)
Comment of Investigating Officer.
Subject is in the process of opening an omelette restaurant in Paris on behalf of a large American food processor. According to the taped interview, the deceased refused to work for Ogden because he thought the project unworthy. It is possible that Ogden, under great pressure, killed Moulineaux in anger. He could have convinced his ex-wife, with whom he is now having an affair, to provide him with an alibi which, although a weak one, gives him more on his side than we have against him. Or, he could be threatening her in some manner.
I am concerned with the London and Rome murders, although they are beyond our jurisdiction. I know we cannot use suspicions in those cases to strengthen our own suspicions but I believe we are dealing with a situation of multiple murders. I believe it is possible
1. Ogden killed the London cook because
a. he was having an affair with his ex-wife,
b. he rejected Ogden’s business enterprise.
2. Ogden killed the Rome cook because
a. he was going to have an affair with his ex-wife,
b. he rejected Ogden’s business enterprise.
Although we cannot yet prove Ogden was in Rome at the time of the murder, we know how simple it is to get a forged passport, and that would be no problem for someone with money.
We have here an interesting mix of sexual competition and professional rejection. It is my opinion that a man as dynamic and attractive as Ogden, with an insecure personal life and pressures from a large corporation, could respond in a criminal manner.
Recommended action: Continue surveillance.
Case No. 87765/Moulineaux 17/9 Contron
Subject: Natasha O’Brien
Attachments: Taped interview (16/9)
Signed statement (16/9)
Comment of Investigating Officer:
I find this case very confusing. Based upon the facts, the subject was with her ex-husband at the time of the murder. There is no apparent motive for her to have murdered the deceased. Indeed, she has expressed her fear that she may be a potential victim. While there is no way to prove she was not at the scene of the crime (except the questionable testimony of her ex-husband, who could be an accomplice), we also cannot prove she was there. On just these facts, there is no substantial reason to consider her a prime suspect.
However, there have been two other murders where her alibis (I have read the reports forwarded by the London and Rome police) are even weaker. I realize that our jurisdiction is limited to the Moulineaux murder only, and on that alone we have no motive to assign to her, but this would appear to be a case of multiple murders for which the solution or motive may be found (as we have seen in other such cases) at the scene of one of the other crimes. If we consider our impressions as in a multiple murder case, and not merely on the killing of a chef on the rue Tronchet, then:
1. She was in the other cities at the times of the other murders;
2. She is a women’s liberationist who must clearly resent the men in her profession;
3. She knew all of the victims. There is possibly a sexual motive aside from the feminist angle: a) she was having an affair with the London chef (Kohner), who was her stepfather (Guilt); b) she was to begin an affair with the Rome chef (Fenegretti), who also had been a long-time “family friend” (Resentment at being used as an object of sex—and perhaps guilt at wanting to begin an affair so soon after Kohner’s death); c) she knew that Moulineaux was a homosexual and had no interest in her (Anger at being sexually rejected, and anger that the “false” gender of Moulineaux allowed him status in a profession in which she fought for recognition).
On the basis of these points, I would consider her a prime suspect. However, the subject’s “menu” theory that she is the next victim is not without reason. I cannot dismiss it as merely a ploy to throw us off her track. There is as much logic in the argument that she may be the next victim as there is valid suspicion that she may be the killer.
Recommended action: Maintain surveillance of subject.
| Mode: | Top Priority |
| To: | D. I. Carmody |
| New Scotland Yard/London | |
| From: | A. C. Griege |
CANNOT HOLD OBRIEN FOR MOULINEAUX MURDER STOP URGE REPEAT URGE YOU PLACE HER UNDER TIGHT SECURITY WHEN SHE ARRIVES IN LONDON STOP BELIEVE SHE IS NOT REPEAT NOT KILLER OF CHEFS BUT THAT SHE IS NEXT TO BE MURDERED