Harvey Marcelin- The 83-year-old serial killer
Harvey Marcelin, 83, was previously jailed twice for the murders of two former girlfriends and is said to have known Susan Leydon, 68, whose body was found stuffed inside bin bags
A man walking home in Brooklyn, New York, observed a rubbish bag outside a pawn store. He peered inside and discovered a woman's torso. Police have named Harvey Marcelin, 83, as the primary suspect in this heinous crime.
Marcelin, who self-identifies as transgender, left a trail that led investigators to her Cypress Hills apartment. A human head and an electric saw were discovered in her residence, and the victim, 68-year-old Susan Leyden, was last seen entering Marcelin's building.
Leyden was recorded pulling a “multi-colored bag with a flower decal” on surveillance footage reviewed by police. But though she never exited Marcelin’s building, Marcelin was later caught on tape walking out of her home with the same bag.
His First Murder
Harvey was accused of raping his girlfriend, Jacqueline Bonds in early 1963. He reportedly "drank frequently, took cocaine, regularly assaulted Ms. Bonds, and was in and out of psychiatric care" at the time.
Harvey shot and killed Bonds at their Manhattan apartment in April 1963, just before he was scheduled to stand before a grand jury on rape charges. She "chased her as she staggered through the kitchen and living room, and shot her twice more before she collapsed," according to the police report. He was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of first-degree murder, but he was released in 1984.
Marcelin shot and killed her live-in girlfriend, Jacqueline Bonds, on April 18, 1963, after Bonds told Marcelin she wanted to leave her. Marcelin was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 20 years to life in jail before being released in 1984. But it didn't take long for her to kill again.
She stabbed another girlfriend to death a year later. Marcelin then placed her victim's body in a garbage bag and dumped it in Central Park, foreshadowing Leyden's murder. He told police that Sierra had sold Harvey's flute to buy drugs. Harvey was again charged with first-degree murder, but struck a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter. He was sent back to prison in 1986, but was released in August 2019 after 15 parole hearings. Marcelin admitted to having "a problem with women" during her parole hearing in 1997.
The parole board denied Marcelin's release in that case because “[the] petitioner could not remain at liberty without violating the law, and his release at this time would not be compatible with the welfare of society.”
But in late 2019, Harvey Marcelin was released from the Cayuga Correctional Facility.
However, little is known about Susan Leyden. She was originally from Teaneck, New Jersey, and was reportedly residing at an LGBTQ shelter in Brooklyn's Clinton Hill neighborhood when she died.
But, as horrible as this case is, Susan Leyden's murder appears to be part of a bigger trend of rising violence in major cities such as New York City. As noted by the Daily Mail, New York has seen a spike in assaults, shootings, and rapes this year. As of March 2022, the city has already seen 66 murders, compared to 67 in all of 2021.
Harvey identified herself as a transgender woman at the time of her murder in 2022. During the killings in 1963 and 1985, she did not identify as a woman and went by the name Harvey Marcelin.
References:
Serial killer charged after headless body with no limbs found dumped in bin bags
Brooklyn serial killer, 83, charged with murder after cops find woman’s severed head in apartment
About the Creator
Rare Stories
Our goal is to give you stories that will have you hooked.
This is an extension of the Quora space: Rare Stories
X(formerly Twitter): Scarce Stories
Writers:
....xoxo
Keep reading
More stories from Rare Stories and writers in Criminal and other communities.
The Killing Of Alison Parker and Adam Ward on Live Television
Reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman, Adam Ward, showed up at work on August 26, 2015, prepared to go on television. In Roanoke, Virginia, Parker worked for the regional news station WDBJ7. Parker and Ward were in Moneta on that particular day to speak with Vicki Gardner, the chamber of commerce's executive director.
By Rare Stories3 years ago in Criminal
Minneapolis ICE Shooting Updates
In recent weeks, Minneapolis has found itself at the center of a growing legal and political controversy following a shooting involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. What initially appeared to be a straightforward federal use-of-force investigation has evolved into a broader dispute between state authorities and federal officials, raising serious questions about transparency, jurisdiction, and accountability. The most significant development so far is the state’s claim that it has been denied access to key evidence related to the incident. As public attention intensifies, the case is no longer just about what happened during the shooting. It is increasingly about who controls the facts, who gets to investigate them, and how justice is supposed to function when federal and state systems collide. What We Know About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting The shooting occurred during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. ICE agents were reportedly conducting official duties when gunfire erupted, resulting in injuries and immediate emergency response. Federal authorities confirmed the incident and stated that internal protocols were activated, including an automatic review by federal oversight bodies. From the beginning, details were limited. Officials cited the ongoing nature of the investigation and concerns about officer safety. This lack of information, while not unusual in federal cases, quickly became a point of friction for Minnesota state authorities, who argued that the public deserved clarity and that the state had a legal role to play in examining the incident. State Authorities Push for Transparency Minnesota state officials, including investigators and legal representatives, formally requested access to evidence connected to the shooting. This evidence reportedly includes body camera footage, surveillance recordings, forensic reports, and internal communication logs from the operation. According to state representatives, these requests were either delayed or denied outright. The state has since gone on record stating that it cannot independently assess the legality of the shooting without full access to the materials. This denial has fueled concerns that federal agencies are operating without sufficient external oversight, especially in incidents involving potential civilian harm. State leaders emphasized that their position is not adversarial by default. Rather, they argue that cooperation between federal and state agencies is essential to maintain public trust, particularly in communities already wary of immigration enforcement. Federal Response and Jurisdictional Limits Federal officials, for their part, maintain that the investigation falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. ICE operates as a federal agency, and shootings involving federal officers are typically reviewed internally and, when appropriate, by federal prosecutors or inspectors general. In statements released following the controversy, federal representatives cited legal restrictions that limit the sharing of evidence during an active investigation. They also stressed that premature disclosure could compromise witness testimony or investigative integrity. This explanation, while legally grounded, has done little to ease state frustrations. Critics argue that “ongoing investigation” has too often been used as a blanket justification for withholding information, even in cases where transparency could prevent misinformation and public unrest. Community Reaction and Public Trust The Minneapolis community has responded with a mix of concern, anger, and fatigue. For many residents, particularly in immigrant and marginalized communities, the shooting has reopened long-standing fears about aggressive enforcement tactics and lack of accountability. Community leaders and advocacy groups have called for the immediate release of non-sensitive evidence, arguing that transparency is a prerequisite for trust. Peaceful demonstrations and public forums have highlighted a broader demand: that no law enforcement agency, federal or otherwise, should be beyond scrutiny. Local officials echoed these concerns, noting that Minneapolis has spent years attempting to rebuild trust between residents and law enforcement. The perception that evidence is being withheld threatens to undermine that progress. Legal Implications of Denied Evidence From a legal standpoint, the state’s inability to access evidence raises complex questions. While federal agencies do have authority over their operations, states also have a responsibility to investigate deaths or injuries occurring within their borders. Legal experts suggest that this dispute could set a precedent. If states are routinely blocked from reviewing evidence in federal use-of-force cases, it may limit their ability to pursue independent inquiries or bring charges under state law when applicable. Some analysts believe the issue could ultimately be resolved in court, with judges determining whether the state has a legal right to access certain materials. Such a ruling could have national implications, influencing how future federal-state conflicts are handled. Political Dimensions of the Case The Minneapolis ICE shooting has also taken on a political dimension. Immigration enforcement remains a deeply divisive issue, and incidents like this tend to amplify existing ideological divides. State officials critical of federal immigration policies view the denial of evidence as symptomatic of a larger lack of accountability. Meanwhile, supporters of strict federal enforcement argue that state interference could hinder effective operations and put officers at risk. This political tension complicates the path forward. What might otherwise be a procedural disagreement risks becoming a symbolic battle over immigration, law enforcement authority, and states’ rights. What Happens Next? As of now, the investigation continues under federal oversight, while the state explores its legal options. Negotiations between state and federal officials have reportedly not been ruled out, suggesting that a compromise could still be reached. Potential next steps include limited evidence sharing under confidentiality agreements, congressional inquiries, or judicial review. Each option carries its own risks and consequences, both legally and politically. What remains clear is that public pressure is unlikely to fade. Minneapolis residents, like many Americans, are demanding clarity, fairness, and accountability in cases involving law enforcement use of force. A Broader Conversation About Accountability The Minneapolis ICE shooting is no longer just a single incident under investigation. It has become a lens through which broader issues are being examined: the balance of power between federal and state authorities, the limits of transparency, and the role of public oversight in a democratic society. Whether or not the state ultimately gains access to the evidence, the controversy has already sparked an important conversation. How that conversation translates into policy, practice, or reform remains to be seen, but its impact will likely extend far beyond Minneapolis. In the end, accountability is not only about assigning blame. It is about ensuring that systems function openly and fairly, especially when lives are affected. The outcome of this case may help determine how well those principles are upheld in the future.
By Saboor Brohi 6 days ago in Criminal
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.