Who Sent a Bomb to Wayne Greavette?
Case Study:
Anonymous Author: Who Sent a Bomb to Wayne Greavette?
Please NOTE: The blog is for educational purposes. All parties are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. No analysis can be a substitute for a thorough investigation, but instead must be taken as a tool for investigative purposes.
***I am not associated with any investigation into the death of Wayne Greavette. My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of any investigating entities.***
In December of 1996, Wayne Greavette, a business owner in the food and beverage packaging industry, was murdered when someone mailed a bomb to him at his home. The bomb was built to be disguised as a flashlight and was accompanied by a letter from the bomb’s sender that implied the flashlight was meant to be a good faith gift from someone looking to hire Wayne to do work for a startup business of his own. The bomb was designed to go off when the victim attempted to turn on the flashlight.
Although the author provided a name, it was a fake one and the murderer’s identity remains unknown to this day.
The contents of the letter were as follows:
MR. WAYNE GREAVETTE
DEAR SIR,
MY PARTNERS AND I ARE OPENING A NEW BUSINESS SOMETIME EARLY IN THE NEW YEAR CALLED “ACTON HOME PRODUCTS” AND WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN HAVING YOU GIVE US A PRICE ON REBUILDING SOME EQUIPMENT.
YOU DID SOME WORK FOR A COMPANY I WAS WITH A FEW YEARS AGO AND ALTHOUGH YOU WON’T REMEMBER ME, LISA AND YOUR DELIVERY MAN JOE MOST LIKELY WILL.
WE DON’T PLAN ON DOING ANYTHING UNTIL AFTER THE NEW YEAR, BUT WOULD BE MOST ANXIOUS TO PROCEED AT THAT TIME. WE HAVE NO STAFF OR OFFICE IN PLACE JUST YET, BUT YOU CAN REACH US BY MAIL AT OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND I’LL LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU SOMETIME EARLY IN THE NEW YEAR.
SINCERELY,
(SIGNATURE)
WILLIAM J. FRENCH
ACTON HOME PRODUCTS
RR #/ UNIT #6
ACTON ONTARIO
L7G 2N/
P.S. DIDN’T REALIZE YOU HAD MOVED. HAD SOME TROUBLE FINDING YOU. HAVE A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND MAY YOU NEVER HAVE TO BUY ANOTHER FLASHLIGHT.
Although hindsight tells us that deception is present in this letter and masking exists, we can still look to the letter to see if the author has given away anything about him/herself.
As one reads the letter, it becomes apparent that the author knew a few things about the victim that we may not. Building context for the analysis becomes critical. We are not likely working with the full context, but we do have some details to work with.
At one time, Wayne Greavette worked for a company that sold and repaired bottling equipment. A few years before he was murdered, he and his wife, who also worked at the same company, left their jobs and opened their own business in the same field. An office worker named Lisa, mentioned in the letter, also left the company and came to work for Wayne and his wife’s new business.
At the time of his murder, Wayne and his wife had also recently moved their home to a farm with a large natural spring where they were starting up a bottled water business as well.
Below is the note with some commentary followed by a few of my opinions on this author:
MR. WAYNE GREAVETTE
DEAR SIR,
One should note, under the larger known context of this murder, the author has brought himself to use proper etiquette and be polite and respectful to the victim, not once, but twice. It is unnecessary for the author to use two respectful salutations to their letter, yet they did. In the author’s priority, they had a need for the victim to know, unequivocally, who the package was for, but also the author had the need for the victim to feel comfortable with the contents of the package by earning a level of ‘trust’ through their charade. I’d like you to consider this and compare it to the charming ruse commonly associated with serial killers when approaching their victims.
One should also be mindful that this homicide involved a bomb, which in the larger context, is a weapon that can easily have the expectation of creating collateral casualties in addition to the harm it would do to the intended victim. This should suggest to us that this subject is one that is low on empathy for others. Consider for the likelihood that they are someone who has no concern or hesitation in harming others ‘without justification.’
MY PARTNERS AND I ARE OPENING A NEW BUSINESS SOMETIME EARLY IN THE NEW YEAR CALLED “ACTON HOME PRODUCTS” AND WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN HAVING YOU GIVE US A PRICE ON REBUILDING SOME EQUIPMENT.
Although the author doesn’t begin with the pronoun “I” at the very beginning of the body of this letter, it is still very upfront and may only be slightly pushed back from being at the very front due to the proper grammar being at play. We see that this author shows little signs of struggling over the ability to be psychologically present in his ‘ruse.’ This presents confidence and continues the theme of low empathy as well as considerations of low ‘remorse.’ In other words, as the author writes this knowing that it is meant to deceive someone into a violent death, they do not show signs of struggling to be linguistically present and responsible for the ‘ruse.’
One should also take note that the author has not introduced himself as a part of their linguistic priority. We should be on alert for the fact that ‘masking’ his personal identity is not heavily evident as a need in the language that takes priority at this point.
The author did however introduce the name of his “new business.” Consider two points as it pertains to the business; (1) they are “opening” not ‘starting’ it and (2) it was unnecessary to tell the victim it was “new.” Linguistically we tend to ‘open’ things that are ‘closed’ or merely ‘unopened.’ This is less involved than ‘starting up’ a business from scratch. “New” is dependent against the concept of ‘old’ or what may otherwise be ‘established’ in the business world. The author has now given us the first subtle clue for masking, but it is not necessarily just about masking his identity. This need for masking is tethered to a business. As the author put his words to paper, he is suggesting that he is thinking about his association with a ‘pre-existing’ one.
Why the need to introduce having “partners?” Does this author have a need to ‘hide in a crowd?’ Is this author working ‘with others’ on committing this murder?
When the author stated, “...and would be very interested in having you give us a price on rebuilding some equipment,” one should take note of the following:
(1) This author is assertive in his language. He doesn’t ask the victim to do work, but states he has an ‘interest’ in “having (him)” do it. There is a slight linguistic element of ‘control’ in the way the author phrased this. This could be the language of an assertive personality and/or someone who is used to giving orders to others. This is not inconsistent with someone who runs their own business or possibly manages one.
(2) Although the author has not said what this “new business” will be, he is suggesting that it is in the same industry that uses the same type of packaging and bottling equipment the victim was knowledgeable in doing the repairs on. Because he is merely “opening” it, not ‘starting’ it, one should consider for the likelihood that the ‘pre-existing’ business the author appears to be aligning himself with may be one in the same industry.
(3) “Rebuilding” is more involved and specific than merely ‘fixing.’
Note that “price” introduces the concepts of ‘money/payment.’ Although not necessarily critical, keep it in mind as we continue.
YOU DID SOME WORK FOR A COMPANY I WAS WITH A FEW YEARS AGO AND ALTHOUGH YOU WON’T REMEMBER ME, LISA AND YOUR DELIVERY MAN JOE MOST LIKELY WILL.
The author does not tell the victim what company the victim “did some work for” that the author was “with.” “A company” vs ‘the company’ is to be abstract and introduces the latent dependent concept of ‘many or all companies’ the subject was “with.” Further “with” is not the same as ‘worked for.’ “With” can include many associations. This appears as an intentionally vague detail. The author is suggesting that he either has a need to suppress information or that he is fabricating this detail as it doesn’t come from experiential memory. This appears to be another suggestion for masking.
Please note that this masking may once again be associated with a business. At this point, there is a subtle, but emerging, suggestion that the author is masking on behalf of another business. If accurate, then what we should consider is that the need to mask through the ‘filter’ of this business suggests that the author perceives that their identity is attached to the business in a way that could give him away. If the author mentioned a real business, he may have been discovered.
Note the introduction of “Lisa and your delivery man Joe” is significant for the following:
(1) It shows a relatively intimate level of familiarity with the victim’s business.
(2) It is being used to lower the victim’s vigilance and to gain ‘trust.’ The author feels comfortable using Lisa and Joe as ‘personal references.’ This further suggests that the author is aware that these details will be questioned by the victim yet knows that any suspicion may be mitigated by mentioning these employees.
(3) “Lisa” is introduced by her first name only. This shows an elevated level of familiarity with her, which should be considered in connection to the familiarity we’ve seen with the victim’s business. The language is to suggest that this author may have had personal interactions with Lisa.
(4) “Your delivery man Joe” on the other hand, is also a level of familiarity with the victim’s business but the author does not show the same level of familiarity as he suggests with “Lisa.” If the author has had personal interactions with Joe, it is likely to a lesser extent than with Lisa. We see this by the linguistic priority he gave to Lisa while having a need to give Joe a ‘title’ that he didn't perceive she needed. We should also note that Joe linguistically ‘belongs to the victim’ by including the pronoun “your” but Lisa does not.
One should also note that contextually, the letter states the “work” the victim did for this company was “years ago.” Wayne’s business was reportedly only approximately 3 years old at the time of the murder. Lisa and Joe were the victim’s current employees at the time of this writing, however, the author also introduced the concept of Lisa and Joe ‘remembering’ him. This introduces the latent element of extended time. It is consistent with the “work” the victim did “years ago” but does not appear to be with being ‘remembered’ by his current employees. "Years ago” seems to lean towards a longer duration of time than, ‘a couple years ago’ or ‘several years ago.’ By stating “years ago” the nondescript number of years suggests that the number is either too many to count or once again the vague, abstract language has entered into the letter as the author speaks of how he’s aware of who the victim is and the work he does, continuing the subtle theme of masking.
WE DON’T PLAN ON DOING ANYTHING UNTIL AFTER THE NEW YEAR, BUT WOULD BE MOST ANXIOUS TO PROCEED AT THAT TIME.
The author is hiding in the linguistic crowd using “we” to speak of himself and his “partners.” He has a need to share responsibility. Anonymous authors often use the linguistic ‘crowd’ when masking their identity, however, we also have to consider for the possibility that there may be multiple people involved as well.
Note that time is introduced as a factor in the letter. It is introduced in the close context to introducing the concept of being “anxious.” This came with a change in language from “would be very...” to “would be most...” What is the difference from “very interested” to “most anxious?”
WE HAVE NO STAFF OR OFFICE IN PLACE JUST YET, BUT YOU CAN REACH US BY MAIL AT OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND I’LL LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU SOMETIME EARLY IN THE NEW YEAR.
What is the difference from saying, ‘we don’t have any staff or an office...’ to what the author wrote, being, “we have no staff or office...?” Note that the latter tells us that “no staff” and ‘no office’ are something this author (and his partners) possesses. The sensitivity levels appear to be turned up on this for the author. It’s linguistically as if he had said, 'I possess nothing’ when it comes to ‘staffing’ or an “office.” The element of time creeps in again as the author stated this was as of “just yet.”
The author also tells us that the address below is a “new” address. Consider this with the prior points suggesting a ‘pre-existing’ business. We now know that the author (and his partners) has an ‘old address.’ Contextually, this would be an ‘old or pre-existing business address.’
Also take note of the fact that the word “new” has now entered this note five times, three of those being “new year,” one being a “new business” and one being a “new address.” The concept of “new” is an important and sensitive one for the author.
SINCERELY,
(SIGNATURE)
WILLIAM J. FRENCH
ACTON HOME PRODUCTS
RR #/ UNIT #6
ACTON ONTARIO
L7G 2N/
We know from hindsight that this author gave a false name and address. The fact that the author has allowed this to act as the main mechanism of masking should be viewed as possibly lowering the need for masking appearing prior to this. However, we should still note a lack thereof in the body of the note, as it will still tell us about the author. The author has shown a level of control surrounding his lack of sensitivity and priority for masking his personal identity to this point.
P.S. DIDN’T REALIZE YOU HAD MOVED. HAD SOME TROUBLE FINDING YOU.
Consider that the postscript is not the body of the letter. It comes as an ‘afterthought’ meaning it should be considered for the possibility that it was not part of the intended ‘script’ of the letter. This may be where the author has unintentionally lowered his walls a bit to allow more of his true self to leak out.
Here the author has now shown a strong need to dissociate that doesn’t exist to this extent in all the content that leads us to here. This has to do with the topic of having knowledge of where the victim lives. However, the author strongly suggests to us more familiarity with the victim when he said he didn’t “realize” the victim “had moved.” It tells us that the author had knowledge of where the victim lived prior to this.
We also see another element of time at play when the author dissociated from saying he didn’t “realize” this fact. To “realize” something requires the perception of processing information over a significant duration of time. How could the author have come to this ‘realization?’ It would require the information to be in front of him long enough to ‘process’ what it means. Did this author live near the victim’s old address? Did he tend to drive past his old house? Or is this someone close enough to the victim that he believes he should’ve come to such a ‘realization’ through his regular interactions with him prior to planning this murder?
Elevating the element of time is the perfect tense the author used when he said, “had moved.” The author is thinking of a specific time when this ‘realization’ occurred and comparing it against the prior act by the victim of ‘moving.’ What is the relevance of this time and its relationship to the victim moving? Did the author have an intention to make an attempt on the victim’s life at his old address? Did he send a bomb to that address too? Was failure to “realize” during the planning stage or the execution stage?
All this, yet keep in mind, the author dissociated from that statement, just as he did from the following one, “Had some trouble finding you.” We can’t say for certain if the author did indeed fail to “realize” the victim “had moved” or if he did have “some trouble finding” him. The author didn’t say it, so we can’t either. Is it possible that this author knew exactly where to “find” the victim? Or could the dissociation be caused by a blunder in the plan that put the author at risk of being caught due to not ‘realizing’ the victim moved? Is this calculated killer ‘embarrassed’ that he didn’t properly ‘calculate’ that portion of the plan?
Although the apparent need may be to mislead the author’s identity away from someone who knew or had easy access to the victim’s new address, one should also take this under consideration for two larger contexts. First, we see indicators that the author may have sociopathic like tendencies and second, it comes in connection with the train of thought that led us to what followed:
HAVE A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND MAY YOU NEVER HAVE TO BUY ANOTHER FLASHLIGHT.
Telling the victim to have a “very merry Christmas” is more ingratiation that lends itself to the ‘ruse.’ To tell the victim this in concert with, “...may you never have to buy another flashlight” knowing that this one will cause his death is like having a sick ‘inside joke.’ The author knows that this will not be a “merry Christmas” just as he knows the victim will not “buy another flashlight.” Reports have suggested that when the victim moved, he moved to a rural location and kept his new address relatively private. One should consider for the possibility that the previous statement that the victim was hard to “find” may be a slight towards him in the same vein as his ‘sick inside joke’ of telling the victim to have a “very merry Christmas” as if he wanted the victim to know he was unsuccessful keeping his new address private
If the report that the victim wanted his address to be private is accurate, then we have an indicator that the author knew the victim well enough to know that this could be a point of contention for him.
Another point that is contextually low on the author’s list of priorities in this letter is the need to address the flashlight. At no point did the author feel that they needed to add an explanation as to why the flashlight was being sent to the victim. It’s implied to be a gift, and even at that, it’s only mentioned in the postscript. This author did not indicate for a need to ‘convince’ the victim to accept this gift on any level. The letter implies that the author took it as a matter of fact that when the victim opened the box, he would be interested in not only keeping the flashlight, but also manipulating it, causing the bomb to go off. Was the victim known to ‘collect flashlights?’ Was the victim known to need a flashlight? Was the victim known to like ‘new tools?’ This is yet another subtle suggestion that the author knew the mind of the victim.
Why did the author say, “may you never have to buy…” instead of, ‘may you never need…?’. Was this murder motivated by money? Did their desire to murder have to do with the victim refusing to make a payment of some type? Consider that the author may see the victim as someone who was ‘cheap.’
OPINION:
The author is likely someone who has sociopathic like traits.
The author is likely someone who is a ‘confident liar’ and may be a difficult ‘liar’ to spot. One should consider that the author may be someone who has already been interviewed by police and successfully pulled off a ‘ruse’ with them as well.
The author is likely male.
The author likely had an association with a ‘pre-existing’ business in the same industry as the victim’s business.
The author had intimate knowledge of the victim’s business.
The author may either have been an employee/ex-employee of the victim or someone who has done business with the victim’s company.
Lisa will likely know the author on some level. Joe may have had interactions as well, but to a lesser degree.
The author is likely someone who knew where the victim lived prior to moving to his farm.
One should consider for the possibility that the author knew the victim well enough to know what the victim was ‘like.’
The author may be someone who considered the victim to be ‘cheap.’
One should consider for the possibility that the author is someone who was familiar with the victim’s work from when the victim was with his previous employer.