I was wondering if anyone remembered this case or knows if it was ever solved. Su Taraskowitz was a flight director or something like that. Anyways she was the only female who was and she was promoted or something like that. Afterwards she started getting harassed and stalked by someone. She was found dead in the trunk of her car and they never solved the murder. I always felt for her mother everytime I saw the episode re-air. I think her mother and friends believed some or all of her co-workers were involved. Anyways does anyone know if it was solved??? I really hope her mother was able to find closure...

"Su Taraskiewicz was a ramp supervisor at Northwest Airlines when she was murdered. Police still searching for her killer."

To my knowledge, her killer has (sadly) never been brought to justice. Here is a link on this board with more discussion:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=168532

This segment is very creepy, all those threats to that poor woman. The drawing on her locker of a casket with her name on it is downright freaky. I can't believe this all happened to her just because she got promoted to supervisor. She was a woman? So what! The night she died, someone probably knew that she was going to the sub place that night and they followed her and killed her. I have a hard time believing that it was random.

Northwest Airlines should be ashamed of how they handled that case back then. The harassment went on for way too long and was way too serious to not take severe, swift action.

I'm not convinced that her death was related to the harassment, but in any event it is a tragedy that she died and a tragedy that she had to endure all those months of abuse for no reason. Very, very sad.

Awww I was really hoping this one had been solved. It's shame it hasn't been. Thanks for the info guys. I hope they're able to find her killer or killers one day.

I don't want to slander a whole industry, but they're not exactly known for their boy scout behavior. Especially on the east coast (where Su worked), they're still making headlines for stealing baggage and running drugs.

I think Su was killed in the 80s (coulda been early 90s). At that time, she was a woman working in what was still a man's field. She suffered such an extensive amount of harassment that I believe her murder was directly connected to it. They threatened to kill her and they did, imo.

Yeah I always thought some or all of her co-workers where involved as well...

BUMP
I don't want to slander a whole industry, but they're not exactly known for their boy scout behavior. Especially on the east coast (where Su worked), they're still making headlines for stealing baggage and running drugs.

I think Su was killed in the 80s (coulda been early 90s). At that time, she was a woman working in what was still a man's field. She suffered such an extensive amount of harassment that I believe her murder was directly connected to it. They threatened to kill her and they did, imo.

Even though it was probably just in pockets, it's unsettling that there was still elements of sexism as late as the '80s. Not like the old fashioned "Where's my dinner?" types when it was still widely accepted by society, but more like the "I don't want a woman telling me what to do" kind of way. I even kinda remember that as a kid and even then I thought it was stupid.

I wonder why Su herself was targeted so much, though? I bet it was a combination of corruption and a percentage of sexist guys. From what I can tell about her (according to her mom and what the segment portrayed), she seemed to be a pretty strong, determined type of girl who wouldn't take crap from anyone... so I bet that just escalated it over the edge.

She was being harrassed even before her promotion, like with that one jerk breaking her portable radio, and it just got progressively worse with time, though.

In the segment, she did seem close to SOME of her co-workers though, so I bet it's even harder to determine who was for real and who might've had a beef with her.

I think Su may have been targeted because she lost out on a promotion that she should have had. From my recollection, she appealed that decision and WON. I'm sure that created a lot of resentment, especially in a field that's dominated by men.

What makes me so sick about the case is that she was missing for HOURS and no one reported her gone. I share the opinion of several of you: that she was targeted by her co-workers and murdered.

On a somewhat happier note, I know that Su's parents DID win a lawsuit against the airline for the way they handled Su's case. Not a lot of justice for her, but even a little is better than none...

Yep, sexism in the workplace was really alive and kicking, still in the 80s. I worked in the billing department of a car dealership back then. I got called into the service manager's office "to take down a letter".

That manager wasn't my boss and my job was in no way related to his. I wasn't his secretary, and if he wanted a letter written, he was supposed to write it himself. But I was young, dumb, and a girl, so I wrote the stupid letter while he acted as inappropriate as possible.

On top of that creep, the owner's grandson was constantly coming on to me, groping me, and hanging around in my office all day, disrupting my job with his sex talk, while he didn't do his job because his paycheck was guaranteed by granddad.

I lasted 3 months. I lined up a job at the bank behind their backs, told them to eff off, and quit with no notice! lol

Back then, women had to put up with the unwanted sexual advances, inappropriate conversation, and everything, if they wanted to keep their job.

Nowadays, my daughter runs her own department at a car dealer. She's armed and doesn't take any crap off of any man, and thankfully, she doesn't have to in order to keep her job. The men on her staff learned who was boss real quick. She had to pull a knife on two of them, when they tried to get grabby, so some learned the lesson a little harder than the others. :P

Well in this case, yes, it is my opinion that Taraskowitz's death was directly related to NWA (now Delta Air lines) in some way. Yes that is quite suspicious how she 'disappeared' for several hours when she was just going on her meal break to get some food and she does not return for hours yet no one reports her missing or even asks where she is and why she has not returned to work? I think more than one person was in on it and knew it was going to go down before it went down. The one dude that was depicted in the segment 'Bobby' the guy that made threats to her, made the drawing to her locker, broke her radio, etc, I think everyone agrees that he was in some way, shape or form involved in what happened here. In my opinion he was directly involved in the killing and that he had probably boasted to others before and after the fact that he was going to do this and basically told all of his co-workers to make themselves scarce while doing the deed.

I agree Kadramas - somehow I think more people at NWA were in on it than the segment even portrayed. The fact that nobody reported her missing after she went to get sandwiches is suspicious and uncaring in the very least - even if they're innocent. Maybe the industry was so corrupt, nobody was willing to side with her besides her female friend interviewed in the segment. According to her diary, the ones who did support her got their cars vandalized too, so maybe they agreed with her, but over time just weren't strong enough to stand up out of fear of retribution. Just like gangs and stuff (like the Jenny Pratt attack), it sadly works like that alot.

Yeah, that Bobby guy probably was one of the most directly involved. I can't imagine why anyone would have that much of a vendetta simply over her suing over a promotion and becoming a woman in charge, but history has shown people do weird things sometimes.

P.S. Tracylynn, way to go (same with your daughter). :) It's scary to think stuff like that was going on that late. Maybe not as overt as in the "old days" (like the 40s), but men could get away with sexual harrassment or belittling women easier, even from what I can tell in movies and tv shows.

You know what? I'm a huge '80s fan, but in a way I'm glad I wasn't a teen or adult then, because things like that would definitely have soured my more innocent firsthand perspective of it. ;)

Oldschooler,

My sister in law was born in Nov. 1979, so she was a kid during the 80s. Her memories of childhood during that decade were all good and she has never had to put up with sexism in her career.

And you know, for working women in the 80s, it still wasn't even possible or the victim to sue for sexual harrassment. Seems like the Anita Hill testimonies helped change that later in the decade. At least I think that was part of what helped turned things around...

Ladies just didn't have the laws and the resources to support them back then. I think things are getting quite a bit better in the 21st century, though. After the bad work enviornment at the dealership, in my later employment, I never had to deal with such things again.

Oldschooler,

My sister in law was born in Nov. 1979, so she was a kid during the 80s. Her memories of childhood during that decade were all good and she has never had to put up with sexism in her career.

And you know, for working women in the 80s, it still wasn't even possible or the victim to sue for sexual harrassment. Seems like the Anita Hill testimonies helped change that later in the decade. At least I think that was part of what helped turned things around...

Ladies just didn't have the laws and the resources to support them back then. I think things are getting quite a bit better in the 21st century, though. After the bad work enviornment at the dealership, in my later employment, I never had to deal with such things again.

Ah, good stuff - she's close to my age and I'm like that too. I'm especially a huge fan of the music, and just the overall feel of the times. Then again, I guess as kids you don't have experiences of workplaces for long (other than, like if you go into your parents' office really quick or something), so luckily I had no idea about that stuff at the time too. :)

A little off subject...but I totally just realized this right now. One reason I'm thinking the 80s might've been so ancient in terms of sexual harrassment and ways it treated women (not everyone of course, but in pockets), could be the en masse influence of older people still in the workforce who grew up in a time when that was still kinda accepted. Like in 1985 you had people born in the '20s still in control.

I'm in no way suggesting every man from then is barbaric or thinks that way, but a small percentage might. I wonder if NWA was like that when Su worked there, like the president could've been a 60-year old pig and it was just something that was overlooked or tolerated among the employees. Maybe he wasn't that way himself, but could've resented a young woman being in such power, explaining why she had to appeal her decision? If it was corrupt at all, that could also explain how they were able to get away with drug smuggling, as the segment said.

Things like this usually aren't an issue with the younger generations (unless they were staunchly raised that way), but probably the somewhat older people who have the ability to influence thinking in the media, etc. Kinda like today with homosexuality/gay marriage, or in the 60s with civil rights.

Older folks bringing old fashioned ideas about race and sex into the workplace are definitely a possibility. The people who caused the sexism issues at my work were at least a generation older than me.

My husband used to work for a guy who's a generation older than us. His views on women, including his wife and two daughters, is that "women are for f***ing". That's it. The guy doesn't think of women beyond a sexual use. And I just about died when he said that about his own two daughters, who were around 20 years old. That kind of thinking is beyond crazy, imo.

Older folks bringing old fashioned ideas about race and sex into the workplace are definitely a possibility. The people who caused the sexism issues at my work were at least a generation older than me.

My husband used to work for a guy who's a generation older than us. His views on women, including his wife and two daughters, is that "women are for f***ing". That's it. The guy doesn't think of women beyond a sexual use. And I just about died when he said that about his own two daughters, who were around 20 years old. That kind of thinking is beyond crazy, imo.

Oh gosh, what a winner that guy is! :rolleyes: The most dangerous thing about jerks like that, is how it influences other people's thinking (not to mention what it probably does to women's self esteem). That Bobby dude from the segment is a perfect example, I wouldn't be surprised if he was like that too.

That some of the suspects in Sues murder have been prosecuted other crimes

I. BACKGROUND

In the underlying criminal case, the government charged defendant-appellee Robert Brooks with lying to a federal grand jury. To lend context to the issues before us, we recount the circumstances leading up to the defendant's indictment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.


A. Dramatis Personae.

Starting in 1983, Brooks worked as a baggage handler for Northwest Airlines at Logan International Airport. While there, he became friendly with a co-worker, Joseph Nuzzo.(1) Some four years later, Northwest broke the gender barrier and hired Susan Taraskiewicz as a baggage handler. With a few notable exceptions, Brooks and Taraskiewicz had little interaction. Early on, however, the pair twice indulged a sexual dalliance, and, on one subsequent occasion, they argued bitterly over Brooks's destruction of Taraskiewicz's radio.

Go to this website to read more
http://library.law.emory.edu/1circuit/june98/98-1111.01a.html

I don't see how her death could be related to anything BUT what she went through at work. the movie North Country, even with it's dramatization, clearly shows what can happen when women come into a good ol' boys environment. Someone she worked with knows what happened.

This week mark's the 17th anniversary of Susan's death. There was an article about it in the September 13 edition of the Boston Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/13/mother_holds_hope_she_can_help_solve_daughters_killing

Interesting article, that case has always intrigued me. Susan's mother is right about believing that the stolen credit card ring had something to do with the murder. I read some of the comments about the article and it gives some background information about this case.

A. Dramatis Personae.

Starting in 1983, Brooks worked as a baggage handler for Northwest Airlines at Logan International Airport. While there, he became friendly with a co-worker, Joseph Nuzzo.(1) Some four years later, Northwest broke the gender barrier and hired Susan Taraskiewicz as a baggage handler. With a few notable exceptions, Brooks and Taraskiewicz had little interaction. Early on, however, the pair twice indulged a sexual dalliance, and, on one subsequent occasion, they argued bitterly over Brooks's destruction of Taraskiewicz's radio

When watching the UM segment, the thought occurred to me: "I wonder if Taraskiewicz was a bit of a flirt?" So it does not surprise me now to read this. That she "twice indulged in a sexual dalliance" with "Bobby" (and had little to do with him afterwards), and then later started to date another co-worker (her boyfriend at the time of her death) makes me think it was possible she might have been leading some men on. [Disclaimer: everything I say from here on in applies to this case only if I am correct about my hunch in this first paragraph]

I have worked with a number of young, pretty women who are like this, so I have seen this first hand. It is a dangerous game for women to play. Leading men on and tugging on their heartstrings like that can really provoke some bad feelings of resentment. Obviously, regardless of how much a woman has done you wrong and hurt you, acts of terror such as death threats, car vandalism, and graffiti, or even name-calling, is never justified. On the other hand, there are a lot of insecure men with loose screws out there, and women have to be careful, because when such men get emotionally involved, they sometimes do stupid things like that out of passion. "If you mess with a wildcat you're bound to get scratched" - or even killed.

I am thinking here of the Martha Moxley case. She was young, pretty, and a big flirt and tease as well. I believe that if she had not been such a flirt, she might still be alive today. Of course, Michael Skakel did wrong and should be punished to the full extent of the law. But on the other hand, this unstable young man may have never "snapped" or "lost it" had Martha not played around with his (and her brother's and many of his friends') heart.

I once parked my car a block away from a sign that said "do not leave valuables in your car as this is an area with a high rate of break-ins". When I returned 90 minutes later, my book bag was gone. I was not too happy with the thief, but was even more upset with myself. Well, some men have a "do not lead me on as I am an unstable guy who could end up killing you if you ever mess around with my heart" sign written all over them. And just because you don't see that sign written on them, doesn't mean it's not there somewhere. You have to be very careful who you get involved with or mess with.

When watching the UM segment, the thought occurred to me: "I wonder if Taraskiewicz was a bit of a flirt?" So it does not surprise me now to read this. That she "twice indulged in a sexual dalliance" with "Bobby" (and had little to do with him afterwards), and then later started to date another co-worker (her boyfriend at the time of her death) makes me think it was possible she might have been leading some men on. [Disclaimer: everything I say from here on in applies to this case only if I am correct about my hunch in this first paragraph]

I have worked with a number of young, pretty women who are like this, so I have seen this first hand. It is a dangerous game for women to play. Leading men on and tugging on their heartstrings like that can really provoke some bad feelings of resentment. Obviously, regardless of how much a woman has done you wrong and hurt you, acts of terror such as death threats, car vandalism, and graffiti, or even name-calling, is never justified. On the other hand, there are a lot of insecure men with loose screws out there, and women have to be careful, because when such men get emotionally involved, they sometimes do stupid things like that out of passion. "If you mess with a wildcat you're bound to get scratched" - or even killed.

I am thinking here of the Martha Moxley case. She was young, pretty, and a big flirt and tease as well. I believe that if she had not been such a flirt, she might still be alive today. Of course, Michael Skakel did wrong and should be punished to the full extent of the law. But on the other hand, this unstable young man may have never "snapped" or "lost it" had Martha not played around with his (and her brother's and many of his friends') heart.

I once parked my car a block away from a sign that said "do not leave valuables in your car as this is an area with a high rate of break-ins". When I returned 90 minutes later, my book bag was gone. I was not too happy with the thief, but was even more upset with myself. Well, some men have a "do not lead me on as I am an unstable guy who could end up killing you if you ever mess around with my heart" sign written all over them. And just because you don't see that sign written on them, doesn't mean it's not there somewhere. You have to be very careful who you get involved with or mess with.
Right. Women shouldn't be too sexual because men are just uncontrollable animals sometimes. Women should know better than to actually flirt or imply that are humans who have sex. It's understandable for men to have sex with women who work with them because, hey, boys will be boys, right? But women beware!! :rolleyes:

Right. Women shouldn't be too sexual because men are just uncontrollable animals sometimes. Women should know better than to actually flirt or imply that are humans who have sex. It's understandable for men to have sex with women who work with them because, hey, boys will be boys, right? But women beware!! :rolleyes:

OMG that is crazy! men and women flirt all the time. Teens flirt, boys and girls. No one deserves to die and how in the world could martha moxley know that that guy was a nut job? He was a kid just like her. If someone is leading you on, you don't kill them. You stop talking to them or tell them off killing is never an excuse or option!!

This is the same lame excuse that keep rape victims from reporting it. I don't care if you were wearing really tight, tight shorts and a bikini top, no one deserves to be raped. If you cannot control your impulses then you are some sicko who needs help.

OMG that is crazy! men and women flirt all the time. Teens flirt, boys and girls. No one deserves to die and how in the world could martha moxley know that that guy was a nut job? He was a kid just like her. If someone is leading you on, you don't kill them. You stop talking to them or tell them off killing is never an excuse or option!!

This is the same lame excuse that keep rape victims from reporting it. I don't care if you were wearing really tight, tight shorts and a bikini top, no one deserves to be raped. If you cannot control your impulses then you are some sicko who needs help.
Maybe my "rolling eyes" emoticon didn't make it clear that I was being completely facetious in my post. I think what Wamisto posted was totally revolting. The fact that we live in a world where people think they can justify rape and murder of ANY woman by saying, "Well, she was asking for it" makes me sad beyond belief.

Nowheregirl - yes, it was clear to me you were being facetious.

To nowheregirl and burbqueen - please re-read my post and tell me whether I contradicted your statements that "no one deserves to die" for flirting, "killing is never an excuse or option", or that I was saying that we should "justify rape and murder" in such cases and use this "lame excuse" to get rapists and murderers off? No, look again at what I said: "regardless of how much a woman has done you wrong and hurt you, acts of terror such as death threats, car vandalism, and graffiti, or even name-calling, is never justified", and "Michael Skakel did wrong and should be punished to the full extent of the law". In other words, what I said agreed with all of these above statements. You were responding to a straw man.

Please refer to my analogy - I know that is dangerous because today, (a) most people do not understand the art, nature, and purpose of analogies, and (b) use them unfairly to attack the other's argument rather than seek to understand what the other is trying to say and respond accordingly. In that analogy, I was basically saying two things: 1. Any crime that one commits is wrong. 2. However, because we know there are criminals out there, we have to take the proper precautions to protect ourselves as best we can. So, to use your example, the scantily-clad woman who gets raped. I agree with you that regardless of how a woman dresses, she does not deserve to be raped, and that the rapist is some sicko who needs help and should be locked away. On the other hand, if you dress that way rather than more modestly, and you go to the bar instead of to a restaurant with your girlfriends, your chances of being raped by some sicko increase. In other words, do not put yourself in a situation where a criminal is more likely to target you. That is what all the police officers and FBI agents and teachers and self-defense instructors tell us repeatedly, and that is all I was saying. That is what my analogy pointed to - the criminal was wrong to steal my bag, but I put myself in a vulnerable position by leaving my bag in the car. That is why the sign was put up - too many people carried the attitude that "I don't care if you were wearing really tight, tight shorts and a bikini top, no one deserves to be raped", or similarly, "I don't care if you park your car in the middle of the inner-city and leave your car doors unlocked with valuables inside, you don't deserve to be robbed". True, but when thieves see it and get that glitter in their eye (just as rapists see that woman in the bar and get that glitter in their eye), they're going to commit the crime, whether or not you deserve it.

As for flirting, two things need to be said:

1. There is common, everyday, run of the mill, "you are a cute person of the opposite sex and I want to let you know that" flirting, and then there is "leading-others-on, bringing them to third-base and no further and accepting his promise ring that night and then sleeping with his best friend the next day" flirting. It is one thing to make sexual innuendo to someone you find attractive. It is another thing to lead the other to believe you want to be exclusive, you seriously want a relationship with that person, when all along, you just wanted some emotional gratification from knowing that that person wants you enough to marry you, and once you get that, to move on to the next person. (Note: at this point I am not speaking of Taraskiewicz, but about the point in general).

2. I think the reason I received this response (which I think was a bit, and I do not say this insultingly, but a bit knee-jerk) was because it came across as sexist and too closely resembled the "old boys" mentality that the only thing women are good for, as another poster said his relative used to say, was for sex, and that chances are, if a woman is raped, it is because she did something to fuel lust in the man, and thus it is her own fault. Obviously, that is not what I am saying, nor do I believe any of this. Regarding the matter of gender, there are a lot of men who lead women on too, have affairs, etc. Everything I said above applies to them too. My good friend often cites the saying "hell hath no fury than a woman scorned", and for good reason . . . Now that I said this about gender and sexuality, re-read my post according to this paradigm, and you will probably see it in a different light.

In other words, do not put yourself in a situation where a criminal is more likely to target you. That is what all the police officers and FBI agents and teachers and self-defense instructors tell us repeatedly, and that is all I was saying. That is what my analogy pointed to - the criminal was wrong to steal my bag, but I put myself in a vulnerable position by leaving my bag in the car

I agree with you , but that advice only works for stranger crimes. If someone wants to kill you, there going to kill you. If a grandson wants to kill his grandma for insurance money, how exactly is grandma supposed to avoid this criminal activity?:confused:

There are some situations were you can;t avoid putting yourself in a situation where criminals are more likely to target you. Sometimes you have to live in bad neighborhoods. Sometimes you have to work graveyard shifts at gas stations. Sometimes you have to work with criminals and shady characters.

The real thing you could blame Su for is that she shouldn;t have ratted anybody out. But I applaud her for having that courage and wish others had the same courage. We would have a lot fewer Unsolved Mysteries if people would have the courage to report criminal activity.

I'm still trying to reconcile this:

2. I think the reason I received this response (which I think was a bit, and I do not say this insultingly, but a bit knee-jerk) was because it came across as sexist and too closely resembled the "old boys" mentality that the only thing women are good for, as another poster said his relative used to say, was for sex, and that chances are, if a woman is raped, it is because she did something to fuel lust in the man, and thus it is her own fault.

with this:


I am thinking here of the Martha Moxley case. She was young, pretty, and a big flirt and tease as well. I believe that if she had not been such a flirt, she might still be alive today. Of course, Michael Skakel did wrong and should be punished to the full extent of the law. But on the other hand, this unstable young man may have never "snapped" or "lost it" had Martha not played around with his (and her brother's and many of his friends') heart.

I think you ARE saying it was at least partially Martha Moxley's fault that she was murdered. What was Martha doing that was the least bit out of the ordinary??? She had a relationship with the boy next door. A friend whom she had known her entire life. How was she supposed to know that he would beat her to death with a golf club if he didn't get what he wanted? This sort of gets to Mastermind's point. You can say, I'm not going to do something stupid like walk alone at night in a bad neighborhood where I might be victimized, but are you going to say, I'm not going to have a normal teenage relationship with the boy next door because he might turn into a monster one night and kill me? You might as well never leave the house! We all know that there are places in this world where women are not allowed to leave their home without an escort and must cover their bodies, face and hair because they might accidentally tempt a man sexually. It's the extreme but logical conclusion to this line of thought, in my opinion.

I'm still trying to reconcile this:



with this:



I think you ARE saying it was at least partially Martha Moxley's fault that she was murdered. What was Martha doing that was the least bit out of the ordinary??? She had a relationship with the boy next door. A friend whom she had known her entire life. How was she supposed to know that he would beat her to death with a golf club if he didn't get what he wanted? This sort of gets to Mastermind's point. You can say, I'm not going to do something stupid like walk alone at night in a bad neighborhood where I might be victimized, but are you going to say, I'm not going to have a normal teenage relationship with the boy next door because he might turn into a monster one night and kill me? You might as well never leave the house! We all know that there are places in this world where women are not allowed to leave their home without an escort and must cover their bodies, face and hair because they might accidentally tempt a man sexually. It's the extreme but logical conclusion to this line of thought, in my opinion.

Let me begin my answer by asking you two questions: (1) Was it "at least partially [my] fault" that my bag was stolen from my car? If so, or if not, why do you say so? (2) Do you agree or disagree that all things being equal, a woman's chances of being assaulted or murdered by a man increases when she leads men on the way I described in my earlier post? (Keep in mind that with Question #2, I am not saying either Moxley or Taraskiewicz was like this - remember, in that previous post I said "at this point I am not speaking of Taraskiewicz, but about the point in general").

I have more to say, but I will wait until I receive your answers. Once you respond, I will attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction between my two juxtaposed statements (which I do not believe is one), as well as respond to the points that you made.

I agree with you , but that advice only works for stranger crimes. If someone wants to kill you, there going to kill you. If a grandson wants to kill his grandma for insurance money, how exactly is grandma supposed to avoid this criminal activity?:confused:

There are some situations were you can;t avoid putting yourself in a situation where criminals are more likely to target you. Sometimes you have to live in bad neighborhoods. Sometimes you have to work graveyard shifts at gas stations. Sometimes you have to work with criminals and shady characters.

The real thing you could blame Su for is that she shouldn;t have ratted anybody out. But I applaud her for having that courage and wish others had the same courage. We would have a lot fewer Unsolved Mysteries if people would have the courage to report criminal activity.

This is all true if the murder was mob-related. Sounds as though it was, but I think only in part. Many of the threats were coming from a jilted lover. I think what might have happened is that the mob, knowing this ex-lover hated her, enlisted or paid and helped him to actually commit the murder, and assured him that they would cover his tracks and keep him from conviction. I believe Su had been bludgeoned and severely beaten, to my recollection? That sounds more like a crime of passion than a mob hit. I would think the latter would have made it a bit "cleaner".

This is all true if the murder was mob-related. Sounds as though it was, but I think only in part. Many of the threats were coming from a jilted lover. I think what might have happened is that the mob, knowing this ex-lover hated her, enlisted or paid and helped him to actually commit the murder, and assured him that they would cover his tracks and keep him from conviction. I believe Su had been bludgeoned and severely beaten, to my recollection? That sounds more like a crime of passion than a mob hit. I would think the latter would have made it a bit "cleaner".

1.Conspiratorial murders a lot of times do not happens as direct orders.There is not these guys at the table who declare "she must be killed".A lot of times it happens through inference. Running conversations like "boy Su is a troublemaker".

2. I would think a jilted lover would make a very motivated hit-man, no? You may not even have to pay him.

3. If Su is killed by a gun, it would definitely be considered a hit by the police. The way Su is killed however makes it less of a hit and more like a crime of passion.

1.Conspiratorial murders a lot of times do not happens as direct orders.There is not these guys at the table who declare "she must be killed".A lot of times it happens through inference. Running conversations like "boy Su is a troublemaker".

2. I would think a jilted lover would make a very motivated hit-man, no? You may not even have to pay him.

3. If Su is killed by a gun, it would definitely be considered a hit by the police. The way Su is killed however makes it less of a hit and more like a crime of passion.

Good points - I will stand by what I said, except that the "instructions" were probably more "implicit". Through a "running conversation", like you said.

I searched the forums for the discussion on this case but it appears that the title is misspelled. Crystaldawn, as administrator, are you able to change the title of this to her correctly spelled name of "Su Taraskiewicz"?


What does everyone think of this case. Seems like she was harassed and murdered due to her involvement (perhaps a whistleblower of sorts) in the scam that was going on at the airline she worked for.

There was some articles online that went into detail about the case. Apparently there are 3 main suspects in the case. One man was a guy (can't recall his name, but he wasn't really featured in the UM segment) who was getting into fights all the time with other males, and Su intervened one day and the guy made a derogatory remark at her and treated her bad ever since. He didn't respect her authority, felt burned because he felt like she cheated her way into her supervisor position, and was constantly taunting her at work by drawing lewd pictures of her in the break room and bathrooms, and also leaving threatening messages for her. The other suspect was the guy "Bobby" featured in the UM segment who broke her radio. Su and "Bobby" actually were in a relationship together at one point, but it didn't last long. The other man was just one of the guys who worked with Su who was implicated in the credit card fraud ring that was going on within the airline. IIRC, there has been no evidence that Su was about to blow the whistle on the scam, or that she was even aware that it was going on.

The oddest part about the case was the fact that she went to go get sandwiches early in the morning for her crew, but when she didn't return, the guys punched her out and simply left and never reported her missing. Those guys on the crew know what happened to her, IMO. It was a set up all along. I tend to think someone with an axe to grind against her probably used the ruse of Su finding out about the credit card scam, which scared the other guys working with her into going along with this disgusting murder plot to "bump her off". I'm fairly certain that the cops believe either "Bobby" or the other guy who was always getting into fights are responsible for her murder.

There was some articles online that went into detail about the case. Apparently there are 3 main suspects in the case. One man was a guy (can't recall his name, but he wasn't really featured in the UM segment) who was getting into fights all the time with other males, and Su intervened one day and the guy made a derogatory remark at her and treated her bad ever since. He didn't respect her authority, felt burned because he felt like she cheated her way into her supervisor position, and was constantly taunting her at work by drawing lewd pictures of her in the break room and bathrooms, and also leaving threatening messages for her. The other suspect was the guy "Bobby" featured in the UM segment who broke her radio. Su and "Bobby" actually were in a relationship together at one point, but it didn't last long. The other man was just one of the guys who worked with Su who was implicated in the credit card fraud ring that was going on within the airline. IIRC, there has been no evidence that Su was about to blow the whistle on the scam, or that she was even aware that it was going on.

The oddest part about the case was the fact that she went to go get sandwiches early in the morning for her crew, but when she didn't return, the guys punched her out and simply left and never reported her missing. Those guys on the crew know what happened to her, IMO. It was a set up all along. I tend to think someone with an axe to grind against her probably used the ruse of Su finding out about the credit card scam, which scared the other guys working with her into going along with this disgusting murder plot to "bump her off". I'm fairly certain that the cops believe either "Bobby" or the other guy who was always getting into fights are responsible for her murder.

Did you mean that there was an article online that discussed it or an article that was posted in one of these forums?

I'm still picking my jaw up off the floor from reading these earlier posts, which clearly were during one of my numerous sabbaticals from the boards, because I know I would have said something regarding Wamisto's comments. I think Nohwhere Girl already hammered the majority of what I was going to say, but I have to add the following:

1. WHAT DOES IT MATTER that Su and "Bobby" may have had a sexual relationship in the years prior to her murder? "Leading him on" is no excuse for murder, if that's the direction you were headed in. I get so tired of this mentality that the victim is somehow responsible for the horrible things that happen to them. I hear it every day, "Well, it doesn't matter that she hit him with her car because he was drunk and called her a c***," or "She should have known better than to wear that skirt," or (the very worst, in my opinion) "It's all my fault. I should have told him no before we were making out." (She said this despite the fact that she told him no, repeatedly, before he pinned her down and raped her. During which she was STILL saying no.)

But I digress.

Looking at all the known facts that are in front of us, it seems apparent that Su the victim of long-occuring workplace harassment and was most likely killed because of her whistle-blowing. It stands to make the most sense. Was Bobby the killer? I don't know. I wish I knew.

I just don't understand how Su's story can be interpreted as a "lesson" to young women that they shouldn't flirt so much and that Martha Moxley would still be alive today if she wasn't such a flirt. That's completely insane.

I tend to think "Bobby" felt burned once Su started dating another coworker, and was by all accounts a jealous p-r-i-c-k. Unfortunately for Su, she not only had to deal with this @sshole on a daily basis, but several others as well. If I had to guess, I'd say "Bobby" was the one behind the phone calls at all hours of the night. The other guy with a temper (found it, Joseph Nuzzo) was the one who admitted to drawing lewd pictures and scrawling lewd messages and death threats directed at Su.

According to witnesses, Nuzzo became fearful that Su found out about the credit card fraud ring and that she was going to talk to police. So that right there gives him a motive for wanting her dead. "Bobby", who coincidentally was an usher in Nuzzo's wedding, had a prior relationship with Su, AND was involved in the credit card fraud ring. IMO, both men conspired to murder Su. Maybe both were involved. "Bobby" served time in prison for the credit card fraud, and then got into even more trouble for perjury when it was determined that he lied to a grand jury about talking on the phone to Nuzzo on the day that Su was murdered. If that doesn't sound like the two of them were in cahoots, I don't know what does.

I tend to think "Bobby" felt burned once Su started dating another coworker, and was by all accounts a jealous p-r-i-c-k. Unfortunately for Su, she not only had to deal with this @sshole on a daily basis, but several others as well. If I had to guess, I'd say "Bobby" was the one behind the phone calls at all hours of the night. The other guy with a temper (found it, Joseph Nuzzo) was the one who admitted to drawing lewd pictures and scrawling lewd messages and death threats directed at Su.

According to witnesses, Nuzzo became fearful that Su found out about the credit card fraud ring and that she was going to talk to police. So that right there gives him a motive for wanting her dead. "Bobby", who coincidentally was an usher in Nuzzo's wedding, had a prior relationship with Su, AND was involved in the credit card fraud ring. IMO, both men conspired to murder Su. Maybe both were involved. "Bobby" served time in prison for the credit card fraud, and then got into even more trouble for perjury when it was determined that he lied to a grand jury about talking on the phone to Nuzzo on the day that Su was murdered. If that doesn't sound like the two of them were in cahoots, I don't know what does.

Wow, I didn't know all of that. Definitely leads towards them being involved. I can't remember how she was murdered. Can someone fill me in?

Wow, I didn't know all of that. Definitely leads towards them being involved. I can't remember how she was murdered. Can someone fill me in?

She was found wrapped in a blanket in the trunk of her car. Stabbed and bludgeoned to death

She was found wrapped in a blanket in the trunk of her car. Stabbed and bludgeoned to death

Thanks. I had completely forgotten.

Which is why I think it was an "inside job," so to speak.

1.) The manner in which she was murdered was much more personal than that of two bullets to the head.

2.) She wasn't reporting missing for 36 freakin' hours by her co-workers, ALL of whom said that is was not like Su to just leave the jobsite and not come back.

3.) The illegal activities which came to light after her death.

Which is why I think it was an "inside job," so to speak.

1.) The manner in which she was murdered was much more personal than that of two bullets to the head.

2.) She wasn't reporting missing for 36 freakin' hours by her co-workers, ALL of whom said that is was not like Su to just leave the jobsite and not come back.

3.) The illegal activities which came to light after her death.

The crew that worked with her that night also punched her time card out as if she returned to work and never reported her missing.

The crew that worked with her that night also punched her time card out as if she returned to work and never reported her missing.

Woah, I didn't know! How much more of a "smoking gun" did investigators need?

What a sad case. I watched this yesterday and had not seen it for years. This was definitely an inside job and I totally believe that su was a victim of harassment working in a mostly male workplace. I'm sure she had to fight through a lot of obstacles to get fair treatment. I feel like our culture has changed since then some, but she was a victim and there are still obviously jerks that are being gender biased or sexist if they are thinking she was at fault in any way that she was murdered. This is another case that leaves you wanting more details.

What a sad case. I watched this yesterday and had not seen it for years. This was definitely an inside job and I totally believe that su was a victim of harassment working in a mostly male workplace. I'm sure she had to fight through a lot of obstacles to get fair treatment. I feel like our culture has changed since then some, but she was a victim and there are still obviously jerks that are being gender biased or sexist if they are thinking she was at fault in any way that she was murdered. This is another case that leaves you wanting more details.

For sure. There are a couple cases like that that UM has featured. Su's story is definitely at the top of my list.

http://www.boston.com/news/crime/2016/09/14/billboards-across-greater-boston-feature-young-woman-murdered-24-years-ago?s_campaign=bcom%3Asocialflow%3Afacebook

it was the radio destroyer

http://www.boston.com/news/crime/2016/09/14/billboards-across-greater-boston-feature-young-woman-murdered-24-years-ago?s_campaign=bcom%3Asocialflow%3Afacebook

YES. Give this woman the attention she deserves!

YES. Give this woman the attention she deserves!

Excellent news.

He did it because the Bruins lost

He did it because the Bruins lost
That was terrible. I watched this segment last night. I'm glad her family spoke out against the harassment she faced at work. I'm glad the authorities are still trying to solve the case. I hope we hear good news soon.