A Killer with Kids

by Diane Fanning

Many Americans were upset when O. J. Simpson retained custody of his children after his trial for the killing of his wife, Nicole Brown and waiter Ron Goldman. Many believed, as I did, that O.J. got away with murder. The child custody issue increased our outrage. But the bottom line was that, in the eyes of the law, O.J. was found not guilty. That finding made it difficult for the courts to remove the children from his care.

That was not the case with Mary Winkler. You remember Mary, don't you? She was the preacher's wife in Selmer, Tennessee, who shot her husband in the back while he was sleeping, then took her little girls to the beach.

The jury did not find her guilty of first or second degree murder, but instead opted to convict her of a lesser felony, voluntary manslaughter. That verdict called for a sentence of three to six years. The jury ended their deliberations believing that Mary's time behind bars would be measured in years, not days.

But that's not exactly what happened. The judge went for the lower end of the sentencing guidelines, giving Mary three years--but only 210 days of that had to be served in lock-up--she was given probation for the rest. Then the judge subtracted the days she served in jail after her arrest before her family could raise bail. When he finished the math, there was a balance of 67 days to serve. He then granted the defense request to allow her to spend up to sixty days of that time in an approved mental health facility.

After her conviction for shooting an unarmed, sleeping man in the back, Mary only had to stay in jail for seven days. How did that happen?

The jurors believed her claims of domestic abuse--some of which were grossly exaggerated, others were blatantly false. But the jury believed every word she said because Mary was a sympathetic witness. And her persuasive and savvy defense team led by Mississippi attorney Steve Farese used innuendo, emotional appeals and shocking, but phony, props to back up her testimony.

Mary didn't get her children as soon as her sentenced was served. It took her more than a year after her release to gain custody of her three girls--but she did do it. I was appalled.

Here was a woman, who by her own expert witness' testimony, experienced disassociative episodes that made her lose control of her actions. A woman who claimed to have been abused and then herself committed the ultimate act of domestic abuse. And she didn't kill him at a time when she felt the threat of imminent danger. No, by her own words, she wanted to talk to him and he didn't listen. For that reason, she shot him and then left him bleeding on the floor, unplugging the phone on her way out to make sure he could not call for help.

So what happens when her obedient little girls become teenagers and refuse to pay attention to her when she speaks? Will she lose it again?

And, now, in their early years, as they try to make sense of the world, how can they succeed? The person who killed their father--a man they loved--is now the person that have to depend on for survival and their sense of security.

The oldest girl, Patricia, who was eight years old at the time of the murder, told her psychologist: "My mommy killed my daddy. I'm afraid she'll kill me, too."

Perhaps Patricia has learned to conciously suppress that worry. But deep in her mind, the doubt about her mother will linger. She waill grow up in fear of her life. No court should ever allow that to happen to any child.

Tweet

The Failed Chemical Castration . . . . 286 Victims Later

by Susan Murphy-Milano

Each morning from her home in Richmond, Virgina, Polly Franks begins her day by answering calls and personally responding to the dozens of emails she receives from strangers asking for advice and information on serial sexual predators.

In 1983, "ski-mask rapist" Joseph Frank Smith was convicted twice of raping a woman in San Antonio,Texas.Instead of being sent to prison, a judge released Smith on probation. Smith's attorney convinced the court that he was a candidate for a new procedure called "chemical castration" with the stipulation that he take the drug Depo-Provera and attend weekly counseling sessions for the next ten years. His lawyer argued if his client received regular injections that it would reduce his testosterone level and he would no longer have a desire to rape women and children.

Following his 30 days' in-patient treatment at John Hopkins Hospital, Smith was free to move to Richmond, Virginia to start his new life.

Three years into his castration injections, he met, and fell in love with his treatment nurse, Barbara. The couple married and began a family.

Somehow, with six years left of his court-ordered treatment, Smith was dismissed from the program and instructed to report to the Texas courts by mail until the end of his parole. Frank and Barbara appeared to be your average couple. Smith was an over-the-road truck driver and Barbara a registered nurse.

When Polly Franks and her family moved next-door to the couple she was thrilled. The families spent time together at each other homes. Their children became best friends.

In the early 1990s police received reports from 83 pre-teen-aged girls who had either been raped or molested by a man who would break into home while the children were sleeping. Police were left scratching their heads. This person was not in their database and matched no one currently in their system.

In 1995, while Polly's girls, ages 8 and 9, were at a sleep-over, Barbara Smith caught her husband, naked and masturbating in front of their eight-year-old daughter and the neighbors' kids. Police were contacted. They ran Smith's DNA through a state-wide database. It came back positive for the rape of a five-year girl. Smith was arrested.

When Frank Joseph Smith only received a suspended sentence, Polly Franks was furious. She decided to keep an eye on him, following him each time he moved into a new neighborhood. Undeterred by a childhood disease that had left her dependent on a wheelchair and crutches for mobility, Polly Franks moved with the ease and art of a veteran twenty-year law enforcement officer.

In 1997, Polly Franks got her private investigator license with the sole purpose of bringing Smith to justice. And it was also a way to legally follow Smith. She was determined to learn within the law how to get him off the streets. In 1998, Smith was finally sentenced to 40 years in prison. In 1999, he was sentenced to life plus 20 years after pleading guilty to the rape of a five-year-old and the confession to 83 other sexual assaults with children.

Polly Franks has testified before Congress and lobbied on Capital Hill for tougher sex offender laws.

In 2006, she created the Franks Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting kids from sexual predators. And she provides a rather unique service to young victims of sexual abuse who are treated at hospitals called "Operation Fuzzy." The kits provide a tremendous comfort to the children after a trauma.

"Smith did not get to my children or anyone else's because of parental neglect. Smith's crime spree was a smashing success because repeatedly he was put back onto the streets, 286 victims (that we know of) later."

By his own admission, he was a sex offender from the age of eleven.

He did not go to prison until he was forty-six years of age.

When a child is violated, we are all violated.

Polly Franks will also be a guest on Justice Interrupted radio, Tuesday, October 21, 2008.

Tweet

A Lesson in Confessions

by Katherine Scardino

Fade in to a dimly lit small room with a low bulb hanging over a square table. Two hardback, uncomfortable chairs. There is one door to the room with no windows. A young black man is sitting in one of those straight-back chairs facing an older, white man with a badge so big one could not miss it hanging over his belt.

The white man has on stiff, creased Wrangler jeans with shiny polished black cowboy boots and a starched white shirt. His hair is short and graying. His red face is about an inch from the sweating face of the young black man and he is yelling and pounding on the table.

“You know you are lying! Tell me you did it and we can go all go home!”

That is what we generally think of “confessions.” Not very nicely done . . . but productive. However, as with everything else in our lives, I repeat what I have said many times before on Women in Crime Ink - THERE ARE RULES.

When it comes to an accused person giving a statement, here is "The Rule of all rules":

“A statement of an accused may be used in evidence against him if it appears that the same was freely and voluntarily made without compulsion or persuasion under the rules hereafter prescribed.”

We have all heard officers on television (or maybe, even in person) recite your “rights” to you. Those rights are referred to as your “Miranda rights,” a slangy term for the holding in Miranda v. Arizona, a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1966. Two of these rights that must be read to you at the time you are making a statement to the police is that (1) you have the right to have an attorney present to advise you before and during any questioning and (2) you have the right to remain silent and not make any statement at all.

There have been literally thousands of cases citing Miranda v. Arizona, where a defendant is contending that his constitutional rights have been violated in some manner. In most criminal cases, the officer at least makes an attempt to question an accused citizen. This accused citizen either cooperates and tells the officer everything he knows, or he refuses to make a statement.

But, whatever he does, it must be done voluntarily. In other words, the officer cannot beat a confession out of you; he cannot promise you something that he knows he cannot deliver to you (such as your freedom); he cannot withhold your attorney from you if he is there and wants to advise you. You have the constitutional right to refuse to say anything, and especially that which may tend to incriminate you.

I bring all this up to you, because Texas has a Death Row inmate who very recently just hit the jackpot - a Federal judge here in Houston just gave him a new trial. He is currently in the process of being removed from Death Row and returned to the Harris County Jail. His name is Robert Fratta. Our own Kelly Seigler was the prosecutor.

In 1994, Robert Fratta was accused of hiring two men to kill his wife. The couple was going through a very contentious divorce/custody fight during that time, and Fratta apparently made several statements to friends about him wanting her dead.

Fratta’s two co-defendants were Howard Guidry and Joseph Prystash. All three men received death sentences.

In all capital cases where the jury has sentenced an individual to death, there is an automatic direct appeal. The convicted person also has a Federal appellate process available to him as well, and it was through this avenue that Fratta’s case got reversed and a new trial granted.

What is important is why. When the police officers arrested Mr. Guidry and brought him to the police station to question him about the death of this lovely, young woman named Farah Fratta, the officer told Mr. Guidry that he could not see his attorney, and then lied to him and said that the lawyer had given Guidry permission to talk to the officers.

So, he did and confessed to being the triggerman in the killing and to being hired by Mr. Fratta, and also implicating the other accomplice, Prystash. After all the dust settled . . . after all the objections and rulings . . . after all three men went through a jury trial in State court (where Guidry’s confession was admitted into evidence in front of each jury, and other hearsay testimony was admitted, but later ruled to be inadmissible) . . . and after all three defendants were sentenced to death . . . after all the appeals . . . Guidry and Fratta walked out of the appellate maze with a chance at a different verdict in State court.

Guidry has already had his retrial; he heard that one-word verdict and the dreaded death sentence for the second time. But Mr. Fratta’s new trial is yet to come.

In past postings, I have talked about these rights that you and I have and how important they are. I know some of you will start posting your disgust with the criminal justice system immediately upon reading all this. But, remember, the defense lawyer’s objections that were ultimately ruled valid had to do with a police officer not allowing Mr. Guidry to talk to his lawyer and his confession being admitted as evidence in front of all three juries, who then handed down death sentences.

Think about how our system would work if the rules were different. Imagine your son or husband being arrested for suspicion of committing some crime and being placed in similar circumstances.

Does it make a difference in the way the rule works whether the person is guilty or not?

How would anyone know that during that early stage of investigation?

Do you think Fratta should get a new trial because of the behavior of the officer with a co-defendant?

Do you even think Fratta should be sentenced to death when he was not the triggerman?

A lot of questions.

Tweet

Desperate Times Lead To Desperate Measures . . . Or Is It Just a Poor Excuse for Murder?

by Robin Sax

As the financial times and the economy continue down a very slippery slope, people are becoming more panicked than ever. Just last week I was at the airport and overhead a businessman calming his wife on the phone, explaining to her that “we’re almost there, it’s going to turn around.”

I have spoken to parents who have dutifully opened college savings plans 18 years ago, only to be stressed about how they are going to pay for their kids’ college education. The money’s just about gone, and people have lost their homes, their jobs, and their life savings. And then there are those who have lost their minds.
In the last two weeks alone, stories of desperation have made headlines throughout the country. In Los Angeles, there was the case of 45-year-old Karthik Rajaram, a guy who appeared to live the “picture-perfect life” with all the accoutrements of a successful life: a beautiful home, a career, a family, luxury cars. When he lost his job as a financial advisor, he pulled a gun on his 39-year old wife, his three sons (ages 7, 12, and 19), his 69-year-old mother-in-law, and then himself. He left a suicide note saying that his financial troubles had led him to conclude that this was his only option. All he left behind were his possessions, which are now packaged by crime-scene tape (above).

Meanwhile, in Ohio, a 90-year-old woman attempted suicide after facing eviction from her home of 38 years. In despair, she actually shot and wounded herself.

Just a few weeks ago, my post was about the bigger picture of how economy and crime went together like peas and carrots. I looked at the presidential candidate platforms for guidance, understanding, and hope. But neither John McCain nor Barack Obama inspired me or gave me answers to who was going to fix this mess. However, I was certain of and continue to know that our economy has a direct correlation to our crime rate.

I am not alone in my opinion. Richard Rosenfeld a sociologist at the University of Missouri – St. Louis said, “Every recession since the late ’50s has been associated with an increase in crime and in particular, property crimes and robbery, which would be most responsible to changes in economic conditions.” He does point out, however, that “there is typically a year lag between the economic change and crime rates.”

But as the economy continues to plunge and homes continue to foreclose, do we face increased risk of murder and suicide? Can economically hard times really lead someone to kill? I look to my colleagues—profiler Pat Brown and psychiatrist Dr. Lucy Puryear for answers. While fascinated with why people can do the things they do, as a prosecutor I know the answers are not necessarily elements of a crime that I must prove.

For example, in a murder case, I need to show that a defendant had the specific intent to kill, but I don’t have to prove motive, even if I know there is one.

As a human being, an American, and a prosecutor, I feel it is my obligation to understand how the conditions in our country can trigger this type of desperation. Is it what others suggest—a poor excuse to kill? According to Rich Paul, a vice-president of Virginia-based Value Options, Inc., which handles mental health referrals, calls about stress-related foreclosures and financial hardships have gone up 200% in California in the last year. Rates of depression increase as the economy worsens. Stress and depression are one thing. . . . Murder is another.

Since the economy affects everyone, we all need to understand how it works and come to grips with it. And perhaps, even more important, we all need to know that there are options, help, and resources for everyone in these most difficult and stressful times.

Tweet

FLORIDA MOM CHARGED WITH MURDER

Casey Anthony was arrested today for the fourth time in as many months. This time, Casey was charged with the murder of her toddler daughter Caylee, missing since June.

As many months as the investigation has dragged on . . . a Florida grand jury took only half an hour to return a seven-count indictment, charging Casey, 22, with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter, and four counts of providing false information to law enforcement—all in relation to her child's mysterious disappearance.

The grand jury heard from a handful of witnesses: the lead investigator, a cadaver dog handler, an FBI agent, and George Anthony, Casey's father.

"This is going to be very hard for me to do," Mr. Anthony told reporters before testifying. He loved his daughter, he said, but "the focus has always been on my granddaughter and always will be."

Mr. Anthony asked the public to "take a moment out at eleven o'clock this morning and eleven o'clock tonight and just pray for her."

Though Caylee is presumed dead, her body has not been recovered.

"Despite the charges against Ms. Anthony we have not achieved our objective," said an official spokesman. "We have not found little Caylee Anthony."

Tonight, Casey Anthony is expected to be kept in protective custody. She is scheduled to make an initial appearance in the morning, when Casey will face a judge and formal charges of misleading investigators and murdering her daughter.

For details on today's arrest, watch WCI's newest contributor, Diane Dimond, on CNN tonight.

Tweet

Is Casey Anthony Another Susan Smith?

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

I am often asked by the media to comment on cases where mothers have harmed or killed their children. I frequently am called by attorneys asking for help in their cases where a mother has killed her child.

Because of my work in the Andrea Yates case it is hoped that I may be able to offer some psychiatric defense for other defendants. If the alleged murderer was suffering from psychosis then a verdict of Not Guilty by reason of insanity may be successful. Many attorneys wrongfully assume (or hope against hope) that if the mother they represent has killed her child then she must be "crazy." I am sure she is "crazy" in some form, but not always in a way that mitigates her responsibility for the crime.

It is impossible for me to forget the case of Susan Smith. It was October of 1994, and I was a second-year resident in psychiatry at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston. I was learning how to diagnose psychiatric illness and treat psychiatric emergencies. We were also being trained in detecting whether someone was fabricating or exaggerating their illness for some secondary gain. It was not at all unusual to interview persons who were trying to get prescription medications from naive young doctors, or who wanted to be admitted to the hospital for a warm bed and three free meals.

But as I watched Susan Smith on television tearful and begging for the lives of her children, I felt tremendous sorrow and grief for her. I could only imagine how devastating it would be if I had been accosted and my children kidnapped. Her grief felt in sharp contrast to the drug addict trying to convince me they were terribly anxious and needed me to prescribe Valium. I knew one women was in real pain, and the other just trying to manipulate me.

The nation and I were shocked to learn that while Susan Smith sobbed, her children were strapped in to their car seats, at the bottom of a lake. The person responsible for their deaths? Their mother.

In the Casey Anthony case we have a mother who allegedly killed her child, stored her daughter's body in the trunk of the car, and then began to party. Only when questioned did she report that her daughter had been missing for some time.

Unlike Susan Smith, we never saw her on television begging for her child's return. We did see her at the disco and at Target, acting as if life couldn't be better. Even if she didn't murder her cute-as-a-button daughter, why is she acting so blase about the fact that her daughter is missing? Unexplainable.

What are the possible reasons a mother could kill her child? From a psychiatric point of view, I think there's something seriously wrong with someone who murders her own child. It doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be punished, but I also think that a diagnosis of some type can be made. Let's start with the "easier to make the connection" psychiatric disorders:

1. Psychosis: A person hears voices telling them to harm their child or has a delusion that makes them believe their child needs to be saved from evil or their child is evil and the world needs to be saved. This was true in the Andrea Yates case; she believed her children were being taken over by Satan, and in order to save them from hell she had to send them to heaven while they were still innocent enough for God to take them. This can happen to women who become psychotic for the first time after delivery, or in patients who have previous diagnoses of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. This can be prevented with appropriate psychiatric intervention and medication. Mothers can be treated and children do not have to die.

2. Depression: A mother can become so severely depressed that she wants to kill herself but feels that her children would suffer without a mother. She kills the children before she attempts to kill herself. Sometimes she is unsuccessful at taking her own life and must face the emotional and legal consequences of her choice. This can happen in severe postpartum depression or in cases where a mother is depressed due to financial or marital stresses. She believes she is protecting her children from being left behind to suffer. Depression can also be identified and treated and lives saved.

3. Borderline Personality Disorder: This is a complicated diagnosis and varies in severity from individual to individual. The characteristics of this diagnosis are mood lability with terrible feelings of depression, loneliness, emptiness, and despair. This mood symptoms are often accompanied by substance abuse, risk-taking behavior, and suicidal thoughts with less serious attempts. These attempts are often seen as cries for help. Persons with BPD form intense chaotic relationships which are often passionately good early on and then become disappointing and passionately bad later on. This disorder usually occurs in people who have histories of childhood abuse, abandonment, parents with disorder, or other chaotic, "not safe," inconsistent attachments to caretakers. Borderline Personality Disorder is hard to treat. The treatment consists of long-term psychotherapy and medication.

Although I have not personally interviewed Susan Smith, this is most likely her diagnosis. She was raised by a violent alcoholic father who later committed suicide when her mother divorced him. Her mother remarried a man who molested Susan for many years without reprisal. Susan began to engage in relationships with married men while she was in high school and was in the middle of a divorce and rejected by her lover when she released the parking brake in her car and watched her children drown. She knew what she was doing was wrong, but at that moment was feeling such despair and hopelessness that it felt like a way to make life less complicated. She also believed that without her two children her boyfriend might take her back. She was terrified to be alone without a man in her life to allow her to feel complete.

4. Narcissitic Personality Disorder: This is an unfortunately common personality disorder that often does not cause the person who has it much discomfort. Persons with this type of character have little regard for needs or feelings of others, but use others to meet their own needs and desires. Often those with this type of disorder are successful in their business or careers and can appear outgoing and charismatic, but they draw people to them for their own personal gain. If a loved one or colleague stops being useful to them then they can be easily disposed of without much pain. If there are problems in their lives, they are blamed on the inadequacies of others. Narcissistic individuals have a hard time taking personal responsibility. The causes for this disorder are not entirely clear, but often there is a childhood history of being highly adulated by parents, not made to take responsibility for mistakes with parents often helping to cover-up or fix problems, and having things given without having to learn the value of hard work and disappointment.

I don't know Casey Anthony's history, but her behavior certainly fits one who has little regard for others, is primarily interested in her own welfare and happiness, and will go to great lengths to escape consequences or punishment. Susan Smith confessed to what she had done and felt remorse. Casey Anthony continues to lie and deceive.

5. Antisocial Personality Disorder: These are the people who fill our jails. People without conscience, morality, or the ability to live within societal norms. I can give too many examples of this. . . . Mothers who drown their kids to get back at cheating boyfriends . . . Mothers who leave their kids alone to go hang out at the crack house . . . Mothers who abuse and torture their children for . . . enjoyment. At the moment there is no treatment for this disorder. Therapy as an adult doesn't work. Early childhood intervention is most likely the key. There has been one study published that links those in jail to having had mothers who had postpartum depression. By the time someone reaches jail it is mostly too late.

Mothers will continue to kill their children. Jail may most certainly be appropriate for some individuals, but it is not a deterrent to other mothers. Fortunately there are some causes of maternal filicide that are very treatable with proper screening, identification, and treatment.

The Mother's Act in Congress failed but will be brought out again for another vote. This law would require more money be earmarked for the recognition of, treatment for, and research of postpartum psychiatric disorders. (If only it been part of the "pork" in the bailout, like the Parity bill which mandates insurance companies pay equally for psychiatric illnesses.)

Early childhood intervention to prevent child abuse, neglect, ensure quality education and day care, and support for single mothers could go a long way towards decreasing the incidence of antisocial personality disorders. Susan Smith could have benefited from intensive therapy and intervention by someone to stop the abuse by her stepfather. We have the means and the knowledge to stop some of these heinous crimes.

Casey Anthony? There was a book written in 1954 called The Bad Seed. A good read.

Tweet

Domestic Violence? Cut It Out

by Donna Pendergast

October is recognized nationally as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The month-long focus on domestic violence is intended to educate the public and emphasize the need for community involvement in efforts intended to reduce domestic violence.

A national nonprofit organized as the Salons Against Domestic Abuse Fund has a unique domestic violence education and awareness program called Cut It Out, which has been successfully implemented in beauty salons around the country. Recognizing that often times women in abusive relationships need help but don't know where to turn, Cut It Out trains salon professionals how to recognize the warning signals of domestic violence and safely refer clients to local resources.

The premise behind Cut It Out is based on the recognition that women often form a close bond based on trust with their hair stylists. Stylists see their clients regularly, month after month, year after year, and are personally interested in them and their lives. The nature of the job dictates that stylists be good listeners and often times lengthy and personal conversations occur during the hair-styling process where women confide things that they may not tell anyone else.

Cut It Out seeks to ensure that stylists know what to do with the potentially dangerous confidences that may be revealed during these conversations. The stylists are not trained to become counselors nor to insert themselves in the situation, which could put both sides at risk, but rather to ensure that the client has the information that she may need to take herself out of the situation.

The program also recognizes that often times the salon is a safe environment and may be one of the few places where an abused woman is allowed to go alone. Often women who are abused are watched and followed by their abusers and have found that the hair salon is an acceptable excuse where they can safely get away from a dangerous situation. Placing resources in these locations ensures that the information is able to make its way to those most in need.

The hands-on nature of the contact between a stylist and a client also uniquely positions the stylist to be able to see signs of domestic violence that may not be visible to the average person. Bruises on a clients head or areas where hair has been ripped out of her scalp may indicate to the stylist that there is a serious problem at home.

The educational component of the Cut It Out program consists of seminars that provide salon professionals with information about domestic violence and teach them how to respond to a client who might be a victim of abuse. These seminars are targeted towards cosmetology schools and ongoing education for salon professionals to better equip stylists to respond to instances of potential domestic violence.

The salons also participate in the program by creating a safe and inviting environment that is intended to encourage clients to ask for information on domestic violence. Salons are asked to hang posters with awareness information in private areas of the salon and safety card kits small enough to be hidden inside of a women's shoe are distributed at the salons by being placed at stylist stations or in the ladies room. These trifold cards about the size of a business card list important information including what to do if your partner becomes violent and a toll-free number for the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

In August, Empire Education Group, the nation's largest group of corporate owned cosmetology schools, launched a national anti-domestic violence campaign called Empire Gives Back, which will benefit communities nationwide by supporting the Cut It Out program. Empire is coordinating a national roll out of the Cut It Out program to all 87 of its schools across the country. This means that the program will reach more than eleven-thousand students annually.

Empire is also working with the U.S. Attorneys Office to adopt a local domestic violence support organization within proximity to each Empire school. Clients seeking support from these adopted support organizations will also become eligible to receive financial assistance to attend any Empire Beauty School in the country.

To further prove that Empire is putting its money where its mouth is (or where its scissors are), this past Saturday the company held its annual Day of Beauty. All proceeds from hair, skin, and nail services taken in on that day will be used to benefit the Cut It Out program.

Since its inception, the Cut It Out program has enlisted the support of more than 40,000 salon professionals and has distributed more than 400,000 posters and 3,000,000 safety cards. This initiative "thinks outside the box" while providing a innovative way to help end the fear and pain of domestic violence. That's an agenda we all should support.

Statements made in this post are my own and not intended to reflect the views, opinions, or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Tweet

One Small FBI Secret Uncovered

by Diane Fanning

A few months ago, I posted a blog entitled What is the FBI Hiding? It was more about the murder of Julie and Lollie in the Shenandoah National Park and the Route 29 killings but it tied back to Into the Water, a book I'd written about serial killer Richard Marc Evonitz.

The investigation into the deaths of three girls in Spotsylvania, Virginia, in 1996 and 1997 had a lot of ups and downs before Evonitz was identified as the perpetrator in 2002. A few months after Sofia's murder, another man was arrested and charged with her homicide in 1996. But that charge was based on faulty forensics by a woman in the lab who was determined to set aside scientific honesty to make a ruling to support law enforcement's suspicions. She lost her job.

But I knew all along there something else that the FBI was hiding. And I recently found out about one of the problems in the investigation that also involved bad forensic analysis. The forensic pathologist who performed Sofia's autopsy had been negligent. He did not clean up carefully after the previous autopsy. As a result, a hair was taken into evidence in her case as the hair of a suspect, that, in fact, was a hair belonging to the man who'd been autopsied on the table immediately before her.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn of more information that the FBI is hiding is hiding about the investigations of the killing of young girls in Spotsylania, the route 29 homicides and the double murder in Shenandoah National Park. I only hope one day, all the truth is revealed.

A week ago, St. Martin's Press re-released Into the Water as a True Crime Classic, a select line of their previous successful books in that genre. It was the third of my books to be re-issued in that line.

Tweet

Broken Circle of Friends

by Connie Park

There is a quadruple murder trial going on here in Harris County, Texas, involving friends from Clear Lake High School—located in a suburb outside of Houston.

Residents of the upper-class neighborhood never feared violent crimes occurring. Until July 18, 2003, that is, when four young lives were taken from the community and families were changed forever.

Christine Paolilla, now 22, is on trial not only for the death of her best friend Rachael Koloroutis, 18, but also for three more victims who were shot multiple times and left for dead in their homes. Paolilla is facing life in prison since she was only seventeen at the time of the murders. In opening statements, Harris County prosecutor Rob Freyer stated that Paolilla shot her best friend, Koloroutis (pictured right), then returned to the home and pistol whipped her as she was crawling to get to the phone to call 911. The other murder victims were 18-year-old Tiffany Rowell, her 19-year-old boyfriend Marcus Precella, and his cousin Adelbert Sanchez, 21.

According to Sgt. Tom Ladd, a veteran homicide investigator for nearly three decades with the Houston Police Department, was taken aback from the “gory scene” where the victims were found in their home. He stated that all the victims sustained multiple gunshot wounds and that there were over 20 shots fired.

Investigators initially believed the murders were drug-related. According to witnesses, Sanchez and Precella were selling drugs out of their house and there were people in and out of the house. Investigators interviewed witness after witness and followed up with leads until all leads were exhausted. There was even a $100,000 reward raised by family members and friends for any information leading up to the murder charges of their loved ones.

As months went by, investigators diligently continued following up leads and any tips they would receive. Until one day in 2006, investigators received the call they were waiting for. The investigation led to Christine Paolilla and her boyfriend, Christopher Snider, who were developed as suspects. On July 20, 2006, approximately three years to the date of the murders, Paolilla was arrested in San Antonio. Snider committed suicide in Greenville, South Carolina shortly after he learned he was charged with the quadruple murders.

Paolilla in her statement to Sgt. Breck McDaniel stated that Snider forced her to shoot and kill her friends and that she was afraid he would kill her if she didn’t. Defense attorney Mike DeGeurin (pictured left with Christine) told jurors in his opening statement stated that Paolilla was "a lost, sad little girl, alone in the world and she was influenced by bad guys who became her boyfriends.” He further went on to state that after Snider finished firing his gun, he forced a pistol into Paolilla’s hand and made her shoot the victims. Paolilla stated she heard multiple gunshots and heard the girls screaming. She just wanted the gunfire to stop. Paolilla stated that Snider held the gun in her hand and made her shoot her friends.

After Paolilla left the house, she went to work at Walgreen’s in Seabrook, Texas. She started crying and became hysterical when she saw blood on her hands.

But years later, after Paolilla married, she gave her husband, Justin Rott, another version of how the murders took place. According to Rott, Paolilla told him that she went back to the house after the shooting and found that Koloroutis was still alive. Rott said that Paolilla finished the job by beating Koloroutis to death while she was gasping and choking on her own blood. Cell phone records revealed Koloroutis attempted to call 911 on her cell phone at 3:12 p.m., a few minutes before she died.

Closing arguments will begin next week and one can only hope that justice will prevail.

Tweet

Trying to Control the Uncontrollable

by Kelly Siegler

Ever thought about what it feels like to be the person in charge of a trial? The orchestrator, if you will, of the witnesses and of the evidence? The person who should by all appearances have the presentation completely planned and under control? What does it really feel like to be the prosecutor trying a serious case?

I can tell you. In a word, miserable.

Not fun.

Sick to your stomach.

Scary.

The truth might surprise a lot of people. It might even surprise a lot of long-time prosecutors. Yeah, yeah, we know. . . . We've all heard the lectures and the stories about how "exciting" and "challenging" and "exhilarating" it is to be a trial lawyer. Anyone who truly enjoys being in a trial is to be admired. I wish I could feel that way.

Truth is there aren't a lot of other situations in the job market very much like the stress that comes with preparing for and enduring a jury trial. Throw into that conflict the fact that a heck of a lot of prosecutors tend to like to CONTROL their world as much as possible and their "world" is loaded with nothing but UN-controllables.

Least in our control are the witnesses, as much as we like to think we can prepare them. . . . Other uncontrollables: the jury we ultimately end up with, because we kid ourselves that we picked them—funny; the Judge whose courtroom we find ourselves attempting to orchestrate our "symphony" in; the defense attorney, whose sole purpose it is to try to derail our carefully laid plans; the scheduling, the timing, the cross-examination of every, single witness. . . . Geez, I'm getting sick just thinking about all of it.

And what about the part over which we really think we have control? Our own performance?? How brilliantly we PLAN to make a point or argue our case or kick some butt. . . .

Maybe all of our angst and nerves and stress are the reasons why we resort to such lame and even silly attempts to convince ourselves that we are truly in control. It is pretty amusing to know that a lot of us have ourselves convinced that wearing a certain color on the "big" day will bring us luck or that wearing a certain color will ward off evil spirits. Think I'm making this up? WCI's defense lawyer Katherine Scardino recently disclosed she has a fairy wand.

Believing that if we eat the exact same food every single day of trial or placing our trial "tools" on the table in the courtroom the exact same way every day will guarantee a successful resolution are other "tricks of the trade." Following one of those "tricks" led to a friend of mine getting really sick of eating red Jell-O after three weeks in a trial.

The most commonly seen "side effect" of being in trial is losing weight. We even call it a "trial diet." There aren't too many prosecutors out there who are able to eat a real meal while trying to put on a "perfect" presentation of evidence. Heck, most survive on Diet Cokes and don't eat at all! It once got so bad during a trial that the jury asked the bailiff to see if there was something wrong with me because I was starting to look so lousy after about week five.

So now you know. The next time you see a prosecutor looking ever-so-cool in the middle of a trial . . . nothing could be further from the truth.

Tweet

An American Girl on Trial for Murder Trial in Italy - The Amanda Knox Case

by Jenna Jackson

Last spring, we brought you the story (or at least the beginning) of the Amanda Knox case. She’s in Italy–accused of killing her roommate.

On November 1, 2007, Meredith Kercher, 21, was found semi-naked with her throat cut in her bedroom of the student house she shared with Knox (pictured center) in the Italian hilltop town of Perugia.

Her Italian ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito (above, to Amanda's right), and another man, Rudy Guede (left), are accused of sexually assaulting, brutally murdering and stealing money from Kercher, Knox's British roommate in Perugia, the ancient learning hub near Rome where Knox was spending a year abroad from the University of Washington.

Pre-trial hearings are ongoing in this case–and a murder trial is finally on the horizon.

Peter Van Sant is a correspondent with me at 48 Hours–he has been working on this case for months. For those who missed the Mystery Man column he wrote for us in April, here it is. For our regular readers, here's a primer on an upcoming trial worth following.

by Peter Van Sant

This is a murder case that, from the beginning, just didn't seem to add up. The background here is very important to gain perspective on this investigation.

Amanda Knox is the classic all-American girl. She was a straight-A student at Seattle Prep, one of the top Jesuit high schools in the country. She plays guitar and has a wonderful singing voice, starring in a production of "Annie."

A tall brunette, Amanda's beauty turns heads wherever she goes. Her smile radiates. The twenty-one-year-old's biological parents divorced when Amanda (pictured right) was very young, but the family remained close. Mom is a math teacher. Dad is in management at a major department store. Her step father is in finance. All are good people.

Amanda went on to attend the University of Washington in Seattle, where she discovered her true passion in life, languages. She speaks fluent German (her grandparents on her mother's side are from Germany), Italian and some Japanese and Russian. Her friends describe her as friendly, helpful, someone who is concerned about others.

Doesn't sound like the profile of a killer, does it? I admit I'm teasing you here, but please read on.

While studying in Seattle, Amanda learned about a school in Perugia, Italy, called the University for Foreigners. Perugia is a beautiful medieval town about a two-hour drive north of Rome. The university offers students from around the world an opportunity to study in Italy. For Amanda, who was always interested in learning about different languages and cultures, it seemed the perfect place to go.

So while attending the University of Washington, Amanda worked three part-time jobs on the side. Eventually, she saved up more than $7,000. She was accepted into the University for Foreigners, and late last summer, she arrived in Perugia to begin a year of study abroad.

Six weeks later, Amanda was in prison—a suspect in the murder of her roommate, Meredith Kercher of greater London, England. Meredith (pictured left) was a lot like Amanda. She attended Leeds University in the U.K. and dreamed of studying abroad.

She got her chance last year and moved to Italy, where she attended a different school from Amanda's, the University of Perugia. Meredith needed a place to stay, and she eventually found a house she could rent with two Italian students and a young woman from Seattle, Amanda Knox.

On the night of November 1, 2007, Meredith was last seen walking home after having dinner with friends. Amanda wasn't home. She was spending the night at her boyfriend's house.The next morning, Amanda claims she went home to shower and change her clothes. She was upset that someone had left the front door open. After her shower, when she came out of the bathroom, Amanda says she noticed some blood on the floor. She tried calling her roommates, but no one answered their cell phones. Meredith's bedroom door was locked.

Amanda called her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, who walked over to the house. Just then, police arrived. Meredith's two cell phones had been found in someone's yard. Police had come over to the house to return them.Amanda told the police of her concerns. They broke open Meredith's door and discovered her body lying on the floor, covered with her bedspread. There was blood everywhere, including bloody finger stains on a wall.

Meredith's throat had been slashed. Authorities believe she may have taken nearly two hours to die. In the room were some tantalizing clues, a bloody fingerprint and a shoe imprint left in Meredith's blood on the floor.

Amanda Knox was questioned by police. She was later taken back to the crime scene with her boyfriend. Police wanted to see how they would react. They held each other and kissed several times, quick pecking-style kisses. Since Amanda's house was now a crime scene, she didn't have access to her clothes. Later, the two went to buy underwear for Amanda. The clerk claimed they were talking about having steamy sex that night. Authorities thought the behavior was cold and insensitive.

Four days after the murder, Amanda and her boyfriend were brought back to the police station for questioning.

After an all-night, 14-hour session in which Amanda was denied sleep, food, or an attorney, she agreed to sign a statement saying she HAD been at the house that night and that she thought she remembered her boss, Patrick Lumumba, killing Meredith Kercher. You should read her statement. It's written in bizarre English, clearly not dictated by Amanda.Amanda, Patrick Lumumba, and Raffaele Sollecito were all arrested.

Police developed a theory of the crime. They claimed that Amanda, Patrick, and Raffaele wanted Meredith to participate in kinky four-way sex. When Meredith refused, she was assaulted and murdered. The theory was fed to the news media in Italy and Great Britain. For weeks, tabloid newspapers gave the case sensational front-page coverage. Italian television also did extensive coverage. Much of the country saw Amanda as "The Dark Angel of Seattle." That coverage made its way to the U.S. as well.

Through her parents, Amanda has proclaimed her innocence. 48 Hours Mystery hired a renowned private detective, Paul Ciolino of Chicago. The investigator went to Italy to examine the case against Amanda. Ciolino has spoken with witnesses, key investigators, and people who knew all the suspects involved. He has come up with a startling conclusion.

This is a railroad job from hell," says Ciolino, a cigar chomping, pug-faced detective, who specializes in wrongful arrest cases. "There's not a shred of evidence putting this girl at that murder scene. But they've gotta convict her now, or they look like fools."

48 Hours Mystery has learned disturbing new details of what happened during Amanda's 14-hour interrogation that led to her "confession," which was not recorded or witnessed by a third party.

Paul Ciolino also questioned one of the most important witnesses in the case, a woman whose story helped form the police theory. What the woman tells Ciolino, while a 48 Hours Mystery camera is rolling, turns the case upside down.

In Italy, a person can be held without charges for up to one year. Amanda has still not been charged with any crime. She sits today in a maximum-security prison, allowed to see her parents twice a week for a brief time. Her parents say she is frightened. This is as disturbing a case as I've ever covered. (Click here for the full story.)

Tweet

Wishing We Could Send Congress to Federal Prison Over the Financial Crisis

Hunt for Justice by Cynthia Hunt

A joke in Washington goes like this: "What's the difference between Enron and Fannie Mae? Answer: The guys at Enron have been convicted.”

That's no new joke. In the beginning of a Wall Street Journal editorial from June 2006—that's right, two years ago—the WSJ wrote 20 editorials starting all the way back in February 2002, and continuing through June 2006, warning of the impending mortgage crisis.

Again and again, the WSJ described the disaster that was being created, a building crisis that could endanger our entire financial system. In 2004, a top FBI official also warned that the mortgage boom made the market ripe for shady operators, but he said the FBI was on top of it.

Convictions aren’t the only difference between Enron and the current crisis. If you remember, Enron executives fooled everyone for a long time with their voodoo accounting. A special investigative committee worked for months to unravel and explain how Enron executives cooked the books. The committee released its findings in what was called the “Powers Report.”

The current financial crisis is no surprise. A WSJ editorial in October 2004 said Fannie has been “cooking the books. Big time.” (at left: NYSE traders yesterday after the Dow plummetted 800 points).

Repeated warnings were sounded.

Our elected government do-nothings did nothing.

And yes, greed on Wall Street contributed too. As a matter of fact, there's plenty of blame for us all to be sickened as taxpayers with Congress and with Wall Street.

Here's what you need to know. Fannie and Freddie are the two biggest mortgage holders in the country. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored entities that were designed to help with the noble goal of allowing more Americans to own a home. Congress gave Fan and Fred special privileges long ago. They were allowed the benefits of completely private companies but not required to follow the same rules. They don't have to register their securities or file insider trading forms with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In other words, they don't have to disclose how they are running their business to investors.

This exemption from the rules allowed Fannie and Freddie to pile up massive debt knowing there was an implicit guarantee by the American taxpayers. To make matters worse, this accounting funny business with Fan and Fred allowed their executives to manipulate numbers and make huge bonuses.

While Fan and Fred were engaged in their bad business, Wall Street investment firms were buying up subprime mortgages and bundling them as investments so complicated that few understood what they were. When the housing bubble burst, the firm's investments were in deep trouble.

In 2003, The Bush White House tried half-heartedly to impose regulation and stop the runaway train. But the president never took his case to the American people so that he could rally support and force Congress's hand. In 2004, the mighty Alan Greenspan said Fannie and Freddie must be reformed or they posed a risk to the entire financial system. However, the bipartisan Fan and Fred defenders in Congress, who were lining their pockets with campaign contributions from the duo, defended and protected the ugly couple.

Now the FBI and SEC have launched more than 75 investigations into this debacle to find out if laws were broken. Government lawyers are already warning that the current crisis is so complex that it may be impossible to prove that a crime was actually committed.

Two WSJ editorials in 2002 and 2004 were entitled "Fannie Mae Enron" in an attempt to show the scary similarities between Enron and Fannie Mae. The losses in the current banking crisis dwarf those of Enron, and it took government investigators five years to make their complicated case against the Enron executives. One wonders if they'll ever figure this one out.

Years ago when I covered the Enron cases, I sat in the beautiful Houston mansion owned by former Enron Executive Jeff Skilling (pictured left) while he meticulously presented his case to me that he committed no crime at Enron. Bad business decisions are not necessarily crimes. But in 2006, a jury convicted him of fraud saying he intentionally misled investors. He is in federal prison appealing his case and is scheduled to get out in 2028.

I remember Skilling describing the collapse of Enron as an "old-fashioned run on the bank" when investors lost confidence in that business. I am struck now as I am already starting to hear some use that same phrase in the current crisis. Remember, Skilling didn't plead the Fifth. He went before Congress and answered all their questions because he was and still is convinced that he did no wrong.

The current crisis makes Enron look like a hiccup. Common sense says that someone should be put in a federal jumpsuit over this. Perhaps the most deserving culprit is the body of Congress. If Jeff Skilling misled investors, then Congress not only misled Americans but was a willing accomplice to this horrific crime.

I believe this is the real "crime of the century," and like O. J. Simpson after his first trial, I predict Congress members will spend the next few years feigning disgust in congressional hearings and on beautiful golf courses while looking for the "real killers" of our economy.

Tweet