The Torch Killer, or The Wickedest Stepmother Ever

by Laura James

I remember visiting a prison for women, where, out of 163 inmates, I found but three or four with regular features and only one who could be called pretty; all the rest, old and young, were more or less of an ugly and repulsive appearance.

--Raffaele Garofalo, Criminology (1914 Textbook)

If Mrs. Mumbulo's victim had been a man, you'd know her name today. But her ill-starred victim was her 11-year-old stepdaughter.

On March 21, 1930, Mrs. Edna Mumbulo of Erie, Pennsylvania, threw a pan of gasoline on little Hilda and set her on fire, not only killing her, but inflicting a slow and agonizing end.

Later that morning, as Hilda lay in the hospital gasping her last breath, her father and stepmother were already in their insurance man's office cashing in her $6,000 life insurance policy.

Edna admitted it. She said she didn't intend to throw the gasoline on little Hilda -- the pan accidentally ignited, see, and Mrs. Mumbulo was only trying to throw the blazing pan outdoors; she was aiming for the window in the girl's room, and, gosh, it was closed, and the lit gasoline splashed back six feet onto Hilda's bed, without, somehow, ever singeing Mrs. Mumbulo.

That was her defense. In other words, the case was as open-and-shut as rotten meat in the refrigerator.

Okay, there is a bit more to the tale than that. None of it, I assure you, in the least helpful to Mrs. Mumbulo's attorneys.

I came across this case in an article recently printed in the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, which resurrected the Torch Killer case from total historical obscurity. The article is a very well written account of the murder investigation and subsequent trial -- a brilliant rendering of the case, though bracketed with some curious commentary. The author posits that Edna Mumbulo was a victim of old stereotypes about wicked stepmothers -- that locals were able to assume the worst of her because the "wicked stepmother" opinion had a ready-made foundation in our fairy tales.

"The stepmother stereotype has been harmful," he states. "The Erie public, having consumed a lifetime of fairy tales and myths, organized the known facts of the Mumbulo case into the 'wicked stepmother' framework. In doing so, they condemned a woman to prison...Whether she committed the act or not, she was convicted because she was the living embodiment of the 'wicked stepmother.'”

And yet justice was not actually blind to Edna's individuality. Edna Mumbulo was gorgeous. Look at her photo, that hair, that smile. Imagine her weeping on the stand before her all-male audience. Yep, file Edna under Too Beautiful To Be Bad.

The author, Joseph Laythe of the Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, was kind enough to clarify for me that Edna did not put in as good an appearance at the trial as the photo run by the Associated Press might imply. And yet I am reminded of a comment once made by an Illinois State's Attorney in 1912 on women defendants: "The defendant need not be beautiful; if she merely appears feminine on the stand she is safe."

One lone juryman held out for an acquittal, and hours of wrangling with others who wanted to send her to the electric chair led to a compromise verdict of second-degree murder.

Mrs. Mumbulo's imprisonment was a mere lull in the legal battle. It was common knowledge in 1930 that only ugly women commit brutal crimes. Edna was an attractive young woman and a mother. During her trial for murder, she was reunited with a daughter she didn't raise, and everyone saw them weep and fall into one another's arms. What is clear from the newspaper coverage of the case -- surprisingly sparse at the time -- is that the men on the jury and on the bench did not want to believe this attractive woman -- a mother, forget the step -- could commit such an atrocious crime.

Over time, they convinced themselves that it might have been an accident after all. The judge recommended a pardon. Instead, the governor gave her a Christmas commutation in 1938, sentencing her to time served. Edna ended up serving a mere eight years and three months for murdering her stepdaughter.

Who locked Cinderella in the tower on the night of the ball? Who poisoned Snow White's apple? Who abandoned Hansel and Gretel in the woods? Rather than perpetuate stereotypes, our fairy tales fail to paint a portrait as horrifying as Pennsylvania's unfortunately all-too-real, gasoline-wielding wicked stepmother.

Tweet

Our Hysterical Media

By Laura James

I have three theories on why the mass media hypes certain types of true crime stories. First, certain kinds of cases hit our buttons and drive up viewership. Second, exaggerating a case to "historic" proportions makes the journalist feel more important, since it strokes the ego to think one is reporting on a history-shattering event. Third, whatever drives up ratings is likely to have a divisive political angle worth exploring for ratings the next day.

Every media outlet in the country is guilty of these sins. I can prove that. Outrageous sensationalism is most often associated with mass murders, especially those committed with a "semi-automatic weapon" (news flash: most guns are "semi-automatic"). Another kind of case that attracts a lot of hype, over-analysis and speculation is the family annihilator.

There are dozens of workplace shootings every year. We'll hear about one and only one, I'd guess, this year. Sadly, that recent massacre took place in a city that had experienced just such a madman's rampage decades ago. Very few news outlets bothered to mention that earlier incident. Why? They prefer to think of every story they cover as unprecedented and unique. Precedents spoil hype.

Here is more proof. The most respected media outlets in the United States sensationalize true crime stories to the point of making blatantly false statements for the sake of a great opening sentence.

The mass shooting at Virginia Tech was not even close to being the worst massacre in US history, or even the worst school massacre in US history. But it was hyped exactly as such by none other than these outlets. (I noted the exact quote in case the links expired, and many did.)

On the Virginia Tech massacre, every single statement a false one:

MSNBC - "the worst school massacre in US history"
ABC - George Stephanopoulos: "The worst campus massacre before Virginia Tech was back in the University of Texas in 1966."
Newsweek - "worst massacre in U.S. history"
Time - "the worst massacre in US history"
Baltimore Sun - "the worst school massacre in US history"
Los Angeles Times - "the worst school massacre in history"
Court TV Crime Library "the worst mass murder in American history," indeed! This is a particularly egregious and unforgivable error on a website that purports to offer encyclopedic treatment of historic crimes, including articles on the Bath massacre and Mountain Meadows.
New Jersey Star-Ledger - "America's worst campus massacre"
Atlanta Journal-Constitution - "worst campus massacre in US history"
New York Daily News - "the worst campus massacre in American history"
Troy Record - "the nation's worst massacre"
WorldNetDaily - "America's worst school massacre"
Campus Times - "worst school massacre in United States history"
Shreveport Times - "worst massacre in American history"
Asheville Citizen-Times "The worst massacre in U.S. history"
Janesville Gazette - "the worst massacre in US history"
Roanoke Times - "worst school massacre in US history"
Daily Titan - "worst massacre in US history"
Bakersfield Californian - "the worst massacre in the country's history."

You'd think the press would've remembered having to correct their reporting when they erroneously fluffed the Columbine massacre as the "worst ever." Oops - I assume too much - did they correct themselves?

For the record, the worst school massacre in U.S. history took place in Michigan. The worst massacre ever is more difficult to discern because of all of the horrific examples. There was never a need to exaggerate any of them.

* * *

Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists.

--Norman Mailer

Tweet

Septic Tank Evidence

by Laura James

Unfortunately, septic tanks sometimes end up holding more than household sewage. Occasionally they have been known to yield the bodies of women who have been murdered, usually by very foolish men who think that nobody will ever think to look in the septic tank. Sometimes it might take a while, but eventually, both septic and murder will out.

Recently I learned that a more mundane sort of evidence can be found in septic tanks, placed there by those making the same foolish mistake of thinking that a septic tank is a good place to hide evidence.

I had my septic tank pumped out recently. The fellow who did this nasty business for me regaled me with a curious story.

Larry explained that he had been the "star witness" in a few divorce cases. I wondered where he was going with this. This was a surprising thing to say, as Larry fit the image of a man who spent all day with septic tanks, not a star divorce witness. He wore a University of Missouri T-shirt. I had asked him if he was from Missouri, as I've been spending a lot of time there lately. "It's just a shirt," he said sheepishly. He proceeded to tell me how he's come to be subpoenaed for the third time to testify.

Women, it seems, flush things down the toilet that they shouldn't, besides tampons. (Flushed tampons cause no end of trouble to public sewer systems everywhere, because the strings never dissolve and they get entangled in tree roots, causing massive plumbing blockages.) There's something else that shouldn't be flushed -- into a septic tank anyway -- and that's a used condom, particularly one that is being flushed by a woman whose husband has had a vasectomy.

Larry the septic tank hauler has had to testify three times now that condoms, when flushed down a toilet and into a septic tank, will float on top until someone like Larry pries off the lid and reveals more than the usual septic tank contents.

Tweet

Should the Casey Anthony Case Be Moved?

By Women In Crime Ink

Today we've asked our contributors to weigh in on the Casey Anthony case. The question asked: Should Casey Anthony’s trial be moved out of the county where the crime occurred?

Laura James: The pretrial publicity is a problem. I can't imagine how they're going to get jurors who (a) have half a brain AND (b) haven't heard things on TV that won't be offered into evidence. Seems to me it ought to be moved, not only to ensure a fair trial but to ensure it's not overturned on appeal.

Kathryn Casey: This is such a national case, I don’t know where they could move it. If they had the option, which I don't believe they do, even moving it to another state wouldn't help. Is there a place where people haven't heard of it? My guess is no. It shouldn't be moved.

Andrea Campbell: Don't we get too bogged down in "fairness?" Was it fair for the little baby to be found with duct tape over her mouth and in garbage bags? I have no sympathy for narcissistic mothers who can't take care of their children because it might interfere with their lives.

Diane Fanning: A trial cannot be moved out of the state in which the crime has been committed unless it is a federal offense. Since Casey Anthony is facing state criminal charges, there is no option but trial in Florida. However, I do think attorneys could make a compelling argument for moving it out of the Central Florida area.

Jurors do not need to be ignorant of the news, but they do need to set aside the biases and interpretation of the facts derived from media reports and make their decisions solely based on the evidence presented in the courtroom.

Quite honestly, though, if I were Casey Anthony’s attorney, I’d be look for the best plea bargain I could negotiate. Casey’s actions and words in June and July 2008 combined with the forensic evidence gathered by law enforcement paint a strong portrait of guilt. It seems to me that an attorney would have to have an enormous ego to believe he could overcome the strength of the prosecution’s case, based on what has been released thus far. I expect that the state has even more damaging information that has not yet been revealed to the public.

Robin Sax: The publicity concerns are the same in her home county in Florida as they would be everywhere. The case has had not only a statewide but nationwide media attention and therefore has nationwide exposure. What difference would one part of Florida make over another, other than inconveniencing everyone, costing more money, and delaying a trial for someone who should be begging for a plea deal.

Tweet

A Particularly Unsettling Exoneration

by Laura James

The Court of Appeals said the evidence was "overwhelming." Nathaniel Maurice Hatchett confessed to carjacking and raping a woman. The victim identified him as her attacker. He was caught driving her car three days after the crime.

Yet Hatchett walked out of a Michigan prison after serving 12 years, because the semen found on the victim did not match him. The current prosecutor remarked: "We went back in and did a full investigation. We could have fought for a new trial, but our job is to seek justice. It was served today."

Now for the unsettling part: the prosecutor, trial judge, and Court of Appeals knew at the time of his trial that the DNA from the semen did not match the defendant, but the 17-year-old was convicted anyway. It now appears that the only "overwhelming" evidence in State v. Hatchett was of prosecutorial abuse and judicial incompetence.

They also knew that when Hatchett was caught with her car, the ignition had been popped out. Curious. The carjacker left the victim on the side of the road and took off - with the keys in the ignition. Why would he break the steering column if he had the keys? They also knew some details from the confession did not match the victim's account. For example, the defendant denied robbing her. The most burning question concerned the DNA result. When weighed against a victim's cross-racial identification, even against a confession elicited after several hours of interrogation of a teenager, isn't DNA evidence from semen, in a rape case, a trump card?

Apparently not. Said the trial judge: "[The DNA can] hardly be found to represent a reasonable doubt considering all of the evidence in the case. The court does not find that the laboratory analysis is a fact which would lead to a verdict of acquittal."

DNA - not exculpatory? I find that logic quite strange. By the way, that trial judge is now a federal judge - appointed by President William J. Clinton.

But surely there are smarter judges at the Court of Appeals level, right?

The appellate decision is available online. The bizarre logic applied by the unanimous, three-judge panel that affirmed Hatchett's conviction makes for hair-raising reading. Said the Court of Appeals: "We agree ... that while the DNA test results introduce a slight doubt ... there are several plausible explanations for these results." The Court of Appeals goes on to give two "plausible explanations." Not "several." Two.

One: "The victim told the treating nurse that defendant ejaculated 'on' her, and she told the treating physician that she was only 'fairly certain' that defendant ejaculated at all; therefore, it is altogether possible that defendant's semen would not be found in the victim's vagina or in her underpants."

This is quite curious reasoning. Someone's semen was found on the rape victim. Do these three judges have their heads in the sand? How can the judges choose to question the victim's veracity when she described her attacker's ejaculation while simultaneously refusing to harbor any doubt about her identification of Mr. Hatchett as the rapist? They said her evidence was "overwhelming" - and I guess it was, except for the details.

Two: "The donor might have been the victim's spouse." That is a plausible explanation. So why didn't they obtain a racial profile from the DNA? Or better yet, test the husband? When 25 to 40 years of a man's life are on the line, why was that question posed but not answered?

As it turns out, the husband was in fact tested. He did not match the DNA from the semen. The prosecutor never brought that fact to the attention of the defense attorney, the trial judge, or the Court of Appeals. He is still a prosecutor today - and he actually denies knowingly putting an innocent kid in prison, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Unfortunately, nothing will come of it. The prosecutor won't be affected. The trial judge now has a lifetime appointment. None of the appeals court judges will even see their names in the paper, let alone be made to feel like court jesters, as they should. Judges William B. Murphy and Donald S. Owens are still sitting on the Court of Appeals.

Mr. Hatchett is the 216th person freed by DNA, his exoneration coming at the behest of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School's Innocence Project. What a shame for Nathaniel Hatchett that 12 years had to pass before the DNA evidence that was there all along was brought to the attention of fair-minded men.

Tweet

Who's Crazy? And Should the Jury Be Told?

by Women in Crime Ink

In the first of an ongoing series asking WCI contributors to weigh in on cases and issues, we posed the question: While not legally insane, some murderers have other types of mental illnesses, personality disorders and the like. Should those be considered when deciding guilt/innocence? What about sentencing?

Read on, to find out what WCI's bloggers think about this important issue:

Laura James: A defendant's "personality disorder" falls under the "so what" category for me. I'd bet half the people I know could be diagnosed with a "personality disorder."

Kathryn Casey: It’s not relevant. We're not talking about severe mental illness here, where someone doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong, which is the legal test for insanity. These people are capable of working with attorneys to defend themselves, although their frequent tendency toward pathological lies can get in the way. (It's not smart to lie to one's own lawyer and leave him/her unprepared.) Lots of folks have personality disorders, yet they don’t commit murder. Should this come up at all, it should be in sentencing. I honestly think severe poverty and childhood abuse are more mitigating factors.

Andrea Campbell: I do believe that the mentally ill fall into a crevice when it comes to society. No one wants to claim or protect them most of the time. And I do think their mental condition should be made known during trial. But I don't think we need to cut slack for heinous crimes or felonies. I've always been torn on this issue, but justice needs to keep dangerous people out of society. I guess that either means a mental health facility or incarceration.

Diane Fanning: Murderers, with anti-social personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder and perhaps even borderline personality disorder, are people who understand the difference between right and wrong but just don’t care about the law, about the people around them, or about their victims. A violent offender with one of these disorders is a danger to society but also to those who guard them in prisons. They should not be viewed as equal to a person suffering from severe mental illness, who if given proper treatment and medication may be able to lead positive and productive lives. Adults with severe personality disorder are unlikely to ever move beyond their condition and thus, it should have no bearing on guilt or innocence.

In sentencing, juries should consider the personality disorders of violent offenders, but not to mitigate the offenses. Instead, it should help deliver sentences that ensures these individuals are not allowed to roam free and prey on innocent victims.

Robin Sax: Everyone who commits a murder MUST have a personality disorder; the personality disorder makes him a murderer who should be punished.

Tweet

Collecting Commentary for a New Edition of The Michigan Murders

by Laura James

Years before Ted Bundy began his killing spree, John Norman Collins terrorized two university towns, assaulting and killing young women. When he was finally caught by his uncle, the "Co-Ed Killer" had inflicted harm in many forms.

Photo: John Norman Collins today. Via Michigan Offender Tracking Information System

Those who hail from around Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Michigan, still recall this time of terror. These murders affected people deeply. As one remarked to me, "Several bodies of the victims were dumped within several miles of my childhood home. It made my father crazy and paranoid, and other people I talk to who were in Ann Arbor -- or in places where the murdered women grew up -- during that period have vivid recollections about the murders, investigation, trial, and conviction of John Norman Collins."

Collins once appeared on a local TV show, Kelly and Company. Some involved in the trial also spoke. The video can be seen on Youtube.

The University of Michigan Press is about to issue a new edition of the seminal book about the case. It is The Michigan Murders by Edward Keyes, which is on many "best of true crime" lists.

The new edition will be replete with commentary from Michigan true crime author Mardi Link, whose books and website I know and admire. She will address the police work that went into capturing Collins and what detectives might do differently today.

The new edition will also feature a prologue that I will write about the social impact of the murders themselves. It will include stories of how the murders affected and changed people. If you remember Collins and have a story for the book, please share it.

Tweet

The Supreme Court and DNA: I'm Embarrassed for Them

by Laura James

The United States has always been woefully behind when it comes to forensic science. The forensic techniques so critical to criminal justice today were all discovered in Europe.

From fingerprints to arsenic tests to DNA, European scientists and European courts have led the way for centuries. And in 2009, that continues to be true.

In June 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States, on a 5-4 vote, refused to help an inmate whose access to DNA evidence was blocked by the state. The Supreme Court refused to acknowledge a right to DNA testing. The opinion is an embarrassment to me as an American.

Even though the Chief Justice acknowledged, right up front, that DNA evidence "has an unparallelled ability both to exonerate the wrongfully convicted and to identify the guilty," the Supreme Court said it is comfortable leaving it up to individual states to decide how much access to grant for DNA testing. And if they don't allow it, well, that's too bad.

The stated reasons for this decision were federalism -- the idea that each state is a nation unto itself -- and "finality" -- the idea that judges are too lazy to hear umpteen appeals. How deplorable of a court to cite "finality" -- to my way of thinking, a case isn't "final" until the execution is held or the sentence served.

But in the opinion filed by Justice Alito, you see a hint of the truth. In reality, the justices just don't think all that much of DNA evidence. Justice Alito (page 31), claims that DNA "often fails" to provide clear proof. He quotes resources on the difficulty of collecting crime scene evidence. He doesn't believe in the science.

The bottom line is, until we get a Supreme Court with faith in science in America, a convicted man can have access to potentially exculpatory DNA evidence depending on where he lives.

In Kentucky, only death row inmates are permitted access to DNA evidence. So if you're serving forty years for rape, tough luck.

In Alaska, a prosecutor can block your request for exonerating DNA testing for no logical reason. Tough luck, folks.

In America, we ought to have more respect for DNA evidence. I can't help but wonder if the United States Supreme Court would think more of DNA evidence if the science had been developed in the United States to begin with. Meanwhile, my inner flag dips as I hope that other countries and other justice systems continue to look elsewhere for leadership in forensic science.

Tweet

The "Best" Spousal Murder Stories

by Laura James

Books about spousal murder, when done well, can make for the most insightful psychological reading around. That's why we love to read them. That's why we love to study these cases. That's why spousal murders have been one of the most perennially popular themes in literature, fiction and non-. When we crack open the bedroom door on a marriage that went to hell, we often wonder, do we see anything recognizable?

The greatest strength and appeal of well-written books in this theme lie in the psychological analysis of the principals. Sometimes this is done by the author, who comes right out with her conclusions about the causes of matrimonial disasters. Sometimes the facts speak for themselves, and perfect reporting with nary a hint of error or fictionalizing can speak powerfully to the character of the husbands and wives who end up at one another's throats. By the time we're done with the best of these books, we can fathom the endings.

The best five books about a spousal murder that I have ever read -- the most insightful, the most revealing of the nature of a couple -- strictly non-fiction, true crime, of course -- are these five books.

A Crime of Passion by Stanley Loomis - L'Affaire Praslin, a spousal murder story of great human drama involving French royalty, played out in the weeks immediately prior to the bloodbath of 1848. Searing in its perceptions of the husband and wife -- a Duke and Duchess, murderer and murderee -- it is a terrific book published forty years ago that deserves to be better known and loved today. It's a true spine-tingler.

Until the 12th of Never by Bella Stumbo - The murder of Dan and Linda Broderick by Betty Broderick. It’s impossible to finish this without having a strong opinion on the case.

Dead by Sunset by Ann Rule - The murder of Cheryl Cunningham by Brad Cunningham. Said Kirkus: “This book is better plotted than the murder itself.”

She Wanted It All by Kathryn Casey - The murder of Steve Beard by Celeste Beard and Tracey Tarlton. An even better title might have been She Couldn’t Wait.

Gone Forever by Diane Fanning - The murder of Susan McFarland by Richard McFarland told in chilling detail through the victim's diary and the murderer's confession.

I'd love to hear your suggestions along these lines... or the reason you find yourself drawn to macabre stories of marriages that ended in bloody tragedies.

Tweet

Your Dog Won't Get You Out of Jury Duty (unfortunately)

by Laura James

About 15 or so years ago, many states in the United States moved from voter registration to driver's licenses to choose jury pools. This decision has had terrible consequences for the criminal and civil courts. The worst: the quality of the average jury has plummeted.

It was an understantable move. In the interests of increasing racial diversity in jury pools, driver's licenses were seen as a way to broaden the pool.

But in doing so, they picked up every felon who isn't eligible to vote -- and every citizen (and non-citizen) who cares so little about current affairs that they don't bother to register. People who lack enough interest in government to cast a ballot get to cast ballots in murder cases. Go figure.

If you ever find yourself puzzled over some high-profile verdict, if you ever find yourself wondering about the quality of the average jury today, well, here may lie part of the answer.

It's very, very unfortunate. Yet the decision will probably never be reversed.

On the other hand, the excuses for getting out of jury duty may have gotten more creative since the switch. This gem recently emerged from the courts of Montana. It's an affidavit completed by someone chosen for jury duty who didn't want to serve -- and the resulting court order by a teed-off judge, and it's making the legal rounds of lawyers these days via email.

In it, a fellow declares: "Apparently you morons didn't understand me the first time. I CANNOT take time off from work. I'm not putting my familys well being at stake to participate in this crap. I don't believe in our "justice" system and I don't want to have a goddam thing to do with it. Jury duty is a complete waste of time. I would rather count the wrinkles on my dogs balls than sit on a jury. Get it through your thick skulls. Leave me the f**k alone."

And the resulting court order read as follows:

CITATION FOR CONTEMPT
THE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY THAT MR SLYE ENJOYS DEPENDS UPON THE VOLUNTARY SERVICE OF JURY DUTY, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT ERIC SLYE BE AND REMAIN IN THE COUNTY JAIL FOR 20 DAYS OR UNTIL HE RECANTS HIS CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT IN OPEN COURT. MR. SLYE'S FAMILY MAY VISIT HIM ON WEEKENDS BUT HIS DOG SHALL STAY AT HOME UNMOLESTED BY THE DEFENDANT.

Tweet

DNA Matters, Except When it Doesn't?

by Laura James

"DNA ought to humble us. But it doesn't humble some people."

--Attorney Jed Stone

The Chicago Tribune ran a story by Steve Mills recently about some pending murder cases in Lake County, Illinois that ought to put the voters of that county on notice: your local department of justice has a moron on staff. If you have more integrity than your local prosecutor's office, you need to elect someone else.

In four rape - murder cases - involving female victims who were eight, nine, eleven, and sixty-eight - the DNA from the semen did not match the man charged with the rape and murder.

The prosecutor is pursuing these cases anyway, waving away the DNA evidence and the science upon which it is founded as a "red herring."

You read that right - these girls, this elderly woman were raped and some also murdered. Semen was recovered in each case. It did not match the suspect. The suspect was charged anyway, despite the fact that the prosecutor offers no logical explanation for the presence of semen that does not match. If there were evidence of two assailants, this might make sense. But there's not. And it doesn't.

Despite these DNA results, despite the fact that the source of DNA is semen, the prosecutor is getting convictions. How? He claims that the semen/DNA is from "contamination." That argument was not only permitted but was successful in the case of Juan Rivera, convicted of murdering Holly Staker again last month, even though DNA testing proved that he was not the source of semen found in the victim's body.

Where is the flipping judge, I'd like to know - how could he let this case get to a jury in the first place? How could he let the prosecutor make such specious arguments? From here he looks like yet another empty robe sucking up an unearned paycheck.

Some observers - like the Daily Kos, Mothers on a Mission to Stop Violence, Chicago Lawyer Magazine, Reason Magazine, and Northwestern University law faculty - are rolling their eyes at the ludicrous dismissal of the DNA evidence. But they don't have a vote, and jurors are buying it.

As one observer notes, it's "very rare" for a prosector to continue with a case when DNA excludes a suspect.

Unfortunately, I know it's not really that rare. A DNA exclusion did not prevent Michigan authorities from imprisoning Nathaniel Hatchett for rape. Twelve years is what it took before someone who knows something about DNA refused to accept the prosecutor's flimsy arguments. Shame, shame on the judges who permitted this man to go to prison for rape when the seminal DNA excluded him as the rapist!

And it happened in Toledo. I watched it happen on television in 2006 when Father Gerald Robinson was convicted of murder despite the fact that a male DNA profile obtained from the victim's clothing and bloody fingernails did not match him. The prosecutor's argument? The DNA is from "contamination." But there's some good news in that case: The Ohio Innocence Project just joined his defense team.

I am seeing more and more of these cases - representing more and more prosecutors who won't let a lil' ol' thing like DNA get in the way of a conviction. Alas, some juries are willing to accept this. Indeed these cases are becoming so common I wish someone would coin a term for it. "DNA non-match" cases isn't very catchy.

For many years, lawyers and journalists have lamented what is sometimes called the "CSI Effect" -- the expectation by jurors that cutting-edge scientific techniques will give them a definite answer in every case.

What can we call it when jurors ignore DNA that doesn't match the man on trial?

Tweet

THE OUTLAW IS IN!

Women in Crime Ink is pleased to announce today's release of contributor Laura James' first book: The Love Pirate and the Bandit's Son: Murder, Sin, and Scandal in the Shadow of Jesse James. (Laura is not related to the James Gang.) In this dual biography of Dr. Zeo Zoe Wilkins and Jesse James Jr., our true-crime historian and attorney Laura James lays out the evidence that the son of Jesse James followed in his father's footsteps to lead a life of train robbery, terrorism, and perhaps even murder. The book contains some big surprises for students of the James Gang.

Below, the publisher has given Women in Crime Ink readers an exclusive peek at what true-crime master Gregg Olsen has called a "mesmerizing book, brilliantly researched and compellingly written." We agree with Olsen's assessment that this story is "classic American crime: a toxic brew of love, lies, mystery and murder." Women in Crime Ink is pleased to bring you this exclusive intro to The Love Pirate and the Bandit's Son. Congratulations, Laura!

PROLOGUE

On March 15, 1924, snowdust coated staid Park Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri. The street was quiet for a Saturday night. There were no wild parties on this frigid evening. Around ten p.m., an exceptionally beautiful woman unlocked the front door of her home at 2425 Park.

She must have known him. She let him in the house. But before long something alarmed her. It could have been the late hour or the reek of alcohol, though she was a stranger to neither. She numbed herself that night, as she usually did, with most of a bottle of Jamaica Ginger. Did she see the man lock the door as he turned to face her? Maybe a snarled threat or a flash of steel warned her that he was not there to make love to her. Instead, her premonition of a violent death was coming true. She surely thought–if she could form a complete thought–of all the friends and lovers to whom she had turned for help in her last few days. She told them someone wanted to murder her. She’d even said it would happen that weekend.

No one was there to help her. Nobody believed her.

She fought for her life. She threw every object within reach. She eluded death with “a terrific fight.” At five feet eight and a hundred and thirty pounds, she could have held her own for a while. But the man was stronger. He chased her into a corner, punched her in the chest, and knocked the telephone from her hands. Chairs were smashed in their duel. In her desperate resistance she got the worst of it. He pummeled her and tore at her plaid dress and underwear. If she cried out in pain and terror, the only one who heard her screams was the man killing her.

It must have been a thunderous blow that sent her spinning into a metal stand. She struck her forehead and collapsed onto the oriental carpet in the living room.

The man grabbed her slender throat and squeezed. He gouged her left eye, blackening it and nearly severing her eyeball from its socket. Perhaps she fainted. But she rallied at the last when he brandished a small, rusty pocketknife. As she held out her hands to protect herself, he slashed them. The face that had aroused the passions of so many men now felt the sting of the blade. He sliced open her cheek and jammed the point of the knife into the side of her neck—once, twice—the deep stabs slitting her jugular. Zeo’s blood gushed forth. Within a few heartbeats she was dead.

The blood-drenched killer dropped his knife. It fell onto the rug a few inches from her dead hand. He assured himself she was irretrievably dead.

Without pausing to wipe himself off, he strode to her dining room. He lifted a large metal strongbox onto the dining table, opened it, and tore through her personal papers. Her blood dripped from his hands onto her letters and documents as he rifled through the box for what he sought.

Papers, books, clothes, and bags were heaped onto the floor as her killer ransacked her house, plunging through the closet, roving through the kitchen, smearing blood on drawers and cupboards, leaving crimson tracks throughout the first and second floors. He pulled up the tacks holding down the corners of her carpets. He pulled letters from envelopes. He searched most of the closets, chests, and shelves.

And yet he did not touch many pawnable items, such as her designer clothes and household items. This man was after particular valuables, things he knew she kept in her home. Nothing less was worth even a moment.

His search completed, he entered a downstairs bathroom and washed away her clotted blood. He found a hand towel and dried himself on it as he returned to the living room. Standing near the dead woman, he threw the towel on the rug. He wadded some papers, put a flame to them, and started a fire near her head. He stuffed a strongbox filled with treasure under his arm.

Maybe he looked at her one last time.

Then it seems he yanked open a window, crawled through, leapt several feet to the ground, and fled the scene of his perfect murder.

It was perfect not because of how he did it. He was an amateur killer. He left bloody prints everywhere, and the fire never caught. It was perfect because of the woman he killed. For no matter who cut down Zeo Wilkins, no matter why, newspapers across the country declared on moral grounds that her brutal death was a fitting end for a vampire. They proclaimed that the case would never be solved, officially or otherwise. Their wishes were granted. A lot of folks would come right out and say it: the bitch had it coming to her, and by golly, she sure got it.

Tweet

When Is It Too Early to Publish a Book?

by Laura James

Long gone are the days when a true-crime author—like William Roughead, or Truman Capote more recently—waited until after the verdict to write the whole story (or, in Capote's case, after the hangings). In the instant era, books speed to release, and the publishers are becoming even quicker about releasing true-crime titles in particular.

Readers seem to be of two minds when it comes to quick releases.

Many say they won't read a book that comes out before the trial even starts. Others hold that a book can be quickly written and still be well done. But if put out early, the timing of the release will dominate all reviews forever.

Some readers are really unhappy.

On a book about Laci and Scott Peterson: "This was obviously written BEFORE the trial and has no pertinent information at all about what happened after Scott's arrest. Hardly the 'whole story' advertised."

On Robert Graysmith's book about Bob Crane: "We learn nothing about Carpenter's trial (an integral part of this entire story) because Graysmith and the publisher couldn't seem to wait until the trial was over, to send this book to the press."

On another true-crime title: "I also don't understand why this book was written before the trial."

The booksellers who specialize in true crime consistently tell me that many true-crime fans buy not the first book about any given case but the fourth or the twelfth or the twentieth. Many of us who study human depravity for a pastime or a career find a case that especially intrigues us, and we read everything we can about it. Some cases that have inspired such intense study are Lizzie Borden, Bruno Hauptmann, Jack the Ripper, and so on. So the first book a reader buys may well not be the last, particularly if the first isn't entirely satisfying.

Readers are fickle and inconsistent, simultaneously lamenting early books while snapping them up. . . . One writer recently picked up an early book out about Austria's Fritzl case and reports: "If you want to read Monster, I'm afraid I bought the last copy at Borders. But just wait a month or so, and I'm sure there'll be more comprehensive alternatives. It's perverse, I know. But I can't wait."

Though quickly produced true-crime titles will always have their critics, in the end it is the quality of the publication and not its release date that matters the most, don't you agree? Is there a line to be drawn? After the verdict? After sentencing?

Readers, writers, and publishers can't seem to make up their minds, but one thing is certain: more of these quickly produced books will be on the shelves in the future (and Kindles, and cell phones. . . .)

Tweet

WCI Welcomes Two New Contributors

Women in Crime Ink is bringing fresh ink to our page. This week, we are introducing two new regular contributors: true-crime historian Laura James and 48 Hours producer Michelle Feuer.

Online true-crime fans will recognize the name Laura James as the woman behind the acclaimed crime blog CLEWS (the old-fashioned newsie's spelling of "clues"). CLEWS is described as "a literary blog where the chairs rest at the intersection of history, journalism, law, and murder, and the shelves are filled with the finest true-crime literature." As a lawyer, a former reporter, and a life-long crime reader with distinguishing literary taste, Laura fits the bill for a literary blog that caters to the true-crime genre. Her first book, The Love Pirate and the Bandit's Son: Murder, Sin, and Scandal in the Shadow of Jesse James, is scheduled for release in May.

True-crime TV junkies would remember shows produced by our other addition, although Michelle Feuer is a woman who works behind the scenes, rather than on-screen. As a producer for 48 Hours Mystery, she pursues her passion for developing remarkable stories that reach millions of people. Michelle started her broadcast journalism career overseas, covering foreign news while based out of NBC's London bureau. Working for Dateline, she became known for her documentary-style pieces when she embedded with the Bronx Homicide Unit and the Boston Crime Lab. Michelle has been nominated for four Emmy awards and a Gracie, and she won an ABA Silver Gavel award (a distinction shared by WCI's Diane Dimond). At the invitation of WCI contributor Jenna Jackson, Michelle's colleague at 48 Hours, Michelle wrote a guest piece for us in December. We are proud to announce that she will be writing for us regularly.

Please join us in welcoming our newest contributors to Women in Crime Ink. Make sure to read Laura's first piece on Thursday and Michelle's tomorrow. As WCI celebrates our first year online this month, look for another stellar addition to our roster soon!

Tweet