Ink Blotter

Ink Blotter

Today's Ink Blotter is whatever you want it to be. One of our readers, Cherry Simpson, expressed interest in discussing the Becca McEvoy case, which we featured in a post last Thursday. Good choice, Cherry. Unfortunately, our most knowledgeable contributor on that case, Robin Sax, is unavailable today. But please open the discussion. First, listen to Robin discuss the case on Scared Monkeys radio with outraged friends and family of Becca McEvoy here. Then tell us how you see it. In the upcoming week, we will respond to your thoughts with our own impressions in the live chat box.

Post-chat update: This afternoon, Robin Sax was able to make an appearance, as was Scared Monkeys host Dana Pretzer--both authorities on the Becca McEvoy case. Thanks to Dana for getting the ball rolling today. And for helping the conversation pick up speed, thanks to WCI contributors Kathryn Casey, Stacy Dittrich, and Diane Fanning. The panel that took shape this afternoon was ideal for the subjects covered, which included the polygamists in Texas. All the women who participated in our live chat have prosecuted, arrested, and/or written on sex offenders.

Tweet

Very Desperate Housewives Marathon Tonight

7 EPISODES: 7 WOMEN WHO WANTED IT ALL

New York online marketing manager Michelle Sandoval is working with Oxygen Media to get the word out about "Snapped," a true-crime series that profiles women who kill. Michelle contacted Women in Crime Ink and asked us to give the show some ink. The following material is reproduced from the Web site:

Each year, approximately 16,000 people are murdered in the United States. According to the FBI, 7% of the killers are female. Who are these women and what drives them to kill?

Oxygen's hit true-crime series "Snapped" profiles the fascinating cases of women accused of murder. Did they really do it? And, if they did, why? Whether the motivation was revenge against a cheating husband, the promise of a hefty insurance payoff or putting an end to years of abuse, the reasons are as varied as the women themselves. From socialites to secretaries, female killers share one thing in common: at some point, they all snapped.

"Snapped" is produced in conjunction with Jupiter Entertainment, the creators of City Confidential and Dominick Dunne's "Power, Privilege & Justice." Narrated by veteran news reporter Sharon Martin, each episode of "Snapped" chronicles the life of a woman who has been charged with murder. These shocking but true stories turn common assumptions about crime and criminals upside down, and prove that even the most unlikely suspects can be capable of murder.

Tonight at 7:00 EDT, "Snapped" kicks off its "Very Desperate Housewives Marathon" with the story of Joyce Cohen, a pampered trophy wife who hired three thugs to kill her multi-millionaire husband in a fake home invasion robbery. Here are tonight's other desperate housewives:

Manuela Garcia - The Garcias seemed like an average American family, that is, until Manuela attacked her husband with an axe. The murder triggered an investigation that would expose a life of unhappiness, abuse and desperation.

Phyllis Nelson - Angry over her estranged husband's affair, Phyllis Nelson decided to confront him at his new apartment. They had a heated argument that ended abruptly when Dr. Nelson "ran into" her knife.

Joan Shannon - When Joan Shannon's soldier husband was shot to death by her teenaged daughter, it didn't take long before authorities suspected that mom may have played a role in the demise of her well-insured spouse.

Dora Cisneros - When Dora Cisneros' daughter was dumped by her high school sweetheart, Dora immediately consulted with her fortune-teller. And when the boy was later found dead, police would learn that it wasn't a conjured spirit that took his life. It was an overzealous mom and an elaborate murder plot.

Susan Polk - During an acrimonious divorce, Susan Polk and her husband Felix both threatened to kill each other, but only one of them actually followed through.

Darlene Gentry - Marriage and three kids didn't stop Darlene Gentry from her favorite pursuits: drinking, drugs, and dancing. But when money troubles threatend to spoil her fun, she decided her husband was worth more to her dead than alive.

Watch the preview and bonus clips here.

After tonight's marathon, "Snapped" returns to its regular programming at 10:00 EDT Sundays. Real Women. Real Stories. Real Murder.

Tweet

Mystery Man - Bill Clutter

by Bill Clutter

In June of 2000, I was contacted by an attorney. The lawyer explained that she represented a woman who was the target of an upcoming grand jury "investigation." Her client, Julie Rea-Harper, was a graduate student and Ph.D. candidate at Indiana University. Julie had already lost her child, and now her life was threatened.

Convinced that Julie had murdered her 10-year-old son Joel, prosecutors were planning to seek the death penalty.

For three years, the case of the Joel's death had gone unsolved, but the local sheriff and Julie’s ex-husband singled her out as the only suspect. The crime happened in Lawrenceville, a small town in southern Illinois on the Indiana border.

Julie (pictured below with Joel) described being awakened at 4 a.m. by her son’s scream. She went into Joel’s room, she said, where she was beaten by the man who broke into her home and stabbed her child to death using a knife from the kitchen butcher block. She described him having a “jerky” gait as he fled.

After hearing the news of Joel’s murder that morning, a citizen of Lawrenceville rushed down to the Sheriff’s office to report he had seen a “drifter” in town who was at a local diner. The stranger had made disturbing comments to his eleven-year-old son. “I think I saw your suspect,” he told the Sheriff. The citizen described the drifter as having “real jerky” movements when he walked. But the Sheriff told the witness that he was busy with a murder investigation and disregarded the information. The Sheriff did not even take the time to write a report.

The case of Julie Rea Harper is classic tunnel vision—when police are so locked in on one suspect, in this case, the mother, that they totally disregard other evidence that may lead them to someone else. This crime, after all, happened at the very time when Boulder, Colorado police were pointing the finger at the parents of JonBenet Ramsey. We now know there was compelling evidence that an intruder committed that crime.

Julie’s attorney had been referred to me because she was in need of a private investigator with experience in capital and criminal defense. She had been informed about a new program in Illinois called the Capital Litigation Trust Fund that just went into effect. The Fund was created after private investigator Paul Ciolino uncovered evidence that exonerated Anthony Porter, who was at one time 48 hours away from execution.

Hearing the details of Julie’s description of the assailant, I told her attorney about a drifter by the name of Tommy Lynn Sells who was facing capital murder charges in Texas for killing a child after he broke into a home at 4 a.m.--his M.O. in many other crimes. I told her that Sells would be the starting point of my defense investigation. Sells was known to travel and commit murders in Southern Illinois.

A few months after this conversation, Julie was indicted by a special prosecutor, charged with a capital offense. Julie by this time was unrepresented by counsel because her Indiana attorney was not licensed to practice law in Illinois. So Julie filed a pro se motion requesting the appointment of two capital-qualified attorneys, citing new Supreme Court rules that require the appointment of two attorneys, well qualified and experienced in criminal defense, to represent anyone facing the death penalty.

Prosecutors responded by declaring that they no longer wanted the death penalty—not because they opposed capital punishment—but because their decision made it more likely that they could win a conviction. Prosecutors were willing to abandon their intent on taking Julie’s life because it made the odds of taking her liberty more likely.

Their decision meant that Julie would not have equal protection under the law. State funding that was designed to hire experts, such as my services as a private investigator, were no longer available to her. Two years later, Julie’s family contacted the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project to request our assistance. Our Project was just beginning, and depended on private donors. We had no State funding. Julie had been convicted of Joel’s murder by a jury in Fairfield County.

Although there was no direct evidence she committed the murder, her ex-husband and chief accuser gave testimony that Julie once entertained the idea of having an abortion upon hearing news that she was pregnant with Joel. It was an allegation that should never have been allowed to influence the jury’s decision, and one that Julie vigorously denied. The daughter of a Methodist minister, she was opposed to abortion based on her religious beliefs. However, her attorney did not resist or refute the testimony of her ex. The impact of this emotionally charged testimony on the jury was unfairly prejudicial. The effect it had on the jury is best demonstrated by examining the election results of the 2004 senate race between two African-American candidates: Barack Obama and Alan Keyes. A single-issue candidate, Keyes' one difference was his opposition to abortion. Keyes won Fairfield County with 72% of the popular vote--by the same margin Obama carried the entire state.

Within a year of being convicted, true-crime author Diane Fanning published a book detailing the crimes of child serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells (pictured right). In the book, Sells described killing a boy in southern Illinois after he was released from prison in 1997, as well as his struggle to get away from the child’s mother. The details of his confession mirrored the facts of Joel’s murder.

It was the investigation of our Project that corroborated Sells' confession, leading Texas Rangers to conclude that Sells’ confession was genuine. One would have expected prosecutors and police in Illinois to seek justice when presented with evidence exonerating Julie. But they persisted in trying her again after the appellate court reversed her conviction. This time, with the presentation of the new evidence, she was granted a fair trial. Julie-Rea Harper was acquitted.

In the twenty plus years I have worked as a criminal defense investigator, the greatest satisfaction is being able to witness an innocent client walk out of prison. That satisfaction overcomes the despair one feels in the years of working on these cases, when the word justice seems at odds with what is happening to your client.

Tweet

Can Background Checks Prevent Murder?

by Michele McPhee

I have spent two decades covering crime. As a result, I never date a guy without conducting a thorough background check on him. Initially, my research was prompted after a couple of dates with a guy who wrapped his arm around his dinner plate, “Walpole-style’’ as they call it up here in Massachusetts, referring to the state’s super-max prison. Sure enough, that gruff yet buff date had spent a decade at Walpole perfecting his plate protecting. Then there was that swarthy Italian guy in New York I dated while working as the police bureau chief of the New York Daily News. He turned out to be a Gambino crime family associate with a rap sheet.

But it’s not just my own experience that provokes me to pursue criminal histories on potential mates. It’s all the women who didn’t find out who their loves really were, women who ended up dead.

On June 3rd, the same day my book Heartless: The True Story of Neil Entwistle and the Cold-Blooded Murder of his Wife and Baby will be released by St. Martin’s Press true crime division, Neil Entwistle (pictured above) will go on trial for the 2005 assassinations of his infant Lillian Rose and his bride Rachel. The motive that provoked the Brit to allegedly pump a bullet into his baby’s stomach and his wife’s head, prosecutors believe, was money. In his case, the complete lack of any.

Entwistle was one of those guys who could become whoever you wanted him to be; the master con artist. His wife Rachel had no idea that the charming raven-haired genius she met at a rowing club in England, the man who told her he had a top-secret job at an intelligence firm, was actually just an unemployed chump living off credit and trolling Internet sex sites for clandestine hookups. Even her mother and her step-father were snowed by Neil Entwistle. To them he was nothing other than a doting husband and loving dad – that is until that January 2006 day when the bodies of his wife and baby were found under a rumpled comforter in their idyllic New England home. He fled the country after finding their bodies, without calling police, and was arrested for their murders in England months later.

But Entwistle is not the only guy with a shaky past who went on to kill his lover. In fact, Massachusetts has a macabre history of providing the backdrop for infamous crime scenes where women were brutally slain by men they trusted. This week the trial of James Keown--the radio talk-show host who is charged with spiking his wife's Gatorade with anti-freeze, fatally poisoning her in 2004--ended in a mistrial. Keown is accused of killing his wife Julie in an attempt to collect on a $250,000 life insurance policy. Julie, a dedicated nurse who was 31 years old when her kidneys began to fail, had no idea that the love of her life was broke, and desperate enough to kill her - according to Massachusetts prosecutors.

Keown was transmitting his radio show from their Waltham home because he convinced his employer - and his wife - that he had been accepted to Harvard Business School. In fact, he had taken a night course on the Cambridge campus, but had flunked it. Prosecutors said they will retry Keown on June 9, meaning his murder trial will take place down the hall from Neil Entwistle's double homicide trial.

Here are just a few others:

- Christa Worthington - the fashion writer who was found bloodied and stabbed in her Cape Cod cottage with her two-year-old daughter Ava desperately trying to breastfeed from her mother’s dead body. Her alleged sometime lover, the local trash man, was convicted of raping and killing the wealthy, attractive single mom one winter afternoon in 2002. That arrest came after her other lovers' reputations were stained with accusations that they were suspects.

- Carol DiMaiti-Stuart - Carol and her unborn son Christopher were shot dead by her dashing husband Charles Stuart after they attended a Lamaze class together in 1989. Stuart, a greedy Newbury Street furrier, blamed a black man and set off a near-race war in Boston, all motivated by a half-million life insurance policy. He threw himself off the Tobin Bridge when the cops closed in. But was it really suicide? That remains a Boston mystery.

- Laura Jane Rosenthal - Laura was beaten to death with a rock by her financier husband Richard who then impaled her heart and lungs on a stake in the backyard after she burnt the ziti she was cooking for dinner in 1995. The handsome well-to-do businessman is serving life.

- Kenneth Seguin - Kenneth was a handsome, successful businessman who had never been in trouble when he drove an axe into his wife Mary Anne’s head then drugged his two children and hacked them to death in 1992. Currently, he heads a Lifers Group – a union of sorts for convicted killers in Massachusetts jail.

All of these men shared something in common: a hint in their backgrounds that something might snap. The trash man that killed Worthington had a long history of violence. Charles Stuart had taken out a massive life insurance policy on his wife before they married and she got pregnant. Richard Rosenthal had a history of mental illness. Seguin was going broke.

Credit and criminal checks work, as does some old-fashioned shoe leather reporting. Ask about old girlfriends and family trees; snoop just a little bit to make sure there are no prescriptions for psychotic episodes in the medicine cabinet. A little research could have provided that mustard seed of information that would have made these slain women just a little bit more leery.

We do background checks on used cars before we buy them, why not build workups on the men in our lives?

Tweet

Mystery Man - Clue Box

We hope you caught our last Mystery Man, true-crime author and 48 Hours Mystery correspondent Peter Van Sant. You'll find our next Mystery Man working hard in the shadow of Abraham Lincoln. You've seen him on 48 Hours and 20/20. He's popped up in books including Through the Window by Diane Fanning and Victims of Justice by Thomas Frisbie and Randy Garrett. If you are ever wrongfully convicted, he's someone you'd really want on your case. He helped obtain the exoneration of Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez when they were convicted of Jeanine Nicarico's murder—a crime actually committed by serial killer Brian Dugan. Our guy also found the forensic evidence that freed Randy Steidl from Death Row. Finally, this week's Mystery Man played a major role in the case of a wrongful conviction he's writing about this weekend. You won't want to miss it. Check back here on Saturday.

Tweet

Why Does a Child Molester Get to Benefit from the System He Disgraced?

by Robin Sax

The last two years of 12-year-old Becca McEvoy's short life were spent living with sexual abuse by her stepfather, Bob Inge (pictured left). It’s not all that unusual, unfortunately, to hear of horrendous sex abuse stories where step-dads are molesting, raping, and running their step-daughters through the Penal Code. But this case is heinous on so many more levels that even the truest believers out there should be motivated to see that certain laws need amending—fast!

So what makes this case so wrong?

1. The defendant is Corporal Bob Inge, once a police officer with the Chickasaw Police Department;

2. The defendant is now out of custody and is living with young children as he awaits the court’s ruling;

3. The defendant was arrested in 2006, and Becca died in March 2008, in an unforeseen car accident; and

4. The Supreme Court decision from Crawford v Washington will probably let this pedophile walk.

As a result of the Crawford decision, the validity of firmly rooted hearsay exceptions has been called into question. Performing the “indicia of reliability” or “trustworthiness” test for hearsay statements has been abolished because Crawford overruled the decision in Ohio v Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, back in 1980.

So how does Crawford work? When deciding whether a hearsay statement will be admissible at trial without the declarant testifying, courts apply the following formula:

Step 1. Is the hearsay statement testimonial? Was the statement made to a government agent? Did a government agent question the declarant? Would the declarant reasonably expect that the statement would later be used at trial?

a. If the answer is no, then utilize your state’s Rules of Evidence to determine whether the hearsay statement falls into a recognized exception which may negate the need for the declarant to testify.

b. If the answer is yes, then proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: Have the declarant testify and be subject to cross-examination.

a. If the declarant is unavailable, but testified at a prior proceeding and was subject to cross-examination, the transcript of the prior testimony will be admissible and other admissible hearsay statements will also be allowed (such as statements made during a forensic interview).

b. If the witness/victim is unavailable and has never testified in any proceeding in the case, then all hearsay statements will be inadmissible.

What you may notice in this formula’s short checklist is that there is no Step 3. That means if a witness is no longer available (and death certainly qualifies) and (i) there is no other exception to the hearsay rule that would apply or (ii) there hasn’t been any testimony subject to cross-examination, we are basically left with 2 choices.

One, we can hope that there are other ways to make the case (DNA, other victims, defendant’s admissions, etc.) or, two, the case can get dismissed.

While it seems convenient to say, “Well, let’s try to prove the case by some other means,” that is problematic, especially when your perp is a cop. I mean, do you really think a cop is going to confess or admit to his wrongdoings? And do you think he left any evidence around?

Think about, it. Sex crimes happen in the most secretive of ways in the most covert places. If this guy is even a third-rate cop, don’t you think he covered his tracks? And it’s not as if sex crime perps leave a ton of evidence, even in the best investigations. We all know that the defendant isn’t at all concerned about leaving his evidence in the victim’s heart and mind: permanent scars of abuse.

I am all about defendants having rights. But what about the victim’s rights, and victims before her? Why does Bill Inge get a pass? Why does a child molester get to walk free as we all sit back and wait for him to do it again?

So, what’s the answer? The answer is to carve out an exception.

How about a specific child sexual assault exception where grand jury testimony could be admitted in a trial? (Becca testified at TWO prior grand jury hearings.) How about hearsay statements made to a police officer coupled with grand jury testimony to ensure reliability and consistency? How about testimony where a child has said same thing to a number of civilians as corroboration to police testimony and grand jury testimony? The point is there should be alternative exceptions. There are ways to ensure reliability and trustworthiness and therefore, there should be a way to get Becca’s voice heard and not let the men who disgraced his position as stepdad and cop go free.

Note: This post and all other posts by Robin Sax represent Robin's personal opinion and NOT the opinion of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY nor the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Tweet

Death by Lethal Injection - What's Cruel to Animals is Not Cruel to the Condemned

by Katherine Scardino

Yesterday, the highest court in our land issued a landmark decision about the death penalty in the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld Kentucky’s method of execution, refusing to rule for condemned petitioner Ralph Baze (pictured below) who claimed that death by lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

The issue in this case was based on the lethal "cocktail" that is used to execute people convicted of capital murder and sentenced to die. One drug in this three-drug combination, pancuronium bromide, works its way through the body and basically numbs the nervous system in such a way that the person being executed may feel the excruciating pain caused by this lethal combination of chemicals but is unable to express his pain and torture. There have been documented cases of patient awareness or "anesthesia awareness" (click here for video explaining phenomenon). During anesthesia awareness, patients undergoing surgery are awake during the procedure - able to feel the pain - but powerless to tell the surgical team that they are aware of the knife cutting through the body. People who have undergone this horrifying experience have been traumatized by the event and have come forward to let the world know about this terrible drug. One patient's post-traumatic stress led him to commit suicide. The phenomenon of patient awareness is horrific enough to have inspired the film Awake.

Veterinarians banned the use of pancuronium bromide to euthanize animals. Even this profession no longer uses this drug in their field because they realized that it was painful and cruel. So why does our Supreme Court believe that it is appropriate for human beings?

Perhaps this subject opens up dialogue about whether capital punishment is "cruel and unusual" - whether we, as a nation of civilized people, believe that killing is a morally justified response to killing. Our courts have stated that we must evolve in our laws based on our evolving standards of decency. We have gone through several different methods of capital punishment in our history - beheading, the body being drawn and quartered, shot, electrocuted - but over time, we have decided that these methods are cruel and inappropriate for our evolving society.

The result of this ruling is that the inmates who have been waiting for their execution will now be on the "fast track" to death. In my area alone, there are six people waiting to die on Death Row. The Supreme Court has now opened the door to more executions - and back to the same old method disclaimed by the vets for their beloved animals. Are we not better than that?

Tweet

Do You Believe in Evil?

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

My last post referenced the case of Joshua Mauldin, a 20-year-old man found guilty of putting his two-month-old daughter in a microwave for ten seconds. The defense was hoping he would be found not guilty by reason of insanity. That plea was rejected by the jury and he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison.

In reality, less than 1% of defendants use the insanity defense, and of those who do, less than 20% are successful. That is a good thing. We want people who do bad things to be punished. We most certainly want them put in an environment where the chance that they will re-offend is limited. We also don't want lawyers and their clients to abuse the insanity defense and make it less effective for those who are truly and severely mentally ill.

So if Mr. Mauldin wasn't insane, what was he? And was he fully responsible for the crime he committed? I know I have just raised the hackles of several of our contributors, but hear me out. How do we explain what causes people to commit heinous acts of violence against others? In Mr. Mauldin's case, the defense tried to claim that he had a long history of mental illness and at the time of the crime was unaware of what he was doing. The jury didn't buy that explanation.

But Joshua Mauldin did have some form of mental illness as testified to by both the defense and the prosecution experts. Was he adequately treated? Did he have appropriate follow-up to assure that he was on the proper medication and that he had been taking it as prescribed? Was he depressed? Psychotic? Not an excuse, but a factor? The legal system even allows for mitigating factors to be considered when deciding upon a sentence. Rage, passion, mental illness, poverty, and abuse are acknowledged as possibly contributing to the perpetration of a crime.

As I psychiatrist I often try to understand why people do the things they do . . . hopefully so they can stop making bad decisions that hurt themselves or others. When someone commits a violent crime it's often not that hard to understand why. A psychotic person hears Satan's voice telling him to kill. A pedophile was sexually abused as a young child by a close family member. A teenager panics when she delivers a baby she's told no one about. These explanations help us to make sense out of how someone can do some things so awful to others and give us some hope that we might be able to prevent future tragedies. We can make sure there is access to psychiatric care, we can work to identify children who are being abused and get them help, and we can set up laws that allow mothers to turn over infants to hospitals or fire stations (Baby Moses Law).

But I must admit, after I count up the mentally ill . . . and the abused . . . and the neglected . . . and the disenfranchised . . . how do I account for those who, despite fairly reasonable upbringings, inflict terrifying and horrific acts against innocent others? I want to find some brain disorder, some chemical imbalance that makes sense of this for me. I don't believe people are born to commit atrocities. And yet . . .

There are some whose eyes you look into and see darkness. Despite my best efforts I can't find a way to make human contact--find that piece of them that connects to others. Often these people are good at "pretending" to be human. They have studied others and can mimic appropriate reactions or responses. But inside there is no true capacity to know or care what another thinks or feels. In his novel No Country for Old Men, Cormac McCarthy depicts a character, played by Javier Bardem in the film adaptation (pictured above), who kills and makes sport of it. He enjoys the chase and the terror that his victims experience as he flips a coin to decide whether they live or die. It gives you chills as you watch this inhuman human, kill.

Medical science is trying to find the cause and hopefully the "cure" for people without a conscience. At the moment there is no medication nor therapy that has been very effective. It is hard for me not to want to find a reason for the horror: brain damage at birth, poor nutrition, maternal deprivation? It is hard for me as a healer not to want to heal. And yet I must acknowledge I am helpless. And maybe there is just such a thing as evil.

Tweet

A Woman's Point of View

A Woman's Point of View

Where in the world is WCI contributor R. Stephanie Good today? Earlier, she appeared in New York on FOX's "The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet" as a prelude to the big event this evening. (Drumroll, please . . .) Tonight is the premiere of a documentary about Stephanie's work with the FBI. "Exposed" will air at 10:00 EDT as part the WE TV (Women's Entertainment Television) series "Secret Lives of Women." Produced by CBS, the film was inspired by Stephanie's book EXPOSED: The Harrowing Story of a Mother's Undercover Work with the FBI to Save Children from Internet Sex Predators. Last week, the attorney and New York Times best-selling author received a Community Leadership Award from CAPS (Child Abuse Prevention Services) in New York. Check out profiles on Stephanie published today in Newsday as well as the New York Daily News. Tonight, her view will be the documentary on screen. You can share Stephanie's view. Check for your local channel here. Watch her morning show interview and a documentary preview here and here.

Tweet

And Justice for All

by Donna Pendergast

This week is Crime Victims' Rights Week. Every April since 1981, Crime Victims' Rights Week has been observed across the nation by victims, survivors, and the criminal justice professionals who assist them. This observance promotes and recognizes victims' rights and brings the victim-assistance community together to raise public awareness and to renew the commitment to address the needs of victims and their families.

Leading up to the national commemoration, the Department of Justice Office of Violent Crime held a National Observance and Candlelight ceremony in Washington DC on April 10th. The featured speaker was none other than famous author and investigative journalist, Dominick Dunne, whose actress daughter, Dominique Dunne, was murdered by her boyfriend, John Thomas Sweeney, in 1982. Dunne later wrote an article for Vanity Fair magazine titled "Justice: A Father's Account of the Trial of His Daughter's Killer."

This year Crime Victims' Rights week is being celebrated across the country with a multitude of events. In Whittier, California this past Sunday, more than three hundred homicide victim family members released doves, lit candles, and sent balloons aloft with messages to their departed. In Texas, The Catholic Charities of Dallas kicked off their celebration with a seminar to advise immigrants of the protections available to them if they become a victim of violent crime. Candlelight vigils, memorial rallies, and a host of other activities are being held in almost every state to mark the occasion.

These activities seek to remind us that crime can strike anyone at any time. Whether it's a drive-by shooting, a campus massacre, or a crippling identity theft, we are all vulnerable to crime.

The theme for this year's event "Justice For Victims, Justice For All" seeks to enforce the idea that the country's founding principles of liberty and justice for all ensures justice for each and every victim of a crime.

THE CRIME CLOCK

Consider these statistics recently released by the Department of Justice:

One person is assaulted every 7.2 seconds
One person becomes a victim of identity theft every 8.7 seconds
One home is burglarized every 9.1 seconds
One child is reported neglected or abused every 35 seconds
One woman is victimized by an intimate every 1.3 minutes
One man every 6.7 minutes
One person is raped every 2.7 minutes
One person is murdered every 31 minutes
One hate crime is reported to police every 73 minutes

These statistics serve as a stark reminder that none of us is immune from the specter of crime and that every crime has a victim who suffers some harm at the hands of the offender.

When the Crime Victims' Rights Movement was founded over twent-five years ago, the idea of victims' rights was just that: an idea. We have come a long way since then. Almost every state in the country has passed laws that protect victims of crimes. Although the laws vary from state to state, most laws include the right to be treated with dignity and compassion, the right to be informed about a case's progress through the criminal justice system, and compensation for damages and financial losses. Crime Victims' Rights Week is a good time for all of us to reflect on what more society can do to help those who suffer the trauma of victimization and to effect positive change in the criminal justice system. Communities which make justice for victims a priority invest in achieving justice for all.

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

The Right to Remain Silent?

by Katherine Scardino

I have been reading about the bizarre situation involving two criminal defense attorneys (pictured left) who represented a man who admitted to his attorneys that he committed a crime for which another person was convicted. The innocent person, Alton Logan (pictured below left), is currently in prison and has been for the last twenty-five or so years. Back then, the man who actually committed the crime (below right) wrote out a statement, gave it to his attorneys, and instructed them to keep that document in a safe place. He did not grant them permission to disclose this information. Their client recently died. The attorneys believed that because of the attorney-client privilege they were bound to honor their client’s wishes and keep quiet for more than two decades.

The attorney-client privilege prevents a person’s attorney from disclosing any confidential communications "made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client." In Texas, this is under our Texas Rules of Evidence, Rule 503(b)(1). This rule is subject to ethical considerations if violated; i.e., for an attorney, that means a lawsuit or a grievance, something that could affect your livelihood.

This is a narrow question - very tight boundaries: The attorneys know information that could potentially release an innocent person from prison but they are ethically and legally bound to keep it confidential. The attorney-client privilege is dissolved only upon the death of their client, which happened in this case to eventually provoke the disclosure by the two attorneys. What would you do in same or similar circumstances? Could your conscience support this knowledge for twenty-five years? Would you "leak" the information to a police officer or someone in the criminal justice system in the hopes that more investigation could be done? Should the lawyers have told the authorities as soon as they knew this information?

Before you answer, consider this exception to the privilege:

(1) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.

So, in my mind, the question becomes - Is it a "fraud" to allow an innocent person to languish in prison for many years? I believe that it is. If the attorney is attempting to assuage his guilty conscience by divulging information that is clearly a "confidential communication," then this is the only exception that might, just might, apply. The exception may help the conscience of the poor soul who is bearing this burden of knowledge, but there would be no guarantee as to a legal result if the client sued him.

I, as a criminal defense attorney, do not believe I could "sit" on this information and let an innocent person remain incarcerated for a crime I knew he did not commit. I believe I would have to step forward and suffer the consequences, whatever they may be. I would justify this disclosure by claiming, at least in my own mind, that it was fraudulent to keep silent about my knowledge. This information would eat at my soul. I could not contain it.

What would you do? If you are a regular citizen, and you had information that would clear a man’s name, you would freely come forward. If you are an attorney, it isn’t that simple. Seriously, what would YOU do?

Tweet

Body of Evidence

by Connie Park

Homicide investigators realize it just takes seconds to dramatically change someone’s life. But you’d never think a teenager’s life would end that one day she decided to miss school with her friends. That one day changed not only the teenager’s life, but the lives of many. In fact, it had an impact on one particular homicide investigator for over two decades.

While in homicide, I’ve had the opportunity to work with several of the best homicide investigators in the nation. Their combined experience adds up to over 1000 years in the Homicide Division alone. I guess I’m dating their ages, but we won’t tell them that. Sgt. John Burmester was a coworker of mine when I first began working in homicide. He worked for the Houston Police Department for thirty-one years, a quarter century in homicide. Burm retired back in 2003 and currently is loving retirement.

I joined HPD’s Cold Case Squad in 2006. Eager to start working on cases, I called Burmester one day. I asked him if there were any cases that were unsolved, cases he’d like me to look into. Without hesitation, Burm told me the story of Sharon Darnell, a 14-year-old girl who was violently murdered and found in an abandoned apartment building. He gave me the case number, the date, and the location without consulting a file. That was amazing to me--that he recalled all the detailed information after twenty-three years. Every investigator has those certain cases that really stand out and have a dramatic impact.

On February 7, 1984, Sharon Darnell was on her way to school in southeast Houston. She was just a freshman and looking forward to her high school years. That day Sharon and a few friends decided to skip school and go over their friend’s house. They’d stayed a couple of hours watching television and playing video games. It was time to go home and Sharon and her friends started walking back to their apartment complex. Frederick Johnson, 23, told Sharon he’d walk her through the empty field to make sure she got to her apartment safely. That was the last time Sharon’s friends saw her alive.

A few hours later, two kids walking back from school found a girl’s body in an abandoned building. They saw that she was dead, possibly strangled. Police were called out to the location and learned that the dead girl was Sharon Darnell. She had been sexually assaulted and brutally murdered. She was found lying on the floor nude, her throat slashed from ear to ear, and her hands bound together.

Original investigators that made the scene were J. G. Burmester and S. P. Ward. They processed the crime scene along with Crime Scene Unit Officer Tony Blando. They set to work, collecting physical evidence from both the crime scene and the victim’s body. The evidence from Sharon's body was the key to solving this case. Frederick Johnson (pictured above) was listed as a suspect, but he was released due to lack of evidence. With no other suspects, the case went nowhere.

Fast forward twenty-three years to 2007. The evidence from this case that the investigators collected back in 1984 was sent out to an independent lab in Dallas. The test came back with a male DNA profile that matched that of Frederick Johnson’s. Johnson’s DNA profile was stored in CODIS, a national DNA databank. DNA testing and technology have advanced so much over the years. The results were astounding. MiniSTR testing is one of the new advancements in DNA technology where information can be recovered from degraded DNA evidence, as in this case. Johnson was already serving a life sentence in a Texas prison unit for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a juvenile. Surprised? The worst part about it was that without the murder charge in 2007, Johnson would have been was eligible for parole in 2009. Frederick Johnson was charged with capital murder for sexually assaulting and killing Sharon Darnell. He is awaiting trial in the Harris County District Court.

We informed Burmester and Ward of the results of the new DNA testing and the charges filed against Frederick Johnson. When I called Burm on the phone, he was excited the case was solved and that it will bring some peace to Sharon’s family. He wanted to give us the credit for solving the case but Burm is the one who never forgot about Sharon. He never forgot that day Sharon’s life ended and the impact it had on so many lives. Ironically enough, Sharon would be thirty-eight today, my same age.

Tweet

Ink Blotter - Meredith Kercher Murder

Ink Blotter

This afternoon, WCI will host a discussion between two of our contributors on the Perugia, Italy murder case featured last night on 48 Hours Mystery. Police theorize that British college student Meredith Kercher was murdered by her American roommate Amanda Knox (pictured center), Amanda's Italian boyfriend (below right), and another man (below left) whose fingerprints were found on the victim's purse. But Italian authorities' theories have evolved as evidence has disproved earlier assumptions. (The first being that Kercher was stabbed to death during a bloody, orgiastic frenzy after refusing to participate in group sex.) Is honor student Amanda Knox the "Dark Angel" she has been portrayed as in the media? Or has this young woman been the victim of an over-zealous prosecution and the media? In our live chat this afternoon, we will ask Sex-crimes Prosecutor Robin Sax and Defense Attorney Katherine Scardino to analyze the case and offer their opinions on key legal issues: coerced confessions, police mishandling of the investigation, DNA evidence and more. You can read background on the case and view film clips from 48 Hours correspondent Peter Van Sant here and here. Watch the discussion unfold in real time at 4:00 EDT today in the Ink Blotter box below. Your participation is welcome!

Tweet

Mystery Man - Peter Van Sant (2 of 2 parts)

by Peter Van Sant

CBS Correspondent

and Author

Note to readers: What follows is a continuation of yesterday's Mystery Man post. If you missed it, visit here first. The introduction to our Mystery Man can be read here.

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 her 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.

Don't miss "A Long Way from Home" tonight at 10:00 EDT on CBS's 48 Hours Mystery.

Tweet

Mystery Man - Peter Van Sant (1 of 2 parts)

by Peter Van Sant
CBS Correspondent
and Author

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.

Her 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. . . .

To be continued. Check back here Saturday to read the rest. And don't forget to watch the story at 10:00 p.m. EDT tomorrow on 48 Hours.

Tweet

Simple Words - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

by Katherine Scardino

Cpl. Cesar Laurean has been captured after a massive manhunt for the suspected killer of his girlfriend, fellow Marine Cpl. Maria Lauterbach. Cpl. Lauterbach died a horrendous death, which arouses the sensibilities of any reasonable person. It screams for revenge and justice.

Justice - that’s a magic word in the United States that is used freely and frequently. Do we really know what it means? To the ordinary citizen, justice probably means something like "the guilty get put in prison." But, let’s all - especially the news media - not forget one thing. The evidence used in a trial against an accused person must rise to the highest level of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as you may hear so often on television crime shows, or "probably committed" the crime. There are several levels or standards of proof for evidence in various types of cases. For instance, if a State agency is attempting to terminate a citizen’s parental rights - meaning that individual would no longer be considered, for any purposes, as the biological parent of his/her child, the standard of proof that must be met by the petitioner, the State agency, is "clear and convincing" evidence. That is still below the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Our forefathers set up this system of criminal justice for a specific reason. Remember - they were recently in America from England, where their homes were invaded, property taken, without probable cause. It just happened - and it happened to innocent people as well as guilty people. Our forefathers - like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams - believed they could devise a system of government that would assure these new Americans that these violations would not happen in this new independent nation. We are the recipients of this wonderful criminal justice system that says a person is innocent until proven guilty - and the evidence to prove guilt must rise to the highest standard of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, when we are reading these news articles about this horrendous crime, let’s all not forget that we must give Cpl. Laurean the benefit of the doubt as to his guilt until the evidence presents itself - but it cannot be - should not be - evidence that allows for any "reasonable doubt" as to his guilt.

There are news reports about certain people being convicted, spending years in prison, and later exonerated by some piece of evidence, whether it be DNA or some other physical evidence. We know these miscarriages of justice happen, and one way to avoid a wrongful conviction is to be careful in how we look at the evidence and how we present the evidence.

I, for one, will consider Cpl. Lauren innocent until all the evidence has been presented to a jury of twelve people. That’s his right - and more importantly - it is YOUR right. Let’s cherish it. It is not a good system unless we make it so.

Tweet

Death and Taxes

by Vanessa Leggett

It's that time of year. Taxes are on everyone's mind. More removed from our thoughts, perhaps, is life's other inescapable event: Death. Eleven years ago today, in Houston, Texas, murder-for-hire target Doris Angleton (pictured left with a friend) sat at a computer normally used by her 12-year-old twin daughters. Manicured hands on the keyboard, Doris typed this message to a childhood friend a week before she died:

Thanks for the Happy Birthday. Friday nite is supposed to be a surprise thang. . . . I think its dinner at Ruggles. Anyway, its birthday week, month, I’ll take it!

We need to get together and have lunch or drinks or something. You know??? I am trying to spend some time with the girls the next two weekends cuz I will be gone the next one, and I am glad to be gone, but not away from them. Anyway………life goes on and progress is slow but sure. Tomorrow I go to a Tax attorney. I need some advice, professional type, you can imagine.
Talk to you sooooooooooon.

love,
Doris

Doris did not need to consult a tax lawyer because returns were due in five days. It was a court setting she had in mind. Two months earlier, she had filed for divorce. The man she intended to leave that spring was mega-successful bookmaker Bob Angleton (pictured right with their twins, age two). Though living on the edge had been exciting in the early years of the marriage, now that their daughters were older, Doris had grown disenchanted with the lifestyle.

The Angletons had been married for fifteen years. Each year, they paid taxes. A small percentage of them, anyway. In only the past three years of his marriage, Bob's business had grossed $64 million, of which he'd reported $2.6 million. That degree of underreporting for fifteen years could put someone in the federal penitentiary for a very long time.

Bob never served time for bookmaking. Cops looked the other way because he was a confidential informant. Doris was aware of her husband's arrangement with police. She knew all about the business. Doris also understood that because the couple filed jointly, she was just as liable for unpaid taxes as the breadwinner. Problem was, if Doris revealed their underreporting, her husband would be charged with tax evasion. Doris could be a witness against him. She was leaving, which meant she could not refuse to testify against him by citing a spousal privilege. Given these facts, it doesn't take a calculator to do the math.

On April 10, 1997, Doris met with a tax attorney at eleven in the morning. The first attempt on her life was around 8:30 that night. She would have another week to live.

If her execution would have been successful that first time, she would not have lived to see her forty-sixth birthday the next day. That morning, she sent this e-mail message to the same girlfriend, a teacher:

I am “crestfallen” at the thought of my youth slipping away. (well, i know it ain’t the greatest sentence, teach, but its early and I’m old!) How ’bout: I looked in the mirror this am and my crestfallen. (lol)

Sat. looks free, and we can toodle down to the beach house, sans men…. get together at my house in Houston----have margaritas around the corner first we can walk from here--LOL-----order pizza, but the beach house would be completely kid free****** husband free***** and carefree******

. . . Thanks for the Happy B-day!!!!

love
Doris (46th version)

She celebrated her birthday with her husband and their close friends at Ruggles, the restaurant where she and Bob had spent their first date. Doris and Bob sat at opposite ends of the banquet-size table. (Doris is pictured above with friend Tex Welsh that night at Ruggles.)

Doris had always possessed a joie de vivre. When she laughed, which was often, she would toss back her head, flash her "million-dollar smile," as friend Missy Welsh described it, and laugh with abandon. "She smiled with her eyes," remembered another friend. But the last week of her life, it seemed, the light had dimmed from her eyes. "She was getting scared of what was to come," said a lifelong friend. "Not necessarily that he was going to harm or kill her. Just this big, scary unknown."

While her eyes might have betrayed her unhappiness, Doris considered herself lucky in many respects, even that night. "Bob threw her a very nice party," one of her friends recalled. "She felt like it was their last time in public as a couple and she was grateful for how gracious he appeared about doing it, about being there, and having this party and having their friends there. She did say she tried to thank him with her eyes but he wouldn’t look at her."

Doris might not have been able to catch her husband's eye, but she had the attention of everyone else wherever she went. Though she joked that her "crest" had fallen, Doris Angleton, who modeled several times a year, had the body of a woman twenty years younger.

And Doris was as healthy as she was fit. She especially appreciated her health those last few days. Missy Welsh, Tex's wife, and a good friend, was ill. A few days after the party, Doris spent the day with Missy at a Houston hospital, where she was recovering from serious surgery. "She was still on Demerol," Doris wrote to her mother. "I don't envy her next few days."

Doris did not have a few days. When she sent that e-mail, she did not have twelve hours to live. Even if Doris had known she was at the end of her life, no doubt she would have spent that day at the hospital with her friend. That Doris had come from her first spinning class--that she was able to exercise while her friend was hospitalized--probably made Doris feel guilty. (Missy also died an early death, but not before Doris.)

On April 15, taxes were filed as expected. April 16, Doris was murdered, shot 12 times in the head and chest. Though she died, she lives on in the memories of those who loved her. Everyone who ever met her remembers her smile.

Bob Angleton was charged twice for ordering his wife's murder. He was acquitted in the first trial, and he fled the country days before the second. But taxes he could not escape. In 2005, Angleton was finally convicted. He is now serving his sentence for tax evasion on "Terminal Island," a federal penitentiary.

Aside from death and taxes, life has no guarantees. We keep our standing date with the IRS year after year. But moment by precious moment, we should enjoy our daily date with life. Don't wait to go to lunch with a good friend. Have a margarita. Order pizza. Live. Laugh. Love.

Doris died before she could meet her childhood friends for their special retreat. She was not able to spend both weekends she had planned with her daughters.

"I am trying to spend some time with the girls the next two weekends," she typed to a friend five days before her death, "cuz I will be gone the next one. . . ."

Tweet